I’ve been meaning to do this for some time—write a piece attempting to describe my ethical and moral outlook. Don’t expect anything too refined here—I’ve never done Philosophy and never studied any formal schools—this is just me, sitting in my backyard, laptop in front of me, and trying to think: “What do I think, and why do I think it?”
If you’re particularly lucky, I might remember to look up wikipedia later to check up on any details I find myself fuzzy about; specific names and shit like that. I don’t have any access to the internet out here—it’s one of the reasons I can write out here and not inside the house.
I seem to be rambling. Expect that to happen a bit.
Universal Ethics
I believe that everyone has their own individual moral outlook point-of-view, and everyone’s is individually unique. This view is likely formed by a combination of nature and nurture.
Some people’s view may be largely formed by an outside code—secular, or perhaps their Church, etc. This doesn’t actually negate what I just said, it just means that their code has, as its first rule: “REFER TO X”. Even then, the outside moral code would be coloured by the interpretation the individual puts on it, making it still unique, even if the differences may be very slight.
So if everyone has their own moral code, then whose is right? Well, mine, of course—but if we ignore the flippant answer, I believe the truth is, from an outside, objective perspective, that there is no right and wrong.
Right and wrong, good and evil, are subjective judgements, and if you take a view from outside the subjective, a distant view out and away, they just vanish.
The Universe does not care.
The only way to judge if one code is objectively more ‘correct’ than another is to impose an aim. A logical aim, for instance, could be survival of the species. Then the better a code is at insuring the survival of our species, the better the code is. But even though this allows objective comparison of different moralities, it is still subjective because the original choice of aim was subjective. We chose survival of the species for our own arbitrary reasons. The universe does not care. Someone else could have chosen ‘Be beautiful’ as the aim of their morality (some people do), and it would be just as valid.
Any aim for a morality is going to be subjective. Any attempt to measure different aims against each other would first require you to arbitrarily choose what to use as a yardstick, a choice which can only be subjective.
Society EthicsFrank Herbert, Dune Messiah wrote:“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for my freedom, because that is according to your principals. When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom, because that is according to my principals.”
So, if moralities cannot be compared to each other, without imposing an arbitrary standard, and everyone has different moralities, then how does our society decide what morality to follow?
I believe a society’s morality is formed of an amalgam of those within it—it is a compromise of beliefs—it is fluid as those beliefs change, and not only is it shaped by those within it, but it shapes those within it. For instance, I not only believe the basics shared by I imagine every culture—that it’s wrong to rape and murder—but I also believe it’s wrong for me to strike my wife in any circumstance excluding self-defence. This is a belief shared by my culture, and I believe it because I grew up in my culture. If I grew up in another culture, I may believe that striking my wife is justified, possibly as discipline, or possibly because it’s morally acceptable for me to exercise my frustrations upon her. This alternate me would be considered moral and ethical in his own culture as he ‘Gives her a slap for her lip’, but be considered nothing of the sort if he immigrated to this one.
It may be pointed out that, despite growing up in a culture, many people do not faithfully echo that culture’s morality. This is true. For instance myself, I agree wife-beating is wrong and can’t imagine a “moral person” holding any other view, however I do feel we place too high a value on human life.
I can reply that a culture’s morality is only one of the things acting upon a person as they’re forming their own morality. A powerful thing, but still, only one thing. Inborn traits may have an effect, luck and happenstance, people met and books read, and much more besides. Many things could cause someone’s morality to differ from the mainstream, and then that difference may cause the mainstream to itself shift accordingly, even if minutely.
My Personal Ethics
I am the most important being in the universe, from my point of view.
Does that sound egotistical? It should! That’s how I wrote it! But the most important words there are the last five—from my point of view.
Let’s imagine, dear reader, that you died. How would that affect my universe? Well, I’m afraid the answer is very little, perhaps not at all. Maybe you’re someone on this site that I know and have corresponded with in the past—perhaps Skimmer, or maybe Simon—then I would be saddened for a period, I’m sure, but that would be the extent of it. I don’t really know you; you have only a minimal existence in my universe. Maybe you’re an unknown Reader—you’ve hit this page by a Google search for something else, and this caught your attention enough to read. Well, in your case, I would have to say your death would not affect my universe at all—you have no existence in my universe and I would not notice if you died. Not that I want any of you dead! I would quite prefer for you to go on, living your life, and doing whatever you do! But it would not change my universe if you died.
Be honest. How much would it change your universe if I died? Stop and think. Perhaps I’m dead now; right now, as you’re reading this, I’m already dead. Did your universe change? Did the sky go black? Did all music lose its charm?
No.
But from my point of view, if I die, I lose my entire universe. Everything is gone, and it’s all over, never to come back again. My life is worth the entire universe…to me.
This argument, of course, applies to everybody. If you died, dear reader, you lose your entire universe. You life is worth the entire universe…to you. There’s a rabbit munching grass in my backyard right now as I watch; if it dies—when it dies—my universe will become a little less from the loss. From her point of view, however, she will have just lost her entire universe, the same as the mosquito I just squashed as it settled on my arm.
All creatures’ lives have the same value. Every creature’s life is worth the entire universe—to that life. I would prefer if people would think of that when they kill. I would prefer people showed a little more respect for what they’re doing.
It would be reasonable to conclude from this that I’m vegan, or at least vegetarian. Reasonable, but wrong. It’s a rare day that doesn’t have me eating meat for at least one meal, and regularly two. How can I justify my words with my actions?
It’s true when I am responsible for the death of another creature (and I’m as responsible for that death if I bought it pre-packaged from the shops as if I’d killed it myself), I have probably committed the biggest violation of that creatures ethics there could be. From its point of view, I’ve just committed the gravest sin possible.
From its point of view. Not from mine. That creature’s ethics do not determine my morality. Your ethics do not determine my morality. My ethics—not what they are but whether I follow them faithfully or not—determine my morality. I could rape and murder, and if my personal code of ethics allowed that, I would be perfectly moral in doing so.
I can hear the next objection: “So, if someone was to rape and murder your daughter, does that mean you would just accept it? After all, he’s acting ‘morally’, so what right would you have to stop him?”
The answer is that he’s acting morally from his ethical code, not from mine, and while objectively my ethical code is not superior to his, it’s not inferior either, and my ethical code says that if I know of something that is a large enough outrage against my code, I can take steps to stop it. I believe most people’s codes have this rule. I do not have to consider another creature’s ethics when determining my own actions.
Prescriptive Ethics
My ethics are prescriptive. They don’t tell me what I should be, they tell me what I shouldn’t. They don’t, for instance, tell me to give to charities; they tell me not to steal. They don’t tell me to help others, they tell me not to hurt them. They impose a bottom line for behaviour. If I was to turn around and give to charity (and I do sometimes), that would make me a nicer person, but not a more moral one.
Purple was recently challenged to place values on different components of his own morality, according to something called “Moral Foundations Theory”. I decided for this, I would try to do the same. I was unable to find the original thread (the search function on this site sucks, doesn’t it?), but I got the Wikipedia entry on the theory, and used what you told Purple.
Assuming I have 12 points to spend among all six categories (are there any Disadvantages I can take for extra points?), I think they’ll maybe go like this:
Care (cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.)..............................................2
Fairness or proportionality (rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.)....4
Liberty (the loathing of tyranny; opposite of oppression.)................................................2
Loyalty or ingroup (standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.).................2
Authority or respect (obeying tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.)...........2
Sanctity or purity (abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.)......0
This 12 point chart is a bit of a blunt instrument; for instance I’ve rated Care equal to Loyalty, and most of the others. I do believe I probably consider mercy and compassion as important as blood—but not more—but I don’t believe I consider it as important as very many other people. I know my wife is a lot nicer than I am.
The most important thing there is Justice. To me, that’s Equalness. Fair play. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Keeping to agreements.
For instance, if I’m the only important one in my universe (an over-simplification, but whatever), and others ethics don’t count for my decisions, why don’t I, well, kill, rob, and act like an all-round arsehole? Is it just fear of retribution that keeps me in line?
Well, no. It’s because…that’s not the deal.
When I was born into this culture, I was automatically signed up to a “Social Contract” (as some like to call it). I don’t kill, rob, and act like an arse to others, and they don’t kill, rob, and act like an arse to me. I didn’t have a choice about this deal, but you don’t have a choice about a lot of things (for instance, being born). It’s a deal I’ve derived benefit from, that others expect me to follow, and it would be unfair for me to break that deal just because it suits me and take advantage of their expectations. It wouldn’t be unfair, I suppose, if I first announced to everyone what it is I’m doing, so they know I no longer felt constrained by the contract, although that would seem like a short-lived exercise, and kinda stupid.
You’ll also notice I’ve put ‘Purity’ at zero. I’m interpreting this as ‘Squickiness’. My emotion reaction to something of gust
or disgust has no bearing on whether something is moral or immoral. I may choose not to do something because it’s ‘yucky’, but being yucky does not make it wrong. For example, some people are against relationships between the young and old, they say it’s wrong because they find it ‘squicky’. I disagree—as long as they’re age of consent, it’s none of our business.I‘ve gotten to a point where I’ve written a bunch, and I’m not sure where to go next. I think I’ll post it here, and what people say may show me where to go next.
