ABSTRACT
Let me briefly recapitulate the path we have followed. For both Murdoch and Nussbaum, there is a general question as to how we should live, of the good life, which is the concern of both philosophy and literature. The question is empirical, involving a surveying of the ways human beings have determined the good life, since we do not have access to a metaphysically higher position than the human, and it is practical, since we must be able to live it. Literature, unlike philosophy, can show us in detail what such a life would be like and so further the pursuit of truth. Murdoch and Nussbaum, however, don’t agree as to what view of the good life would pass the empirical and practical test and this raises the question, of course, why we should regard these opposed views as competing for the accolade of a universally valid ‘truth’ if our only access to it is through an appeal to procedures which if adopted by conscientious, intelligent people have these results. And surely at best we could only arrive at a form of life which had empirical validity for people characterized by certain conditions which disposed them to agree with the offered vision.
