When uncool became cool, I was still uncool.

It would seem that "coolness" is not a quality of the good life. And by that, I mean that it does not have ethical or moral value. However, we use coolness in order to attach value to something. But we do this in an indeterminate way. We like something that is cool because it is cool, rather than because it has some clear positive quality, even though we associate coolness with generally positive or desirable qualities. If we like a brand of shoe, it can be said that is "cool." But if we were asked to describe what is good about it other than the fact it is cool, we may not be able to come up with an appropriate answer. Sure, it is possible that the brand can be some genuinely good things: durable, even fashionable. And if that is the case, then it is entirely possible to value the brand's desirability without depending on whether or not it is cool. Too often "coolness" stands in for these clearly definable qualities, and since it is possible to be both "cool" and not have any of them, it interrupts our ability to reasonably consider a choice between it and another "cool" brand of shoe that has genuinely good qualities.

Thomas Frank demonstrates the problem with this type of reasoning in the context of the relationship between consumerism and counterculture. In his analysis, ideas of "hip" and "cool" were developed as a way to sell consumerism to young people. At one point, rock and roll rebelled against an establishment that included racism, sexism, violence, and economic injustice. Now, we use rock and roll to sell t-shirts. Essentially, we embrace coolness to associate with a youthful idealism but in doing so we contribute to what we are nominally rebelling against. Rebellion and revolution are now buzzwords worked into ad campaigns. We've even gotten to the point that coolness is contrary to idealism, and cynicism is more valued. It is possible to criticize a musician for being only interested in fame and money, and find that you are now considered uncool for not understanding that fame and money are simply more important that any sort of idealism. In fact, "square," which is Frank's idea of the antithesis of "hip" is now just another style that one can choose in the set of officially "cool" identities, all of which rank above a rejection of consumer culture.

Of course, to accept that there is something wrong with this, and that therefore we should not include "coolness" in the life that leads to self-actualization necessarily requires you to believe that consumer culture is a problem. But if you think that the trap of constantly believing you must acquire more tangible signs of an affluent lifestyle is just fine, then by all means, go right ahead and be as cool as you want to be. Or if you are fine with using products you find morally unacceptable because they have an element of cool which you cannot even define, then there is little I can say to persuade you otherwise. Need an example of what I am talking about?

That being said, it is not as simple as it would seem to fit this critique of cool into a theoretical framework. How do we fit this into an ethical point of view? Within Virtue Ethics, we would consider cool to be a vice. But to do that, we would need to determine what it is an excess of, what the total lack of cool would be an excess of, and what the virtuous mean of these two would be. To explain, cowardice is an excess of fear, a total lack of fear is foolhardiness, and courage is the mean between the two, consisting of not being too cowardly to carry out necessary acts and not too foolhardy that you put yourself in danger for the most inconsequential reasons. Sure, you could say that coolness is an excess of consumerism, with a total lack of consumerism constituting an inability to function within modern society. But a virtuous man only really needs the company of other virtuous men (see Aristotle's comments on friendship, something I can post about; comment if you are interested), and it is conceivable that such a group would be able to completely forego consumerism.

Maybe Deontology provides the necessary framework. But what would be the rule that coolness violates? While it is possible to see how valuing something for its coolness can be in conflict with a moral point of view, that conflict is not necessary. For instance, we can drink at a certain coffee shop because it is cool to do so, regardless of the fact that the coffee served at that shop is obtained through arguably unjust means. But, as stated earlier, coolness does not necessarily imply that something does not have good qualities. It only obscures those qualities. I, for one, would be willing to describe drinking fair trade coffee as a cool thing to do. All Deontology provides is more reason to simply disregard coolness when considering various choices. The same goes for Utilitarianism. Determining the greater good requires clear assessment of the positive and negative qualities of choices.

OK, so, all we have determined is that coolness complicates moral reasoning. But maybe that is all there is needed in order to make the final argument against coolness. We started by identifying coolness as a nebulous quality we use to attach value to something. Another way of saying this is, coolness increases the goodness of things. At some point, no matter how friendly you are to consumerism, it becomes absurd to think that the cooler something is, the better it is. Whatever the relationship between value, coolness, and goodness, it isn't absolute. Ultimately coolness has no meaning that isn't better stated with other terms. And, perhaps we should just let go of using it in terms of value in anyway. It is just a neutral term, synonymous with personal preference. To say something is cool ought to mean nothing more than, I like that thing.

There is still the entire discussion of coolness as a personal quality. Some people are cool, some are not. It is much more difficult to say that cool should only be used to say you like a person. It really does seem to be an actual part of some people's personalities. And, while trendiness would seem to correspond with coolness, it is easy to think of very trendy people who are not accepted as cool. But it is just as difficult to think of someone who is entirely unfashionable as cool. Sure, we like some people who exhibit this lack of trendiness, but we do so for specific qualities we admire. So it is possible to describe what we admire about them without depending on coolness. Again, coolness, while it is a compliment and a desirable personal quality, is an entirely neutral term when it comes to what it is that we really value.