Reflections on Ethics

I have my own views which, as nearly as I can determine, don't fit anywhere in the standard schemas. I went to a writer's club meeting, during which I realized I was a lonely duck. Upon getting home, I was greeted with "Waste Time!?" Dejected, I said, "Yeh, I'm one of a kind." She said: "I always knew that."

Should I hide in some dank cellar? No. I put on Mozart's Magic Flute and watched it until the 1 AM happy ending.

I often feel my philosophy is like the well-formed formula in Godel's proof that is neither true nor false because it was designed that way. Whenever I read someone's work, I find points of agreement and disagreement. I don't nod my head agreeably all the way from page 1 to page 732. There is always some C instead of the author's approved A and disapproved B. I cannot accept the Mikado's quandry in assessing A and B, who are locked in a zero-sum game. There is always some other way, a forgotten factor or a possible settlement. I feel most people are locked in two-dimensional orbits, not understanding they are wandering about three (or more) dimensional Universes. It doesn't help to tell two dimensional blobs that they are really three dimensional, because they would already be 3-D if they knew that. So, whatever I say floats around out there, incongruent with other triangles.

My ideas about Ethics are, at last, crystallizing. In the following, I summarize what I affirm, what I deny, and some important consequences. As to method, I prefer to arrange things in a logical order as much as possible. There are premises and definitions from which I hope to deduce conclusions (theorems and lemmas). But logical proof is not always feasible or even possible in Ethics. Ethics is practical philosophy: it is intended to be applied in living life, not considered abstractly as music of the spheres. Thus ethical arguments are not purely logical, but also heuristic. Ethicists have to use analogy, cases and examples to show how their theories work. Ethical analysis is heavily dependent on the way one looks at situations, which is why there are so many different ethical theories. Unlike "hard" sciences, where prediction and experiment are mathematized so as to determine (or falsify) a single fact, ethics contains multiple theories which so far cannot be disproved or, even if disproved, continue in use. So I am forced to put forward my ethical ideas, to attempt integrating other people's valid ideas into my theory, to dissuade my auditors from believing as many of the other (presumably false) theories as possible, and to hope for the best.

Heuristic: Individualism

I think everything ethical begins and ends with individuals. Using ethical principles and making moral judgements are things individuals do, even if only passively. I have always been impressed by the Nuremberg Trials which created the important Nuremberg Principle: you are personally responsible for what you do. Nuremberg set aside following orders and all the other excuses for committing crimes. Each person is deemed to have sufficient intelligence to have learned what is acceptable social behavior and what not, at least in the major categories. While people might be excused from responsibility for medical or physical reasons, the lesson of Nuremberg is that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
 

Nuremberg denies that authority is a valid basis of moral judgements; i.e., authority is not a legitimate ethical principle. The Nuremberg Principle fixes responsibility squarely on each us, whether or not we bother to evaluate what we do. If someone kills or injures or does some other wrong, that person can be called to account for the behavior. If there are any mitigating circumstances, they will be assessed after determination of responsibility. This is not a positive ethical principle, in the sense of promoting good or righteous behavior, but it suggests people take care. While prudence is not an ethical imperative, it is generally recommended as a virtue. Similarly, wisdom is not required, but it is a recommended virtue. Those who are wise and prudent will make judicious choices; i.e., choices unlikely to bring one before the bench for judgement.

Ethical Individualism, therefore, recommends each person learn how to be responsible. Each person is enjoined to learn about virtue and vice, because they will be judged as if their choices were made knowingly. Ethical individualism suggests that each person is guilty until proven innocent, or that guilt or innocence is assessed according the value assigned to specific acts, because, in every case, each person is responsible.

Individualism is at the core of modern democratic societies. Each person is conceived as a black box which emanates decisions upon request. Voting - making a voluntary choice - is one of the most important behaviors of individuals. Adam Smith viewed the spending of money as voting. We are constantly subjected to polling, which is another form of voting. We are asked our opinions about a myriad of things every day. All of that decision making assumes that each person is an interested and fully capable member of society, and that society must follow the wishes of its members.

In contrast, pre-Renaissance societies, and authoritarian societies generally, downplay the role of the individual. In such societies, people are expected to follow their orders. In command-driven societies, what is right or wrong has been decided on high. In those societies, most of the important events of one's life are decided by authorities or tradition, including how much education was available, what sort of job was assigned, how leisure time was spent, what was worn and who one married. In short, if Individualism is devalued or derided, our lives come under the control of authorities who govern without our consent.

Subjectivism

If individuals are atomic entities in Ethics, then moral judgements are ultimately assigned to them. Social norms are derivative from individual judgements. There are many different ways individual judgements can be combined to arrive at social judgements; e.g., a social ethic could be based on voting or authoritative commands. In every case, society does not invent judgements; actual people do.

Therefore, Ethics must give an account of how and why individuals make the value judgements we call "ethical" or "moral." Ethics not only explicates the principles individuals use in their considerations, but attempts to discover the principles every individual must (or, at least, should) use. (Ethics is peculiarly reflexive in specifying what ought to be its own content, which includes what ought to be done.)
 

I do not believe an "ought" commands anyone to do anything; i.e., it does not motivate. People routinely do things they know are wrong, bad, evil or wicked. There are at least two different choices involved in ethics: the choice of ethical values and the choice of how to behave. While some people feel compelled by moral injunctions, imperatives, etc, others do not. Thus, it is not generally true that ethics coimmands behavior: it only recommends being ethical and doing moral things. In my ethical theory, it is necessary to explain why people misbehave or ignore estsblished standards.

My sort of subjectivism recognizes some peculiar features of individuals often ignored in other ethical theories. I do not reckon moral agents as being born good or bad; rather, we are born tabula rasa. Thus, we are what we make ourselves, whether better or worse.

In recognizing individuals as moral agents, it is assumed they are capable of voluntary choice. The prerequisities of voluntary choice are (1) that there are choices and (2) there are deliberations. Voluntary choice cannot exist in a deterministic Universe, and doesn't make any sense in a predetermined one. Predeterminists, particularly, have to run the gauntlet twice because they allege the Universe is determined (by whatever mechanism), but somehow individuals are at liberty to choose an indeterminate behavior. Determinists are more logical in setting up the Universe as a clockwork, so don't have to explain voluntary behavior. Voluntary choice for both of them is an illusion to be explained away, because what we actually do is inherent in the clockwork mechanism. I do not take any such view. My ethical theory assumes voluntary choice is (epistemologically) real and actually happens. I do not feel compelled to accept some sort of metaphysical dualism,  realism or naturalism  in making that claim.

Principle of Equality

Because we have no easy method of determining capabilities, individuals are considered prima facie equal. Sight unseen or at birth, we have no reason to suppose one person is any more or less capable than another. This presumption of equality is dissipated by social experience of the person's attributes and behavior. People are born male or female, and thereafter have different social roles because of their sexual characters. Equality cannot be ironclad, because that would fly in the face of the facts. Thus, making a claim about equality immediately requires a qualifying statement about its application, a definition of equality that includes standards of relevance.

Equality connects individuals and society. If an ethical theory is to be more than an approval of solipcism, it must regulate ethical relations between individuals. In Ethics, it is not required to take a metaphysical position about the existence of oneself and others. It is, however, required to take the epistemological position that, if there is a self and others, they are related thusly. The Principle of Equality states that, for the purposes of Ethics, all individuals are essentally the same within the range of application. This is the parent of the commonly understood principle that all citizens are equal before the law. For this reason, the Principle of Equality is an ethical basis of democracy.

It is possible to construct an ethical theory either without this principle, or with a completely unqualified principle. In the latter case, equality is interpreted to mean 'everyone is exactly the same in every circumstance.' That seems to me factually false, so those putting forward such a theory bear a heavy burden of proof . In the former case,  those who deny the Principle of Equality have to show that there are ethically significant differences between the various classes treated in the theory. Plato followed that strategy in The Republic, when he divided souls into silver, iron, etc. Aristotle and Confucius, whose ethical theories are based on virtue, also assigned varying degrees of merit to individuals belonging to different social classes. Similarly, Hindu religions overtly justify caste distinctions, which has created a contradiction within the modern, democratic Indian State. Any ethical theory which proposes to deny democracy must deny the Principle of Equality. Until the Enlightenment, most philosophers followed the ancient denial of equality, but Enlightment philosophers, even conservative ones such as Hobbes, granted it. In this respect, Nietzschean philosophy is a throwback to the Ancien Regime.

Political Conservatives generally deny the Principle of Equality. That denial is the basis of their objections to Affirmative Action and the progressive income tax. It also leads them to support full-blown, unfettered Capitalism. When equality is added to Adam Smith's theories, it is impossible to justify monopoly and difficult to rationalize the persistent oligarchy that receives most of the income and holds most of the wealth.

I claim the Principle of Equality, appropriately delimited, is generally applicable in ethics. It is consistent with Individualism. It is required in support of democracy. It does, however, raise serious philosophical problems, because its application requires a controversial doctrine of "similar circumstances."
 

Principles of Relativity and Evolution

I do not think we are in possession of the final answers to ethical questions; far from it. In fact, the last century has been a time of rapid ethical changes, I believe mostly for the better. What we consider ethical or moral has changed considerably within my lifetime. Modern ethical standards are very different from those of the Medievals or Ancients. The changes are not just differences of social mores, but differences of principle.
 

I think ethical principles and moral standards (maxims) are evolving in the Darwinian sense. Darwinian evolution happens without forcing mechanism or purpose. The lack of purpose means we do not know how things will turn out, even if we have some ideas about what happens next or after that. There are always short-term directions over a random course, as watching Brownian movement (random walk) will demonstrate. The lack of purpose is not just a consequence of the lack of mechanism (in the sense of a clockwork), but follows from the quantum nature of the Universe. The Universe of our existence has an underlying statistical nature, even though, for peculiar reasons, we experience large scale order.

It is a common human experience that progeny look like parents; i.e., parents and children share phenotypes. Some traits seem inherited from mothers, others from fathers, which shows that the locus of traits is in individuals and that traits may be dominant or recessive. All that and more is accounted in the Mendelian theory of inheritance which evolved into modern genetics. The basic dogma of genetics discovered by Watson and Crick is that genes are made of DNA. So, all those infant characteristics people ooh and aaah over are just a matter of what combination of whose sex cell DNA went where. But, it is more complicated than that, because the minute one talks about molecules one must also admit Quantum effects into the discussion. What connects Mendelian inheritance to Darwinian evolution is the simple fact that genes mutate under the influence of  a very large number of conditions. The seemingly orderly world of human reproduction is based on an unstable, random inheritance. That is why there are several extant primates, and demonstrably several previous trials of something like our species.

Ethical evolution is like Darwinian evolution. Over long periods of time, its genetic organization (ethical principles) is modified and particular components (morals) are inhibited or expressed. I believe our modern account of ethical behavior is quite diffferent from that of ancient times, but that does not mean any progress has been made. All that can be said is that things change.
 

Ethical Evolution is closely tied to Ethical Relativism, in the first place because changes in principle and value deny any absolutism. What obtains in ethics is relative to those who practice it. This is evident in present time by examination of different living human cultures, and it is evident historically by comparison of various cultural records. Some societies religiously practice cannabalism which is abhorred in the West, China and India. Polygamy was a common ancient institution which is now disappearing. Slavery is no longer acceptable; in fact, it is considered criminal behavior. American Capitalism is considered Good in America, but Bad or Evil in large parts of the rest of the world. Who is right and who wrong? I don't think any final conclusion is possible. What we can do is examine each culture to determine what are its ethical principles and how they are applied in individual judgements. We can study social interactions (as in cultural anthropology). Beyond that it is difficult to go.

Relativism does not prevent the concoction of generalities; e.g., the discovery of common patterns. As a result of meta-ethical study of different ethical systems, or of direct comparison, we might arrive at some shared principles. This sort of process goes on in the sciences all the time. After several centuries of intensive, controlled and recorded observations and experiments, we have a very good understanding of how things work. A very good understanding of general ethical principles and applications should be at hand when similar efforts are made in ethics.
 

Note: Such knowledge does not imply anything about the universality or metaphysical reality of science or ethics; it is only knowledge derived from experience.

On the other hand, relativism invalidates command theories. If there are no absolute ethical principles, the Ten Commandments, the Categorical Imperative and all the other imperatives make no sense. While commands and imperatives are available for public examination, they are absolute and allow of no individual consideration, judgement or variance. Most ethical systems that rely on commands are like military structures in establishing a hierarchy of authority. What are the commands, and how they are applied, is determined by appropriate authority; e.g., the Pope, an Imam or a Dictator. This is an explicitly social process which leaves the individual just one choice: obey or else. Kant's Categorical Imperative attempts to import the command structure into individuals by making each person a Legislator who must consider the Good of All. (This is like being in John Rawls' "original position" whenever making a moral judgement.) Because Kant says this is an Imperative, people are supposed to feel compelled to undertake ethical behavior. But it is the same with religious or military systems: I will only feel compelled if I am inclined or externally forced to obey Kant or other authorities. There is no inherent compulsion in any authority-based system. The pronouncement of an incantation does not invoke performance, unless its victims have been brainwashed, programmed or hynoptized. 

Appeals to The Way or other Mystical Insights, as in Eastern philosophies (e.g., Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism), are also unsupported by relativistic ethics, since it is impossible to make any comparison or examine any claim publically. Mysticism is exactly opposite to my approach to Ethics: I seek de-mystification. Ethical Mysticism is essentially a form of unsocialized solipcism. From another person's point of view, the mystical person is unpredictable and possibly unmanageable. I have seen this kind of behavior among psychedelic drug users who claim to have special insights into the order of things. Timothy Leary and Charles Manson had quite different perceptions of ethical behavior, which shows the difficulty with solipcistic ethics. The only common principle is 'what I decide is good; what I do is right,' Religious cults often share that sort of belief when it is imposed by a cult leader. I cannot accept this sort of ethics, although it is a possible theory. On my view, ethics allows of public examination and comparison. While the ultimate source of ethical principles and moral behavior resides in the individual,  I think judgements are subject to generalization and review.