How are we to live?Each answers for the self.Philosophers pen booksTo line the booky shelf.How are we to live?Philosophers sell thoughts,And often they tell othersAll their favorite "oughts."How are we to live?Hearts lead right to love,But thoughts lead yet othersTo push and then to shove.How are we to live?Who sings philosophyWhen people are all differentPer each different biography?Love says, in poem and songAcross millennia,Not all agree ere longAnd some refute the many a..."How are we to love?""We" is a plural, see?But I prefer to answerFor only little me.And so repeats the question:How are we to live?Re: Pete and his suggestion:I've others substantive.Animal rights? For laywers.Assigning blame? I'll pass.Ethics comes in versions,And some are sounding brass.Choose one meta-ethics?A cagey argument,Which comes to crush another's,Not to complement.Jewels trumps Peter's tomesFor hearts and hearts link hearts,And art speaks oh so simplyAnd trumps Pete's wordy smarts.Here's the little humorIn Peter's self interest game:He has his own self interestIn peddling his ethics claim.Random, Oxford, Prentice-Hall,Cambridge, Scribner's, Crown,All collect his royaltiesIn every shop and town.Meta-ethics prints and speaksFor speaking fees, a bit,And traveling round the worldSinger gathers much, to whit...I wager he is living highAbove the abject poor,For Princeton is quite la-dida;No slum is it, for sure.Copyrights and travel costs,Book sellers and their tills,All operate to peddle blameWhile tasting of fine frills.If Pete were saint, not sinner,He'd live poor like a monk;But he prefers the circuitTo fill his fiscal trunk.Philosophy has philosophersO'er centuries long past.This one well will count his coin,As long as the game will last.Violate his copyrights?Meta-test his open heart?I wager all his lawyersWill sue each counterpart.Jewels trumps Peter's posturesFor heart's bright hearts touch hearts,And art speaks oh so simplyAnd trumps Pete's wordy smarts.-- the anonymous singer, singing "no, re: pete"