I am going to summarize the moral philosophy put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) in seven key ideas. The presentation of those key ideas will identify, when relevant, the difference between Schopenhauer and other philosophers.
[1] Schopenhauer’s justification of compassion
Schopenhauer’s ethics don’t rely on revelation by God or prophets. His ethics overlap with Christianity in some areas, especially in the appreciation of compassion as a major virtue, but do not refer to the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible.
Like Christians, Schopenhauer calls for compassion, but his arguments are different. He views empathy and compassion as highly desirable attitudes that help alleviate suffering and also improve the life of people who practise them.
In 1843, Schopenhauer wrote the book “Two fundamental problems in ethics,” where he justifies compassion on logical and practical grounds alone. In doing so, the rejects regarding them as God’s commandments.
[2] Schopenhauer’s emphasis on practical action
Schopenhauer views it as a waste of time to devote one’s life to social improvement. In contrast to Confucianism and the Christian faith, Schopenhauer doesn’t predicate justice, fairness and righteousness.
In his book “About the fourfold roots of the principle of sufficient reason” (1808), he acknowledged that human errors, oversights and negligence are partly to blame for the suffering in in the world, but does not expect society to improve in the short term.
Schopenhauer’s ethical theory focuses first and foremost on action for attaining personal happiness or minimizing suffering in the course of a lifetime. Those actions can benefit others and society as a whole, but those are not the main drivers of ethics.
Deep understanding of the limited human lifespan prompts Schopenhauer to steer away from unworkable projects. Goals, ambitions and desires should be kept reasonable. If you remain focused on practical, effective action, chances are that you will achieve good results and help other people along the way.
[3] Schopenhauer’s views on forgiveness
Schopenhauer regarded forgiveness or reconciliation as practical habits, not as major virtues. He simply didn’t want to waste time in unproductive fights and never-ending feuds.
In contrast, Christians endorse forgiveness because of Jesus’ teachings, exemplified by his own act of forgiveness when he was the cross. Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek, and love their enemies.
Schopenhauer deeply disliked his personal and professional opponents such as Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), but preferred to steer away from them.
He did not seek forgiveness, let alone reconciliation, but he understood that confrontation will often harm both parties. It is better to let it go than engaging in fanatical fights just to prove the merit of their arguments.
[4] Schopenhauer’s views on fairness and politeness
Schopenhauer regarded fairness and politeness as highly desirable social habits, that is, as minor moral virtues. If you opt for practising fairness and politeness, you should benefit because of the resulting smoothness in your business and private life.
Nonetheless, Schopenhauer kept his expectations rather low for what concerns reciprocity. Even if you are consistently fair and polite, it’s not realistic to expect everybody to behave well.
Schopenhauer’s “Parerga and Paripomena” (1851) illustrates the foolishness of expecting everybody to respect “the golden rule.” The truth is that some individuals will reciprocate a fair and polite treatment, and other will not.
I subscribe to Schopenhauer’s conclusion that it is far better to know the truth, even if one finds it unpleasant, disappointing and dispiriting; don’t blow the annoyance out of proportion and remind yourself that your virtues are benefiting you first of all.
[5] Schopenhauer and the primary goal of ethics
Schopenhauer considered personal happiness (liberation from suffering) as the primary goal of ethics. In this respect, he was close to Buddhism, the religion rooted in the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha.
In his essay “Two fundamental problems of ethics” (1843), Schopenhauer endorses the Buddhist virtue of compassion. He argues that we enhance our own happiness when we alleviate other people’s suffering.
Buddhism acknowledges that life entails dissatisfaction and suffering, and seeks to reduce suffering by eliminating desires.
Schopenhauer acknowledged that a certain level of anxiety, stress and fear cannot be eradicated because we are conscious of our limited lifespan, but proposed solid countermeasures to minimize those negative feelings.
His objective is to attain happiness to the maximum extent possible, or at least, reduce suffering. In general terms, I regard Schopenhauer’s ethics as more ambitious than Buddhism when it comes to pursuing personal happiness.
[6] Schopenhauer’s view on moral precepts
Schopenhauer’s ethics are more concerned with general principles than with precise moral commands. Religions such as Buddhism contain precepts such as “don’t harm other living beings, “don’t steal,” “don’t lie,” “don’t consume alcohol” and so forth. You will not find those in Schopenhauer’s writings.
For Schopenhauer, it is enough that individuals devote their efforts to becoming self-reliant, prudent and compassionate; he considers that all other virtues will ensue automatically if you get the basics right.
Buddhism endorses compassion and kindness towards every living creature, and couples it to the command of non-violence others. Schopenhauer comes to the same conclusion, but does not present it as a command.
The goal of his ethics is to teach people to lead better lives, not to conform to a specific morality code. He explains in great detail the advantages of counteracting the will (“life force”) by taking active measures, but does not provide dozens of detailed ethical commandments.
[7] Schopenhauer and the purpose of existence
Schopenhauer accepts that the will is irrational, but does not categorize it as “absurd.” In this respect, his ethics are very different from existentialists thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960).
According to Schopenhauer, the will (“life force”) drives all creatures towards self-preservation, reproduction, and pleasure seeking. There is no reason to call those objectives “absurd.” It is obvious that they aim at preserving and continuing life.
Existentialism takes the concept of absurdity to the extreme, depriving life of any objective sense. It recommends seeking happiness, but does not offer any guideline. It complains about the human condition, but fails to offer any solution.
Schopenhauer does exactly the contrary. He acknowledges the issue (that the will can cause severe harm due to its short-term orientation) and comes up with solutions (self-reliance, prudence, foresight, artistic contemplation, etc.)
If you are interested in applying rational principles to real-life situations, I recommend you my book titled “Undisrupted: how highly effective people deal with disruptions.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer’s biography (5 of 5): the illustrious years
Analysis of Schopenhauer’s views on ethics
Schopenhauer’s views on solitude