Philosophy: The Basics

I’ve written extensively about philosophy through the years and I’ve decided that this thread is a great place to combine everything I’ve worked on thus far. If you have opinions or would like to chime in, I welcome that. Please do so below. Thanks!

In This Post

What is Ethics?

This is a huge question and one that can lead you down many paths. If I had to guess (as I’m an expert at neither ethics, nor philosophy), ethics is taught early on in any general philosophy education. I’ve heard about this topic for years and have even tried my hand at studying it for a bit. As I did, I found it fascinating. What I love most about it is all the options available to us, regarding not only how we act, but how we think as well. If you didn’t have enough to ponder before, the study of ethics has the potential to keep you busy for quite some time.

Ethics Defined

So what is ethics, anyway? There are many definitions, but they all revolve around a central theme. If the most basic sense, ethics is sort of like an umbrella that covers a system of moral principles. The study of ethics helps us understand what we perceive to be right and wrong. It’s a guiding hand that assists in our search for understanding of how humans can make the best possible decisions in a fair and good way for the most fair and just outcome. The idea of ethics isn’t only concerned with what’s good for the individual, but also what’s good for society as a whole. It’s a study of morality. A moral philosophy, if you will.

Ethics is the philosophical study of morality. It is a study of what are good and bad ends to pursue in life and what it is right and wrong to do in the conduct of life. It is therefore, above all, a practical discipline. Its primary aim is to determine how one ought to live and what actions one ought to do in the conduct of ones life. – John Deigh.

The study of ethics in Western civilization originated in Greece thousands of years ago. The first considered to be moral philosophers were Socrates and a group of teachers in Athens. The term ethics is actually derived from the Greek word ethos, which can be translated as disposition, custom, habit, or character.

The study of ethics isn’t straightforward. There are no solid answers, mostly just questions. And when one question is answered, others arise. The goal of ethics is to guide those who study it toward what’s best with the given knowledge at hand. Or, what’s perceived to be best. Oftentimes, those who study this topic refer to questions as dilemmas. The word dilemma more accurately describes the situation because, again, there’s no straightforward path. Only optional paths that each have consequences.

When studying ethics, you’ll face the following dilemmas. You may ask yourself: How can I, or we, live a good life? What should our rights be and what are our responsibilities? What is right and wrong? What do these things mean? And, what is good and bad? Again, what do these things mean?

The concepts commonly studied have come from a variety of sources; from religions, various philosophies, and different cultures. The study spans all types of issues, such as those found in current events, human rights, and what’s commonly referred to as professional conduct.

Approaches to Ethics

The study of ethics is generally divided into various areas. These approaches are:

Meta-ethics: studies the more nuanced nature of moral judgement. How has moral judgement arisen and what it is, exactly. This area primarily focuses on the origins of current principles and what they actually mean.

Normative ethics: focuses on what should or should not be. Ethics is primarily concerned with prescribing action, meaning, it’s more of a study of what humans might want to consider given a certain set of circumstances, rather than a study of what individuals and groups have already done. The latter would fall under the realm of Anthropology. With normative ethics, we study the specifics of what makes right right and wrong wrong. The specific criteria for both.

Applied ethics: this area concerns itself with the practical application of what’s been generally decided upon. Every scenario consists of moral considerations and applied ethics covers the moral implications of decisions regarding these scenarios.

Why Should We Bother Studying Ethics?

As humans, we rarely do things for no reason. There is only a certain amount of time each of us spend on this planet and given that time, what we pursue should be practical and applicable. When it comes to the study of ethics, we should get something out of it. Our studies should be fruitful. If we are interested in making decisions that lead to good and just outcomes for both the individual and the group, the ethical theories we study should have an impact when put into practice and should alter the behavior of the humans involved.

Ethics is oftentimes referred to as a moral toolbox. If offers those who care a set of tools that can guide them in a rational way. If someone knows that’s right and wrong, and if they’re rational beings, they’ll likely choose the right course of action. This isn’t always the case though as people quite often act in irrational ways. They tend to lean toward what culture and experience has taught them, rather than what their moral mind has decided given the current circumstances they find themselves in.

Ethics Can Act as a Moral Guide

So often in today’s world, we act with emotion rather than rationality. We base our decisions on how we think the desired outcome will affect our mood or how it will help us in some way in the short term. We allow emotional issues get the better of us. We succumb to poor judgement, even when we know there’s a better way. The better way comes from a framework that ethics can provide. If we learn about ethics and understand its principles, we can use a formulated set of rules to guide us in a way that more conducive to more rational decisions. We can consider that ethics provides us with a set of practical paths that will assist us as we navigate life.

Ethics Helps Uncover the Truth

When thinking rationally and when taking advantage of the road map ethics can provide, it becomes exponentially easier to uncover important issues that may be buried in an argument. In general, people agree on much more than they disagree. Oftentimes those who are debating a topic will agree with 90%of what the other person is saying. Because ethics is to logically based, using the tools offered by this area of study can help in uncovering the points of disagreement to focus the argument on what matters.

Ethics Doesn’t Always Give the Answer

As alluded to above, ethics is more of a moral framework than anything else. It’s not something that will offer a definitive answer to a question at hand. To come to a sensible conclusion, those who study ethics will need to rely what reducing confusion and clarifying a topic to such a degree that something sensible emerges. And even then, the correct answer may not be obvious. There may not even be a correct answer.

Ethics May Often Give Several Answers

Many of us like order and direction in life and can become very uncomfortable when more than one right answer is given for a situation. Unfortunately, this is the way of ethics. And not only that, sometimes a right answer isn’t possible. Sometimes, there are only less bad answers. Certain types of people prefer to avoid these types of situations because when faced with a multitude of less wrong answers, nothing will turn out positively. These types of things are oftentimes referred to as hard decisions. Most of us don’t like to face these decisions because we feel the weight of responsibility bearing down on us. It’s much more comforting to rely on what others have told us to do via the rule of law or through religion and custom.

How Ethics Relates to People

It’s About Your Impact on Others

It really isn’t about you. In general, when pondering how ethics can affect your life, you’re actually pondering how your decisions will impact others and then how those others will impact your life. Let’s say you want something and you’re wondering if you should steal it or not. You wouldn’t attempt to utilize ethics in your decision making and expect your ultimate decision to affect only you. You’d have to realize that your theft would have an impact on the life of the person you’re stealing from and then would most likely impact you either directly or indirectly. Perhaps you’ll get caught and will be punished or perhaps you’ll get away with it and live with guilt for all of eternity. If you were the only person on earth and stole something that wasn’t yours, you may not be stealing at all because there’s no other person to affect. To put this more simply, ethics governs decision making by us that has an impact on others.

Ethics Used Mischievously

When groups judge something as either right or wrong, they can weaponize their alleged right answer against the group who prefers the supposed wrong. This happens every day and can oftentimes manifest itself in interpersonal relationships where one party attempts to use guilt as a method of persuasion. Or, one group in society can attempt to gain power over another due to their self-perceived virtue. Oftentimes, using ethical interpretation as a means to control another individual or group can spell disaster because rarely is one person or group always right. They may be right in some cases, but if they’re attempting to gain control, they’re likely more wrong than right.

Ethics Covers Individuals as Well as Actions

It’s often assumed that ethics is the study of how a course of action can be as good as it can possibly be or whether it’s right or wrong, but in actuality, it’s about the study of people as well. Ethics concerns itself with the goodness, or virtue, of the individual as well as how they can live a good life.

What’s the Source?

Today, as well as in the past, people of all types have attempted to take the easy way out of virtuous decision making. When faced with tough decisions, they relied on either religion to provide them answers to challenges or deep thought about the principles of morality. People who felt as though they engaged in this type of activity properly felt that the answers they came up with were the only correct ones. Unfortunately, life isn’t so straightforward and rarely is there a preconceived answer to a question that has yet to be asked.

In today’s world, some of our best thinkers have concluded that it may actually be impossible to create a satisfactory theory of ethics that provides answers. They claim that philosophy doesn’t provide answers at all, only sets of principles that lead individuals to decisions that can be made based on the situations they find themselves in. If ethics is interpreted in this way, it can be perceived as being limited to what’s at stake when pondering a dilemma rather than what one should do about it. And as stated above, philosophy and ethics are merely frameworks to help guide individuals who are faced with making various decisions that may have an impact on others.

Ethical Realists vs. Ethical Non-Realists

The question is, can an idea exist independently of humans in nature? Some say it can and some say it can’t. Those who say it can are considered ethical realists and those who say it can’t are considered ethical non-realists. Ethical realists claim that natural ethical truths simply exist in the world around us and it’s our job to discover them. They exist independently of the human species and would exist in the universe whether we were here with them or not. Conversely, ethical non-realists think that we as humans invent ethical truths that are based on our experiences and core values. Without us, those values and experiences wouldn’t be in existence and there would be no need for a natural ethical truth.

Some Ethical Definitions

There are a few must-know definitions when it comes to ethics. These definitions will help clarify some of what’s happening when you or someone else attempts to apply the principles of ethics in life.

Let’s use an example to help explain the four definitions that follow. Let’s pretend that someone utters the sentence, “Stealing is wrong.” What type of ethical statement is this person making? What is this person doing when making this statement?

If they’re making a statement about an ethical fact, then they’re engaging in ethical realism.
“It is absolutely wrong to steal in any case whatsoever.”

If they’re making a statement that describes how they feel, they’re engaging in ethical subjectivism.
“I don’t think stealing is right.”

If they’re expressing their current feelings about something, they’re engaging in ethical emotivism.
“I really can’t stand thieves!”

If they’re attempting to control someone based on the activity taking place, they’re engaging in ethical prescriptivism.
“In no way shall you ever become a thief.”

Moral Realism: Incontrovertible ethical laws and rules of the universe. These laws and rules are objective moral facts and can’t be disputed.

Subjectivism: Describes feelings that someone has about something. Their statements regarding the ethical dilemma may or may not contain actual facts or truths, but they share their judgements anyway. The person speaking may not even know about what’s good or bad, but they comment based on their experiences and beliefs.

Emotivism: Moral expressions of either approval or disapproval. These types of expressions oftentimes don’t include any information as to why someone may or may not believe something or feel a certain way. It’s merely the expression one way of the other. A frowning face would be a good example.

Prescriptivism: Commands, instructions, and recommendations. These are based on the ethical interpretation someone has. If they claim that someone is either good or bad, they’re essentially ordering you to act accordingly. The sentence, “Stealing is wrong,” means, “You better not steal.”

What’s the Source of Ethics?

The question is, where does ethics come from? There are a few answers to this, depending on who you talk to. Or, several answers to this, no matter who you talk to.

Supernaturalism: Some say that God makes all the rules and therefor, in order to discover whether or not something is ethical, all you need to do is ask God. It is only there that you will find the answer. In this case, ethics is religion based.

Intuitionism: These types of folk just know something is good or bad by the way they feel. It’s in their intuition. They feel as though good, bad, moral, just, and others have inherit properties that make them so. There’s no justification necessary and no one needs to prove anything. It is what it is. If you’re the type of person who thinks of morals, ethics, and philosophy, then you should be able to pick up on these things by virtue of your thought process.

Consequentialism: The greatest good for the greatest number. This theory bases what people think of as moral on the actions that result from an act. So if a group of people do something that they feel benefits more people than not, then it must have been ethical.

Non-Consequentialism (Deontological Ethics): Unlike directly above, this type of theory is more concerned with the act itself, rather than its outcome. It claims that whether the act is heinous or virtuous, it being good or bad is ingrained in the act itself.

Virtue Ethics: This theory relies on how people live their overall lives, rather than focusing on individual acts that a person may or may not partake in. Those who subscribe to this way of thinking will say that an act much have been moral if a virtuous person of good character would have made the same decision under the same or similar circumstances.

Situation Ethics: This theory relies on the fact that each and every situation is different and unique and decisions that stem from those situations should rely on the circumstances at hand.

Ethical Ideology: This ethical ideology is tethered to politics. It states that ethics were created to protect political beliefs. Some people claim that certain powerful forces use this type of ideology to maintain control over individuals and society as a whole. An example of this would be confusing law and morality.

Do Universal Moral Rules Exist?

Are there moral rules that remain unchanged no matter where they reside and who uses them? Are these rules unchanging no matter what?

Moral Absolutism: If you believe that there can be one set of moral rules for everyone on earth to follow, no matter where they’re from, how diverse they are, what they believe, and how they act, you may be a moral absolutist. This type of person believes that some rules are always true, no matter the circumstances. They apply to everyone, no matter what. Examples of these rules might be a Declaration of Human Rights. Or something like what larger religions teach. No matter where you are, the same ethics apply if you are of such and such a religion.

Moral Relativism: These types of people claim that morals and ethics depend on what’s going on in a certain society and when that society existed. This theory of ethics relies of those who are present at the time to make the decisions for what is good and just for those involved.

Well, that about wraps it up. I did a lot of research to put this together, so I hope you enjoy it. If you have any questions about this Ethics 101 section, please ask down below in the comments. I’d be happy to help.

Can Ethics be Subjective?

Let me ask you something. Is there anything in this world that is absolutely wrong? Anything you think no one should partake in, no matter what? I’ve been reading a lot about ethics and morality in a few different books and I’ve begun to wonder if all of morality is subjective or if it can be objective as well. From what I’ve gathered, it can be a little of both. The thing is, there’s nuance in everything and ideas need to be explored thoroughly before a decision is made. I’ll give you a few examples to elaborate.

Did you know that for approximately 2,000 years in India, there was a practice referred to as suttee (sati) that took place? Basically, when a man in parts of India died, his wife was expected to jump on top of his funeral pyre with him to burn to death. The reasoning for this was to allow for all of the man’s wealth and property to pass to his blood relatives. The practice of suttee was done voluntarily, but it was also expected of women to perform it by the members of the community. If the woman didn’t perform this duty, she’d likely be lynched, drowned, cast out, or killed in some other way.

The practice of suttee continued on in parts of India until 1829, when it was banned by the English and then the Dutch, and French later on. It was described by these Europeans as “revolting to the feelings of human nature.” This was actually stated by Lord William Bentinck in 1829, who outlawed these actions and made them illegal and open to prosecution. While there are sporadic instances of suttee today, these are primarily done by very devoted woman who feel that it’s their duty to cling to their heritage. Either that, of there’s some unspoken pressure placed on them that the rest of the community is unaware of.

I’ve long felt that China’s dog meat festival is one of the most horrible and barbaric events that can possibly take place. If it were up to me, I’d outlaw the practice and impose stiff punishment on anyone who engaged in it. I wonder how the Chinese feel about we Americans eating beef. Or pork. I wonder how those from India feel about so many other countries eating beef as well. If you aren’t aware, there are parts of India whose inhabitants are vegetarian. They consider the cow to be a sacred symbol of life that should be protected and revered. There are other areas where people live, however, who do eat meat. India is actually one of the largest beef exporters on earth, which makes the entire situation even more confusing.

So back to my question. Are there earthly actions that take place that are absolutely wrong? In my opinion, I think China’s dog meat festival is one of them. I’ve stated that. But how can that be wrong if I don’t think eating beef is wrong? Is killing an innocent dog worse than killing an innocent cow? Or am I just used to hearing about and have become accustomed to cow deaths? Or is it because I think we need to kill cows in order to survive? If something is a need, does that make it okay? What if the population of the United States grew so large that not one more person could fit in the country? Would it be okay for the U.S. to commandeer another less populated country for its citizens to live? These are all good questions and are those that can be either subjective or objective, depending on who you talk to.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Is something okay just because it’s “always been done that way”? How about this – what if an outside nation invaded another nation that was engaging in genocide? Would the outside nation be morally praiseworthy for going in and imposing their own beliefs? Is genocide ever okay? Is there a clear answer when we ask if an action is acceptable? Are any of these morally acceptable?

– Suttee
– Dog meat festival
– Eating beef
– Going to war
– Genocide

What if a nation or a group of people have thought long and hard about something and has decided that it is morally acceptable? What if the rest of the world finds the activity repulsive and decides that it needs to stop? Who’s in charge here? Can one’s morality trump someone else’s?

If you’re curious, what I shared above is covered by the umbrella of what’s referred to as metaethics. This area deals with the nature of morality itself. It strives to find answers to questions like: What is morality? Can morality ever be objective, meaning, can we separate from our own feelings and beliefs to deem something either inherently or absolutely right or wrong? If we do find what’s referred to as a moral fact, can that fact ever supersede what a particular group deems moral, if that group’s interpretation is different from our own?

Metaethics tries to establish whether or not there is a proper and moral way to live. Can that circumstance even exist? It tries to determine if there is a set of universal truths to which we, as humans, should abide. It also attempts to determine whether or not ethics is merely subjective, in that it be applied to localized groups that may live or have lived during a certain time period in a certain location.

Is there an ultimate and absolute truth or is truth merely subjective among groups who have different traditions, opinions, or views on things?

I find this topic fascinating. If you have something to add or an opinion on what I wrote, please share down below. I’d love to hear what you have to say.

Realism vs. Anti-Realism

What are you? Are you a realist or an anti-realist? Do you know what each is? If not, read on below and I’ll do my best to explain.

What if you were to get in an argument with someone one day? Let’s say that the two of you were arguing about the morality of hunting. You say that it’s a terrible thing to do and it’s immoral under any circumstance. The person with whom you’re arguing states that while he doesn’t love the idea of hunting, it’s a necessary and natural thing to do in order to survive. Or to enjoy oneself while spending time in the woods. That’s the crux of things. You would rather do nothing while he would hunt out of necessity or while seeking enjoyment.

Let me know what you think about this concept. How do you feel about there being an ultimate moral truth? I’ll use an example to illustrate. Let’s say that all early Model T cars were yellow. Would this be a true fact of history? Of course not. We all know that all early Model Ts were painted black. The saying goes something like, “The Model T comes in a variety of colors, as long as it’s black.” So if someone were to walk up to you and state that these particular cars were all painted yellow, you would know that the statement was incorrect. It’s not a part of factual reality. Similarly, when discussing philosophy and morals, many people will make a lot of different claims. Heated arguments have erupted during these types of conversations. One person may claim that such and such is wrong on any and all levels while someone else may claim that that particular activity isn’t wrong, but actually right and helpful. The question I have for you in this post is, are there any universal moral truths that can apply to something all of the time without question or are morals relative to one’s culture and upbringing? If you say yes, there are moral truths out there and that some things are always wrong or always right, then you would be characterized as a moral realist. If you disagree and say that there can’t be any moral truths because an outside or affecting influence always has to exist somewhere, you would be characterized as a moral anti-realist.

I guess the next question would be, what is a moral realist, anyway? Well, this is someone who believes that certain things in this world are just wrong, no matter what. Or right, no matter what. No matter how we feel, think, were raised, were taught in church – anything. In my example at the beginning of this post, I mentioned an argument between two people about hunting. If the person who was arguing against it was brought up in a hunting family and learned in school and church that hunting was a necessary thing to do, but still believed it was wrong, they’d be engaging in moral realism. Even if this person saw the benefit of hunting and knew how enjoyable it could be, but still knew, deep down, that it was wrong – yes, that’s moral realism. It’s the going against the grain that defines this phrase. It’s the, no matter how many people, groups, cultures, or friends around you are telling you that something is okay, you still know it’s wrong.

Conversely, we’ve got the anti-realists. These are folks who simply can’t subscribe to the realist’s way of thinking. Can anything really ever always be bad? They don’t think so. What if everyone in a community was going to die from starvation and the only thing that would save them was to hunt an elephant? Would it still be wrong to do so? The moral realist would say yes. The moral anti-realist would say no. To the anti-realist, losing just one elephant to feed an entire community would not only not be wrong, but it would actually be right. To anti-realists, no set of moral truths can exist outside of beliefs and cultures. These people subscribe to something that’s referred to as moral relativism, otherwise known as a set of morals that’s been devised through time and relates to how certain groups act and live. It’s up to the group to define what’s moral and what’s not, not some outside law. They also believe that no one with one set of beliefs should walk into another group and attempt to impose his or her morals on them. To anti-realists, morals are relative and the product of culture or agreed upon set of rules.

I’ve thought a lot about these different ways of perceiving morals and I must admit that I’m somewhat torn. For instance, I life in the country out in the middle of nowhere. If someone were to approach me and tell me that a new law was being written where everyone from rural USA was going to be forced to live in cities because the government wanted to give nature back to the wild, I’d be appalled. But really, I’d only be appalled because I happen to live in a rural area. Now, if someone asked me if people shouldn’t live outside of cities because those people are using up too much land and wildlife doesn’t have as much as it needs, I’d tell them that yes, people shouldn’t live in rural areas. So on one hand, I have a view that’s based on moral realism, which is firm and steadfast, yet, I’m also an anti-realist because we rural folk have been doing this for a long time and we don’t appreciate outsiders telling us how to live. Or what’s right and wrong. So I’m not sure how many purists there are out there one way or another. There’s an argument to be made for both sides.

Where do you fall on this? Would you consider yourself a moral realist or a moral anti-realist and why?

What is Descriptive Relativism?

To learn about moral relativism, please read through this post on realism vs. anti-realism as it relates to ethics and philosophy. The relativism section is down towards the end.

What I’d like to discuss in this post is a very specific type of moral relativism called descriptive relativism. This relativism describes the type of morality I might consider “loose.” It’s not contained in a rigid framework or structure; it’s viewed much more liberally. Basically, if you’re neighbor thinks his actions are moral, who are you to say they’re not?

Descriptive moral relativism is one where morality can vary widely and can change dramatically from culture to culture and even, dare I say, time to time. This is viewed every day across the entire globe. If I had to guess, I’d say that this can be plainly seen across various religions. Some religions practice executions while others do not. Some religions absolutely forbid marriage of their clergy while others do not. Some forbid homosexuality while others are much more liberal. The same is true for polygamy along with a host of other issues. I remember when my mother went to Catholic school as a little girl. During those days, it was completely acceptable to slap a child on his or her hand with a ruler to make a point. I’ve also heard stories about nuns and priests slamming books on the heads of children as well as caning them. Apparently, corporal punishment was moral to the Catholic Church. I can’t be certain of all public school systems across the U.S., but I’m willing to wager that this type of punishment is unavailable to any teacher whom may want to inflict it upon a child. I’m also willing to say that even Catholic schools today don’t partake in this type of activity. So descriptive relativism says that while one group may find a type of activity completely acceptable, another may not. It also says that while one group may find a certain type of activity acceptable at one point in time, their views on this type of morality may evolve through the years. I bet I can find priests and nuns today who look back on the behavior of those before them and find it abhorrent. These examples can go on and on and are in no way limited to religion. I merely wrote about something I knew of.

Subscribers of descriptive relativism accept that morality or the rules of conduct are flexible across different societies and cultures. And by being okay with this type of flexibility, they become even more steadfast in their views against moral objectivity. We can see this in everyday society across the United States and around the world. I’ve seen plenty of examples of those who much prefer to adhere to a stricter, more universal, set of rules while others are completely fine with rules changing or morphing from one tribe to another. I’m not exactly sure where these views stem from, whether it be genetic (natural predisposition), from how someone was raised through the years, or from what they pick up throughout life. I can tell you that I’ve seen people from my own life change their views on this type of morality from era to era. Also, they change these types of views based on what’s going on in the world politically.

Do you know anyone personally who subscribes to descriptive relativism? How about moral objectivity? A great example of descriptive relativism would be some feminists fighting for woman’s justice in the United States while completely ignoring the injustices of the same group overseas. That’s classic. Well, it is if the local feminists claim that women’s rights should be infringed upon overseas if those cultures deem it appropriate to do so. If they haven’t made that claim and they do think that women have universal rights across all lands, but just haven’t gotten around to voicing these opinions, these feminists would be considered moral objectivists. In this case, anyway.

But my question remains; do you know any descriptive relativists? Or moral objectivists? If so, please explain how so below. I’d be curious to read about these people and how they think.

What is Metaethical Relativism?

On the surface, descriptive relativism and metaethical relativism may seem very similar. But when you look under the hood a bit, the differences become stark. While the descriptive version accounts for moral variations among different cultures and societies, the metaethical version looks deeper into an individual’s or group’s psyche.

Descriptive moral relativism is one where morality can vary widely and can change dramatically from culture to culture and even, dare I say, time to time.

If you look at the above statement, you’ll notice that it sort of just…is. Yes, sure, because groups and cultures are different and require a variety of needs and ways of living, then yes, their moral centers can differ from one another. That’s nice, but there’s nothing concrete about it. It seems like it’s a mere observation that we’re asked to live with. We either accept it or reject it. In another post, the author laid out and argument for why someone might want to adhere to descriptive relativism or moral objectivity. With moral objectivity, there can be moral truths among earth – things that are always moral or always immoral, which is at odds with the former.

I think one of the primary facts that we must admit is that different groups around the planet will always live different lives. No two will be the same – ever. And because of this, there can be no standard of morality between or among groups. Sure, there can be general norms that can be agreed upon as we grow closer to one another as a species, but as far as tradition, religion, funerals, family structure, foods we eat, and so forth, go, complete commonality can never completely exist. We’ll never be a homogeneous people. And not only can we never be completely homogeneous, we’ll actually stay radically different. Culture, in cases like these, takes precedence.

Metaethical relativism touches upon both moral objectivity as well as descriptive relativism. Basically, it says this: Yes, there can be different versions of morality that are based on the wants, needs, and differences among cultures, while simultaneously, there can be moral truths, but only among those groups. So while morality can be flexible depending on where you are or who you’re with, it can also be constant, depending on where you are or who you’re with. The moral truth we speak of is therefore relative to the specific groups or cultures themselves. This type of relativism also claims that while moral truths can exist, they can only do so within that specific group. As if it belongs to the group.

It all depends on how the people within a group think. The word relative is a slippery one. It can actually allow people to get away with a lot. If one culture or religion says that it’s imperative to work every single day of the year and claims that it’s moral to do so because of so and so, another group can claim that work free holidays are required for similar reasons. And guess what – the second group is just as justified for making that claim as the first one is, simply because the inhabitants of that group deem it so. Again, the morality of a group is dependent on the viewpoints of the people within it.

I can fathom how this type of difference in morality can infuriate certain types of people. For instance, in Canada, there are massive seal hunts that kill thousands and thousands of seals. I’m sure animal rights activists would love to end this practice. As they would love to end the entire fur trade as well. A trade that furriers likely have no problem with. I’m also sure that animal rights activists believe there is a moral truth in that whales and dolphins shouldn’t be slaughtered in Asia (or anywhere for that matter), while many in Asia don’t see a problem with the practice at all. With metaethical relativism, each of these practices, even those who are resistant to them, are moral, as long as the group agrees they are. In a nutshell, morality is relative.

How do you feel about metaethical relativism? Do you believe that morality can be so fluid or is it much more rigid, as the moral objectivists claim? Personally, I tend to think that morality tends to be more fixed. I just don’t think we are able to apply the words moral or immoral to as many activities as consistently as we’d like. And therein lies the debate, I suppose. Let me know what you think.

Problems with Moral Diversity

Have you ever noticed how much cultures around the world disagree on basic moral principles? Sure, there are some nations, such as the United States and Canada, that agree on a good majority of areas, but there are also many nations or cultures that seem to be miles apart. I’m sure you can just imagine how different, say, many western nations and some middle eastern nations are. If you stop to think about just one topic, things may become more clear. Let’s talk about birth control for a moment to shed some light on this subject.

It’s fair to say that most forms of birth control are legal in most western nations. Western nations are fairly liberal when it comes to controlling the births rate of its citizens. I think it’s also fair to say that the whole area of birth control is viewed much more conservatively in some middle eastern nations. And in some places, it may even be illegal. Or at least frowned upon by groups within populations. If you were to ask citizens of western nations whether or not they think birth control is moral, they’d likely say yes, it is. If you were to ask citizens of some middle eastern counties the same thing, they’d likely say no, it isn’t moral. So right there, we’ve got an example of moral relativism. Some cultures say that something is moral and some say that it isn’t. The question is, what’s driving these views? What is it that each of these people within these cultures have been told that has led them to believe that something is moral or not? I don’t think it’s good enough to say that cultures differ when it comes to morality. I’d like to know why that’s the case. I just can’t accept that something “just is.”

When attempting to determine why one culture believes that an activity is moral while another doesn’t, it’s important to discover how much each culture is aware of. What if the one culture that has a more liberal view on an activity has a lot more information to go by while the other culture is closed off to the rest of the world? What if this extra information is critical to how a specific activity is viewed? What if, when a culture receives new information, they’d change their views on the morality of an activity immediately? Does that previous moral truth stand? Was it ever truly a moral truth if it could fall so easily?

Let’s go back to the birth control example again. What if a heavily religious group deems all forms of birth control evil and immoral, from contraception to abortion and everything in between? They say that the most sacred thing on the entire planet is human life and nothing anyone can ever say will change their minds. If you were an outsider looking in, you’d think that this group was very steadfast in their believes. You’d also think they’d never sway from their opinions. Now let’s say that a different group, a group of scientists, embrace contraception, abortion, and everything in between, within reason and the realm of decency. The goal of this group is to keep tabs on human population so it doesn’t grow out of control and become a detriment to all of civilization. What if the first group was completely closed off to the rest of the world and their population was unknowingly (to them) growing out of control? What if the second group had tons of data, graphs, and charts that showed that in just one year’s time, the lands of the first group would be overrun by humans. Food would quickly run out. Available drinking water would run dry. Disease would run rampant and the majority of those who are living in these lands would perish within a few month’s time. If the first group was shown this information, do you think they may discover some newfound “morality” in allowing the introduction of a few different types of birth control? Perhaps.

Now let’s reverse the scenario. Say the first group had the information, data, charts, etc…and the second group of scientists didn’t. The first group knew that the human population was declining to such a degree that all humans on earth would be gone in one year. That’s the reason they’re so steadfast against birth control. Since the group of scientists didn’t know any of this, they’d likely change their views on morality when they discover the impending doom. It’s remarkable how one’s view on morality can change when actions are based on necessity. It’s also remarkable how quickly one group can come to understand the thinking of another as they learn the justifications and reasoning behind certain actions.

The point is, resistance to relative morality can be somewhat explained away by information groups and cultures have on one another. While one culture’s activity or moral viewpoint can be seen as strange, backward, or even barbaric to some, it oftentimes makes much more sense once outside groups learn the reasoning for it. Just because it’s different doesn’t make it wrong. And just because it may not be the way one culture may handle something doesn’t make it invalid or any less moral for another.

Let’s take a look at a two-part argument of a moral relativist against objective morality. First, the moral relativist claims that if there was only moral objectivity, moral diversity wouldn’t exist. And second, the moral relativist argues that since moral diversity does exist, moral objectivity must not. It’s sort of circular.

Just because there’s a diversity of opinion when it comes to morality, it doesn’t mean that every version of morality it right and just, no matter the reasoning given or the views of the cultures involved. As my examples above go to show, many cultures simply don’t have enough information to make intelligent decisions. Certain groups may be basing their moral viewpoints on the information they’ve got, which doesn’t necessarily make them right or “moral.” If anything, it makes these moral justifications expedient. If ten cultures each hold different sets of morality and each is deemed a version of objective morality by a moral relativist, something’s got to give. Someone’s got to be wrong. Everything can’t be moral. Moral truth has got to be somewhere.

Steven Pinker on Moralistic Solutions

I saw a fascinating video a few days ago. I’ve been researching moral relativism and came across a video on YouTube by Steven Pinker. Basically, the crux of it went like this: Steven claims that not all issues we face need solutions that are based in morality. If you aren’t up to snuff on moral relativism and objective morality (realism vs anti-realism), you can check out the post above. It’s pretty good at explaining things.

Anyway, we as humans oftentimes turn to moral solutions when faced with a problem. An example of this might be something like, as Steven says, a doctor making a mistake which costs a patient his or her life. The reaction by the hospital or even government might include punishment of the doctor or hospital as a whole. The goal of the punishment would be to curb any of these types of mistakes in the future. If the enforcers make it too risky or expensive to make mistakes like the one the doctor made, then those things simply won’t happen. Doctors will remember to be more careful and so on. It can be argued that the goals of the hospital (or government) are completely moralistic in that they are trying to save as many lives as possible and by inflicting punishment on those doctors who make mistakes, they’re acting in a morally superior way.

We can’t argue against the value of moralistic solutions in society. They do work and they’re effectiveness has been proven time and time again. Citizens of countries all over the world are jailed because of their bad behavior, children are punished, girlfriends and boyfriends are broken up with. These are all moralistic solutions to issues people and societies face. They’re fallible though. We know this all too well. And the way we know this is that while, yes, we as a species have gotten more advanced, careful, and generally better through the years, we have a tendency to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. There’s always someone new who doesn’t have the same knowledge as the last guy and who will repeat a mistake that someone else just learned to avoid. That’s just the way it is.

In the video, Steven discusses how more improvements have come about via technological advances or advances in processes rather than moralistic approaches. If we go back to the doctor making a mistake in a hospital example again, perhaps a change in process would help more than simply punishing the doctor. Create a checklist the doctors need to adhere to or, as Steven says, create devices that will only fit together in certain ways, eliminating error altogether. Advances such as these take away the need to punish folks who make mistakes.

It’s sort of like taking dangerous people out of the general population and storing them away in jail cells. Instead of leaving them out to mingle with the rest of us and to get in more trouble, eliminate all prospects of finding that trouble in the first place. This has worked for a good long time.

How Large Does a Relativistic Culture Need to Be?

By now, you should be an expert on descriptive, metaethical, and normative relativism. Each of these theories basically states that moral standards are relative to one another, culture by culture. These claims are offered in varying degrees, but the essence of relativism in general is that morality is based under certain circumstance. If an activity is deemed moral in one culture, it may not be in another. Whether you agree with that depends on which type of relativist you are. Descriptive is the least convinced while normative claims that not only are there varying versions of morality around the world, but no one on the “outside” should ever question or intervene in someone else’s version of it. Cultural and moralistic norms can swing wildly based on location, belief system, and tradition.

What is Normative Relativism?

While descriptive relativism and metaethical relativism are fun to talk about, normative relativism takes the cake. Descriptive relativism states that views on morality can differ from location to location and between cultures and metaethical relativism states that there should be different views on morality between groups and not only that, there can also be moral truths among groups, depending on how they view their situations and the world at large. It’s sort of like a staircase. Descriptive is the bottom step and metaethical is the middle step. Normative is the top step and it is so because it states this:

Not only are there moral differences between groups and not only should there be, along with a variety of moral truths, no one group should ever critique another based on their version of morality. And furthermore, no group should ever interfere with another group’s intent to live in their society and carry out their specific code of conduct.

If you were a normative relativist, you would argue that there is no central pillar of morality on which we can rely, therefore, one group has no jurisdiction over another in terms of morality. Just because morality might have been considered and determined to be the best in your culture, because there’s no concrete moral standard set across the globe, you must face the fact that your culture may be acting with its own best interests in mind and those fair and just interests may not apply well to others. And because they might not, you have no right to interfere with what others have determined to be moral and just. No one set of morals is better or worse than any other.

Now this is where things get confusing. It’s sort of a brain twister. Think about this: You live in the United States of America and have decided that you are a normative relativist. You’re fairly idealistic, so it’s not a huge leap for you to think this way. You say, “Here in the U.S., our morals are no better than anyone else’s. We as a nation have no right to interfere with the goings ons of another nation. I do declare, so on and so forth.” You feel great about this statement and you hold your head high. You also say, “I believe that our nation is a nation of normative relativists and we all believe that no nation’s set of moral standards are any better or worse than any other nation’s. We have a duty to respect how other nations choose to run their affairs. We should not condemn any other nation and we shouldn’t feel as though we are a nation of superior morality. So there.”

Now here’s the tricky part. Just because you have declared the U.S. to be a normatively relativist nation, this doesn’t mean that every other nation on earth need believe the same thing. Other more conservative nations and cultures may feel as though they align with a much more strict objective morality. They claim that there truly is only one set of moral rules (theirs) and the entire world should follow them. Understandably, this might upset you. You certainly don’t want to fall under another culture’s moral code, especially if it’s wildly different than your own. So you stand up and declare even louder than you did last, “No nation can impose their version of morality on another and that’s the last I’ll say about it!” The thing is, by standing up and loudly making that declaration, you’ve essentially imposed your moral beliefs on all other nations around the world. You happen to be a normative relativist and you consequently claim that all nations on earth should be normative relativists as well. Doesn’t this sound like a moral truth? A universal value? What if those in other nations don’t believe the way you believe? What if they are religious and they view their morality as the only just one – one they’d love to impose on you? And because you’re not religious and you don’t want to have anyone else’s morality imposed on you, you fight for a more relativistic approach. Whether or not you know it, by fighting for this alleged freedom of morality, you’re actually attempting to impose your version of it on others. And when someone does this, it becomes clear that they’re criticizing other cultures and beliefs. And when someone believes in a universal way of thinking about morality or a universal moral truth, they’re considered what’s known as a moral objectivist or a moral realist. Funny how these things are so circular, isn’t it? When a moral relativist fights for a specific form of morality and attempts to apply this principle to all other cultures, they are, in fact, engaging in the same type of moral objectivism that they so adamantly deny.

Are Some Actions Just Plain Wrong?

Have you ever heard of something called reductio ad absurdum? If you haven’t, this is what it means:

Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. It is a style of reasoning that has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy from classical antiquity onwards. (EIP)

If you can’t parse out the meaning from what I shared above, I’ll try to explain it in easier terms. Basically, if you make a statement that you’re attempting to pass off as the truth, a tactic you can use to persuade is to show the absurdity of denying your claim. Here are two examples from Wikipedia:

1. The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.

2. There is no smallest positive rational number because, if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.

Mind you, there are many examples for these types of statements. These two are just rather good ones. And as you can see, whoever made them up has demonstrated the absurdity of rejecting the initial claim. If the world was flat, yes, we’d have some serious problems. And if there was ever a “smallest” number, then why not simply divide that in half? You can divide everything in half, right? The fact that the response was sufficiently absurd or ridiculous makes the entire statement a reductio ad absurdum. In my opinion, this is an excellent form of argument. One that’s tough to counter. And if the argument is made thoroughly enough, the counter has been justified as false. That’s the beauty of it.

Here’s another great example:

You are in trouble for skipping school, but you tell your father, “All of my friends were going!”

He says, “Well, if all of your friends were going to jump off of a bridge, would you do that, too?”

In this example, the son made a claim and the father countered that his argument, if accepted, would lead to absurd consequences. Above, the son’s position wasn’t logical and the father merely pointed that out, thus proving the son’s argument to be false. Let’s say a mother and a son were to come across a flower garden that included a sign that said, “Please don’t pick the flowers.” What if the son said he wanted to pick just one flower. How should the mother respond to the son to show him that his position isn’t tenable? That’s right. She should say, “What if everyone picked just one flower? Soon there would be no more flowers.”

Philosophy is full of arguments such as this and many of its theories can be argued against quite effectively if thought is put into those arguments. In this post, I’d like to discuss some of the absurdities of moral relativism. If you read through the post above, you’ll see a few arguments already fleshed out. Pointing out that each culture can justifiably claim its own set of morality isn’t an easy position to defend. There’s always one horror or another to exploit to make the relativist look silly.

Before I go any further though, I’ll ask the question: Are some things just plain wrong across all cultures? I know some out there would say that each and every culture does things for its own reasons and we may not understand those reasons, therefore, we have no business interfering. But what if something was so outrageous that it simply wasn’t able to be defended? Would objective morality finally exist? What would it take to admit that something is objectively moral? I know some people have a tough time with this, but how about genocide? Is exterminating millions of people ever justified? What if a culture thought it was moral to, say, pull every last hair from a kitten’s body and then throw the kitten down a 1,000 foot well as some sort of sacrifice? I know this is an extreme example, but would something like that be justifiably moral a culture? And if so, would the rest of us have to look the other way? There are some pretty weird cultures out there that engage in some outrageous sacrifices. I’m willing to say that some of them are flat out wrong.

If you think about moral relativism for a moment, you’ll realize that it states that simply because some cultures engage in an obviously wrong activity, then that activity must be moral. As if the mere action has deemed it so. How about suttee? Is that ever right? I’m willing to say that the majority of the world today has agreed that suttee is morally wrong. Along with genocide, infanticide, and slavery. By definition, moral relativists must agree that cultures that engage in these types of activities are justified for doing so, strictly based on the fact that they’re a culture into themselves. And furthermore, because moral relativists deny objective morality in its entirety, there are no standards by which to hold any culture accountable anyway. They’ve sort of boxed themselves in. Although, I’m willing to wager that they’ve come up with some very creative arguments to support their positions. How about something like this:

“We needed to engage in genocide. There were too many people alive and those people were destroying the planet.”

It really depends on a particular group’s priorities and views on the world. They don’t feel that humans have the same value as other people might. And who’s to say they’re wrong? We thin populations of deer and do all we can to get rid of mice and rats. Just ask a farmer who has a rodent problem near his grain bins. He’ll tell you that he’d do practically anything to deal with the issue. Who’s to say that humans aren’t taking a similar toll on the world at large? And who’s to say that a human is more valuable than a mouse? We as humans do some pretty terrible things to rodents. Perhaps we shouldn’t take a holier than thou position when it comes to ourselves. I can imagine that being a relativist argument.

Throughout time, moral relativists have had difficulties maintaining their positions when it comes to arguments like these. And in doing so, they’ve made concessions. They’ve attempted to circumvent their stringent positions for the greater good. They’ve agreed that some actions are harmful to humanity as a whole and they’ve condemned those actions. The problem with this is that by agreeing that the greater good is a universal and moral cause, they’ve undermined their own relativistic position and have agreed that the greater good is a universal objective moralistic one. As you can see, they’ve shot themselves in the foot here. They essentially agreed that some moral positions are better or more just than others. They’ve acknowledged that there are at least a few universal standards by which we should live and in doing so, have led themselves down the path or objectivity, rather than relativity.

Is Moral Relativism Another Name for Tolerance?

The more I read about moral relativism, the more I have issues with it. I have never been a huge fan of people who think that just because someone isn’t just like you and me, that makes them automatically “right.” There are actually people like this. They’re usually very liberal in their way of thinking and no matter what someone else does, these liberals begin preaching about how we should understand other cultures and accept people for who they are. My question is, what if these people are wrong? What if they’re oppressive cultures? What if these people are abusive to the elderly? Men? Women? Children? What if they indoctrinate their young? What if they’re slave drivers? Are all of these people morally justified in their actions? Just because they’re not American and we don’t fully understand their cultures, does that mean we need to bow down to them and accept anything and everything they do? I’m not too sure about that. There are plenty of horrible people and just as horrible cultures on this earth outside of the United States that should be dealt with. How? Well, that’s a topic for another conversation.

I think moral relativism is just another name for tolerance. Sure, we should all be tolerant of things we don’t understand. I would suggest everyone give the benefit of the doubt during the stage of ignorance. But if we come to learn that there’s a thriving slave trade in Libya or other parts of Africa, then we ought to do something about that. Just because certain groups in Libya have deemed it acceptable to enslave others doesn’t make it moral. Apparently, to the normative relativists out there, we shouldn’t do anything and we should simply look the other way. No, actually, we should think they are correct for doing what they do.

Let me ask you something. If normative relativists are so against infringing on another culture’s moral outlook, why do they insist upon promoting there relativism wherever they go? And if their relativism is just another name for their tolerance, isn’t the fact that they insist on tolerance for all a universal value? Isn’t this the very thing they stand against? So how can they promote the idea of having a universal value (tolerance) and actual tolerance (relativism) simultaneously? What if one of these cultures they’re so tolerant of decides against tolerance? Will they still be tolerant of them? Or will they force their tolerance upon them? Now that wouldn’t be very tolerant, would it?

I’m not sure it’s within the human psyche to be completely tolerant of others. While I think it may be a noble goal at times, it certainly isn’t an admirable quality to possess all the time. While tolerance should be taught (along with skepticism) and may be appropriate on some occasions and under some circumstances, I think intolerance and even outrage is completely acceptable as well. When someone stands in the face of evil, that’s no time to be tolerant or relativistic in their moral approach.

Moral Relativism Doesn’t Allow for Improvement

The question is, does relativism support moral improvement? If the moral standards of one culture are just as good and right as another culture’s, then how do we know what’s actually moral in reality? Let’s say that one nation supports the beating of wives who are unfaithful. Is another nation supposed to accept that behavior as moral and not question it at all? What if the first nation has supported the beating of unfaithful women for thousands of years? According to the moral relativist, this behavior and support was moral when it first began and is still moral today, no matter what else has transpired in the meantime. To the normative moral relativist, that nation’s moral standing is just as correct as anyone else’s.

Is there a moral standard that we all wish to achieve? If so, how does a nation that beats women ever achieve that standard if one action is just as moral as another? If there’s never any improvement. To relativists, there seems to be a constant and persistent level of morality among all nations, cultures, and groups. So if one day the nation claimed that they will stop beating unfaithful women, how does anyone know if that’s a good move or not? If all actions are seen in the same moral light, it would be fairly difficult to follow the chain of moral improvement. And why would they ever want to change if what they are currently doing is seen as good and just?

Decades ago, slavery was abolished in the United States. Why did this happen? Well, to some, the alternative of slavery was more moral than the slavery itself. If relative morality existed in its purest form, how would one tell the difference, morality-wise? To the relativist, both are equally moral, good, and just. You see, change is different than improvement. Change is simply an alternative from one to another. Improvement implies that one is better than another. When it comes to relativism, there are no objective standards by which to apply any activity, so all that’s available is change. To the objectivist, there are moral standards, so it’s fairly simply to say that one action is more moral than another. To the objectivist, certain actions can be objectively better or worse than others.

Let me ask you a question. What did Martin Luther King Jr. fight for? Did he fight for change? Or did he fight for improvement? If he only fought for change, that means he didn’t see anything morally deficient about the current situation in which he was fighting. There was nothing immoral about racism and inequality. He merely wanted to experience something else. If he fought for improvement though, that means he recognized a future that was objectively better than his present. And if the second option was the case, it means that he experienced a standard of objective morality.

Blind Tolerance is Immoral

How do you feel about tolerance? Do you feel that we should be a largely tolerant people? What does tolerance mean, anyway? Does it have anything to do with the word “tolerate?” Like, “Yes, I’ll tolerate my neighbor’s dog barking all night long.” So if you allow your neighbor’s dog to bark all night long without saying anything about it, you are a tolerant person. And this is a virtue?

If you were to ask 100 high school seniors and college freshmen whether we should be a tolerant people or not, I’m willing to say that nine out of 10 would say yes, we should be. I don’t blame them for that response because we’ve been taught to be tolerant our entire lives. But why is it that we always need to be tolerant of those who are behaving badly? Or more badly than we are? Why is it that we always need to be tolerant of those who are misbehaving or who are violating people’s rights? Let me ask you a few questions:

– Should the United States have been tolerant of Hitler?
– Should you be tolerant of your son as he throws rocks through your neighbor’s windows?
– Should you be tolerant of your girlfriend as she cheats on you?
– Should you be tolerant as you listen to your neighbor beat his wife?

So much of what we learn about tolerance has little to do with reality. I think what our teachers are referring to when they use the word “tolerant” is for us to avoid pointing and staring when we see someone of another culture wearing different types of clothing. Or speaking what seems like a funny language. Yes, of course, we should be tolerant of other cultures when it comes to things like these. I’m not even sure that tolerance is the correct word to use here because it’s not like we need to tolerate these people in their different clothes and funny language. We can simply ignore them. It’s not like there’s any action on our part to take. But I digress.

If one nation tolerates the misbehavior of another nation, how does that other nation ever progress in the moral sphere? There have been plenty of nations throughout history that have done terrible things to their own people and people around them. And besides, in many instances, what’s considered a “nation” is oftentimes just a small group of thugs who have taken over the show. It’s not even the “nation” that’s making the rules. It’s the thugs. Should a neighboring nation tolerate the actions of the thugs? And if so, will the thugs ever become more moral if no one calls them out? In my opinion, I think they’ll just get worse and the problem will spread.

Tolerance is about humility. It’s about allowing for the possibility you’re wrong. It’s about considering the fact that someone else may be doing things a better way or that they’ve got different, but just as valid, ways of doing things. It’s about understanding actions from different angles. It’s not about allowing a culture to engage in slavery, the oppression of minorities, and the oppression of women. That’s not tolerance at all. That’s called weakness.

There’s this thing out there called moral relativism. It basically says that groups and cultures different than our own are just as right as we are for what they do. By varying degrees, it says that if a nation engages in slavery, then it must be moral. If a nation engages in genocide, then it must be moral. Just by the mere fact that a nation engages in something, it must be right, moral, and just. And by some standards, we shouldn’t even question it in any way. So yes, to moral relativists, if a small group of thugs somehow overthrew a legitimate government and began a genocidal campaign, everyone else on the planet should look the other way. That makes total sense. Right.

Did you know that only 27% of professional philosophers subscribe to moral relativism? And only a fraction of them subscribe to relativism about ethics? Anti-realism clashes with reality so frequently that I’m surprised anyone wants anything to do with it. It sure must be tough to defend a philosophy like that. These people must be fighting all the time. It’s almost like they’re in denial or are delusional somehow. Think about slavery. Think about the Holocaust. Think about someone telling you that 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4 in another country, just because they say it doesn’t. It’s enough to drive you nuts.

Ethics & Religion: An Introduction

The many issues with moral relativism have already been discussed above. There really is no shortage of questions and concerns when it comes to this type of thinking. While on one hand I can understand some of its foundation, on the other hand, so much of it makes no sense. Moral relativism is a valid theory and certainly one worth discussion, but I just don’t think it holds water 100% of the time. But then again, neither does anything else.

You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Wouldn’t it be so much easier if we all could stop thinking about these issues for a little while and just come to accept a “book of laws” or something like that? If we all did that, we would know the rules of what makes each of us moral and what doesn’t. We could identify moral communities and cultures, cities and nations. It would reduce so much stress in the world if we were simply told what to do. Wouldn’t that be better than what we have now? Too many cooks in the kitchen if you ask me.

If you don’t subscribe to moral relativism or subjectivism, perhaps you’d be more interested in religious views on morality. Religion offers answers to many of our questions and gives us a straightforward objective view of what morality is, what’s moral, and what’s not. Religion bases its teachings on God himself and proclaims with confidence our moral rights and obligations. It’s moral objectivism at its finest. And when someone asks you why you do certain things or behave a certain way, you’ll have an answer to give them. There can be no dispute. But beware, moral objectivism based on religion does face some serious challenges, so that will need to be explored as well.

In future posts, I’ll be studying and relaying what I learn about two different types of religious based morality; Divine Command and Natural Law. I’ll be delving into three different Abrahamic religions; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All three of these religions view God as all powerful and God’s word as unquestionable. All things on earth have been created by God and the future of earth’s existence relies on God’s mercy. Through these religions, we have learned that God has already given us rules by which to live. These rules can be referred to as Commandments or the Five Pillars. Each religion views them somewhat differently, but the intent is the same. They’re meant to guide us morally.

As children, many of us first learned about what’s right and what’s wrong through our church, synagogue, temple, or mosque. We were given information about how to treat people, what to strive for, and what types of activities and behaviors to avoid. It’s quite common for children around to world to get their first taste of morality this way. Even as adults, when an individual faces some sort of moral conundrum, they ask their spiritual leader for some sort of guidance. This personal guidance spills over into everyday society as well. As you’re most likely aware, we’ve been fighting over moral issues for decades. Issues such as abortion, gay rights, the right to die, and the death penalty. The fact of the matter is, religion plays a large role in guiding the individual as well as society as a whole on a moral path. But even as large as this role is, it’s not infallible. Pure philosophy can aid religion in clarifying some of the more difficult and stubborn issues.

Again, I’ve got a lot or reading to do that concerns religious morality. I’ll be discussing the pros and cons of each type and will touch upon how religion can be useful when someone is attempting to live a more moral life.

What’s the Goal for Humanity?

Last night, I got to thinking about how nice it would be if we as humans stopped fighting with one another. I though that one way to do this would be to develop a common goal we could all work towards. Something larger and greater than any one of us. Even larger than our largest group to date. And no, I’m not talking about ridiculous little goals that fizzle out an about a half second. Silly goals like ending hunger. I’ve thought about this one quite a bit and I concluded that the moment you end hunger, about a half hour later, everyone is hungry again. Anyway, what I’m talking about here is a large goal for all of humanity. Something that matters.

After I thought about this, I figured that humanity probably already has a goal. Or should I say mission statement. I mean, this planet is filled with brilliant people, right? They must have gotten together at some point to think of our reason for being? What’s our purpose? Where do we wish to go? In one thousand years, how do we see ourselves? Two thousand years? Are we still inhabiting our planet or have we engaged in interstellar travel? Have we colonized other planets or moons? Have we traveled in time? Is all of humanity’s collective consciousness held in hyperspace, as it is in The Last Question by Isaac Asimov?

There’s got to be some direction here on earth. I just can’t imagine that we’ll be doing the same old thing hundreds of years from now as we are today. Arguing about politics? Really? Is that it? Half of us stupid and the other half smart? Arguing about school taxes? It can’t stay this way. It simply can’t. Not for all of eternity.

I’ll first propose my own mission statement for humanity and then I’ll list some ideas that I found across the internet. While mine may seem far fetched, I think it’s grand and exciting. It certainly is better than some that I’ve found. Oh you’ll see.

My mission statement for humanity: To become God. To research and build artificial intelligence to such a degree that the essence and collective consciousness of humanity is able to be everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. To understand every aspect of space and time and to harness all of that power not for good or evil, but for understanding.

There. That’s it. Here are some other ideas I found. If you’ve got a good mission statement for humanity, please share below.

1. As humans, I believe our goal should be to sympathize and empathize with other humans who are in worse condition than we are. For some people, the ultimate goal of humanity is a simple and satisfying existence. For other people, it’s to become as rich as possible. Other are simply happy to be alive and living each day. These goals aren’t collective though. It’s my firm belief that we as a species should ease the suffering of those around us.

2. In my view, we as humans are just another form of life found here on earth. We don’t differ tremendously from all others in that we seek to survive, master our environment, and conquer new ones. We adapt to changes and take advantage of them. We simply exist.

3. We’re all working for the same thing. It’s got to be the next frontier which is space. If we are to conquer our environment, let’s not forget that space and the universe is also our environment. Therefore, our ultimate goal is to explore the stars and survive.

4. The only goal the human race has ever had has been simple survival.

5. Humanity has no goal. We’re really only meant to reproduce. Perhaps the goal of the universe doesn’t lie with us and we’re merely a tool. Nature and evolution aren’t concerned with our future goals.

6. In my opinion, the goal for humanity should be beauty. I’m not referring to beauty as in what looks good or what has a nice appearance, but more of a beauty that lies within. Beauty that you feel more than you see. Peace and harmony.

7. Our goal as humans should be to spread life across the universe.

8. Maximum pleasure for us here on earth.

9. Since humans are animals (very evolved animals), our most basic instinct as well goal is to reproduce and keep the species alive.

10. The only goal I can think of for all of humanity would be for it to have a perfectly leisurely life. To live doing only what you want to be doing and nothing else. And once we as individuals achieve this goal, we can do as wish as individuals as opposed to a collective.

If we can’t agree on an ultimate goal for the human species as a whole, perhaps we can come up with some progress goals along the way. Things such as, we want to colonize the moon by 2040. and maybe after that, have the first person step on Mars by 2050. If we keep things incremental, I think we’ll be closer to developing an eventual coherent mission statement.

What do you think of this? What’s your take on it? Do you think we should reach for the stars or simply stay put right here on earth? I’d love to know.

Morality & the Divine Command Theory

The Divine Command Theory of Morality is actually very simple to understand. There’s not a lot to it, so there’s little room for confusion. Basically, it states that our own morality is tethered to the words and commands of God himself. If goes something like this: If God says that so-and-so is moral, then it is. If God says that so-and-so is immoral, then it is. In other words, if something is forbidden by God, then it is. See? I told you it was straightforward. Under this theory, if you’d like to live a moral life, all you need to do is follow the commandments of God.

What’s interesting about this theory (otherwise known as the DCT) is that it states that the commands of God are the actual source of morality. So if you believe in God and if you believe that God does exist, then you have your source for morality. There is no other. If God say that doing such and such is wrong, then it’s wrong. If an activity isn’t mentioned in the commandments of God, then it’s allowed. It’s a very straightforward thing.

For some folks, the DCT solves a whole host of issues. If you’ve read the other posts in this forum that have to to with relativism and morality, you know what kinds of challenges those views can present. It’s actually never ending, if you think about it. When it comes to relativism, there really is no moral grounding. No objective moral views. Pretty much anyone can do anything if it fits their purposes. All they need to say is that whatever they do is part of their culture and they get a green light to go ahead. When it comes to the DCT, all of those problems go away. If God says that murder is wrong, then it is. Period. There’s no wiggle room with that. And along those lines, the theory claims that God’s morality overrides other versions of morality. If someone claims that they can take action that violates God’s commandments due to some reason that makes perfect sense, it’s still wrong and immoral, according to this theory. Even if someone is suffering immeasurably, it’s wrong to put them out of their misery. Even if not committing adultery is causing great pain somehow, it’s still wrong to become an adulterer. And on top of all this, this theory states that if you break away from these commandments and violate their imperatives, you’ll be punished by the almighty. Now there’s some motivation for you if there was none before.

The only problem with this line of thinking is that in order for this theory to be followed and its commands obeyed, the person involved much believe that God actually exists. If not, then there really is no moral code to follow.

The DCT is very much a top down kind of thing. It emphasizes obedience or submission to God and to those who represent God. When compared to other types of moral frameworks, ones that allow for personal interpretation of what’s wrong and what’s right, this theory bypasses that type of thinking completely. The only time an individual would use their own cognition is when attempting to determine if an action is contained within the scope of God’s commandments, not when attempting to determine whether something is right or wrong. Overall, the primary concern for those who live under this type of structure is how best to follow God’s commands. To some, this is a somewhat effortless way to live, as it removes much of the ambiguity that’s inherently involved with striving to live a moral life and attempting to determine who’s moral, who’s not, and what morality means. The DCT removes the moral responsibility placed on the individual and transfers it to a higher power that needs to be obeyed. I’m sure you can think of some religions that follow this type of thinking.

By this point, you may be wondering who or what type of people subscribe to something like the Devine Command Theory. Well, that would be those who first think that God exists. Next, they believe that God created the universe, which houses the world. And finally, they believe that within the world, God created all that is moral and that is not. After all, if God is the all powerful and all knowing, then God has determined that some actions are inherently wrong and some are inherently right. While this seems simple enough, some problems do lie with this type of thinking.

The first problem we see has to do with trying to determine what God has actually commanded. As you’re probably aware, there are many religions that exist in the world and many of them claim that their God is the only one that truly exists. Furthermore, their followers claim that their interpretation of God’s commandments are the “correct” ones to follow and to live by. Claims like this from followers of one religion may come as a shock to those who follow another. The same is true for those who follow no religion. How can this be rectified or reconciled? That’s not known. Also, this theory relies on the fact that we as humans are actually interpreting the words of scripture correctly? What if we’re not? What if we’re way off?

Next, we’ve got the problem of timing. God’s commandments arrived thousands of years ago. They didn’t really cover cyber crime, nuclear warheads, or the internet. While there are those who say that God’s commandments cover all of this and that we just need to study more to understand and apply the principles to today’s world, that leaves things up to our interpretation again. How do we know we’re interpreting things correctly?

And finally, some of God’s commandments have the potential to conflict with one another. What if by doing one thing according to God’s will, you’re simultaneously violating God’s will? What if you’re honoring your father and mother, but they’re accused of a crime? Should you bear false witness? It gets tricky. Over time, many religious scholars have addressed these types of issues and have offered responses that make a lot of sense, but what’s most concerning to people is that many of the responses aren’t scalable, meaning, they can’t be logically applied to all cases. They’re more of a case by case thing. In turn, much of the DCT’s simplicity has been lost through the years, making is less attractive to those who seek objective morality.

The greatest challenge the Divine Command Theory faces has to do with something Plato apty named the Euthyphro dilemma. Basically, this dilemma asks whether God approves of an action because it is inherently moral or whether the action is moral because God deems it so. For instance, should someone not covet their neighbor’s wife because it’s immoral or is it immoral because God says so?

Now here’s where things get really tricky. Let’s say that God made up the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal” because stealing is wrong and immoral, meaning that God is what’s referred to as a consequentialist. As a consequentialist, God understands the bad consequences that may arise out of stealing someone else’s property. If God can understand and foresee those bad results because they actually exist, that means that we as humans can foresee them too. After all, we all agree that the consequences of stealing are oftentimes negative. We don’t need God to tell us this, which creates a problem unto itself. We don’t need to read or interpret one of God’s commandments to figure this out, which leads to the conclusion that we as humans don’t even need to know of the existence of God to have an understanding of what’s right or wrong or what’s moral or not. So logically thinking, God’s commandments are redundant because of the fact that we as humans can figure out morality without him. Sure, the commandments unto themselves may be a nice clean list of things we should or shouldn’t do, but our morality doesn’t rely on them. If this is the case, we can determine that morality itself is logically independent of God.

If this is the case, we must assume that God has a much better reason for telling us not to steal than relying on earthly morality itself. After all, God is the all knowing, so he must know more and can see with much more clarity than we mere humans can. As humans, we oftentimes don’t use our best judgement, live in the now, are are very interested in only ourselves. If God can see all and know all, then he must have given the commandments with the ultimate vision, meaning that God understands ultimate reason and ultimate morality. God has a source of moral knowledge we may not even know about – this is known as God’s (or Divine) providence.

Conversely, if we consider the fact that something is immoral specifically because God forbids it and that his reasons have nothing to do with morality, then we must assume that God’s commandments are arbitrary, which doesn’t really explain anything either. If God forbids stealing, he may be doing so for his own reasons. And if those reasons aren’t tethered to morality as we understand it, God may one day allow stealing again. As strange as this sounds, it tends to suggest that God’s reasons for commanding certain actions and our understanding of those reasons aren’t connected at all.

As you can see, there are a few fundamental issues surrounding the Divine Command Theory. The first has to do with God basing his commands off of what we already know as moral, thereby eliminating the need for his commandments altogether and the second has to do with God arbitrarily issuing commandments based on things we can’t understand. Neither sit well with us, which is why certain figures in history have attempted to offer explanations. Two such figures are Christian philosopher William Lane Craig as well as Robert Adams, both of whom I’ll discuss in later posts.

What are your feelings on Divine Command Theory? Do you feel as though it has its place? Do you follow such a theory in your everyday living? Do you subscribe to a religion that’s based on something like this?

Can Religion by Itself be Moral?

Here’s a question for you. Can religion by itself be moral? Or put a better way, can a person being only religious without any other input be a moral person? Can the mere fact of following a religion create some sort of morality? I say no, it can’t. I don’t think there’s a correlation between religion and morality. I think adhering to religious virtues and law can inspire moral acts, but those acts are a far cry from true morality itself. I’ll explain what I mean down below.

Here are a few apparent truths. Some people believe in God. Or Gods. Or their God. Some people also believe that God has handed down a number of rules that we should follow. These rules have been coined our moral obligations. In theory, these moral obligations are basically edicts that are said to lead us to live more moral lives. Now here’s the thing, there’s a separation between God himself and the rules he has given the religious. By worshiping a God in and of itself, you aren’t necessarily a moral person. And by following his commands in and of themselves, you aren’t necessarily a moral person. These types of things have already been discussed in two different posts on this site above. So really, and this is sort of tough to explain, there’s a separation between our moral duties as individuals and our religious beliefs. After all, there have been plenty of examples of horrible people attending mass every Sunday and wonderful people never stepping foot in a church. But the question remains, can being religious and following scripture and all the commands contained in the Bible lead to a moral life? Truly moral? Let’s see.

Ask yourself this question; has anyone on this earth ever been scared of ending up in hell? If so, do you think that fear has perhaps curbed their actions? For example, let’s say that someone has been indoctrinated in the Catholic belief since birth and one day wanted to kill their neighbor for one reason or another. As they were plotting their act, they remembered that if followed through upon, they’ve be breaking a commandment and would be punished in the depths of hell for all of eternity upon their death. Because of this, they don’t commit the murder and they stay at home and watch Married with Children reruns instead. So while the Ten Commandments have proven to be a great deterrent in this person’s life and a powerful motivation for doing the right thing, they didn’t necessarily lead them to a virtuous act. The fact that the person was scared of eternal hellfire may have had more to do with their avoidance of following through with what they were planning. This leads me to the idea that in order for someone to be virtuous or moral, they need to be for the right reasons, not just because they fear the results or repercussions of their actions. If it were any other way, their seemingly moral act wouldn’t be moral at all.

It’s interesting though because while following the teachings of specific religions may not lead us to a more moral life or to a path of true morality, these religions do create an awareness of what’s right and wrong. And honestly, if someone doesn’t murder someone else simply because they learned that murder is wrong at church, I’m sure the person on the receiving end of that murder doesn’t really care where the person learned not to partake in that type of act. Just the fact that it wasn’t engaged in is good enough for them.

And beyond the “commandments” that are taught through the various religious teachings are many lessons of “goodness” as well. For example, a plethora of saints and prophets have taught about right and wrong. Followers have been advised to seek knowledge, appreciate diversity, develop compassion, and love thy neighbor. These types of lessons go hand in hand with what I just mentioned above; that the various popular religions on earth can create a worthwhile awareness of what we should and shouldn’t do.

Here’s a thought though; what about the religious institutions themselves? Can they be moral? Or perhaps institutions of morality? Think about how much these institutions do for humanity. The church I used to attend back in the town in which I grew up is constantly trying to help the homeless and feed the poor. They don’t ask for anything in return. Plenty of religious places of worship provide comfort and support for others. We oftentimes see the unlocked doors to a church passed through at night, just so someone has a safe place to sit and think. An endless number of charities have made incredible moral differences in the world. And so many of them teach that goodness, kindness, and generosity can lead to a more fruitful way of living than the self-centeredness that so many of us are so used to. If this is true, if institutions of worship are places or sources of morality, what about those who are involved with them? What about those who make all of these great things happen? Are they moral beings by default? Does their involvement imply moral acts? These certainly are things to think about.

While we’re on a roll, why not ask a few more questions. Let’s say that you were born in the middle of the woods with no one around. Years and years go by and then one day, you finally see another human being. Instead of running over and killing this person, you simply watch them with curiosity. And after a while, you walk over to introduce yourself and become great friends with them. Here are the questions: was your not killing this person a moral act? Is anything you do in the woods a moral act if you know nothing of morality and its concepts? Is life without a moral framework a moral one? Can it be?

In general, we live somewhat demoralized lives here on earth. Many of us don’t pay attention to what’s truly right or wrong and we either do or don’t do things because they’re either against or not against the law. Throughout our lives, we learn the basic premises of the laws around us and most of us act accordingly. Let’s face it, if laws didn’t exist, there would be total mayhem out there. We don’t not speed on the highway because it’s morally incorrect. We don’t speed because if we get caught, we’ll have to pay a ticket. And we don’t not steal that candy bar because it’s wrong to do so. We don’t steal it because if we get caught, we’re going to get arrested. So many of us don’t want to deal with the hassle, so we stay on the straight and narrow and that’s the truth of it. But what about morality and doing true right and wrong in our lives? If religion didn’t exist, where would be ever learn about morality at all? In college, we can take philosophy classes that teach us the concepts of morality as a whole, but we certainly don’t learn about evil and good. Right and wrong. Morality and immorality. These are the things that faith teaches us. So the question is, if faith didn’t exist, how would we as humans develop a moral framework in which to live? How would we ever know for sure if the acts we engage in are wrong or right? We as humans have an innate talent for rationalizing much of what we do. Would we rationalize away theft? Murder? Adultery? It’s the firm religious teachings that don’t allow us to follow these types of paths. It’s them that keep many of us from acting out in less desirable ways.

If we lived lives of pure science, without the input of faith, would we ever truly know what’s right and wrong? Would science tell us? If we did something we perceived as being wrong, would we have to rely on science to observe and add things up for us and to somehow look into the future to determine if our act led to a detrimental outcome? Maybe. But if we incorporated faith and religion into our lives, we could easily rely on the thousands of years of thought to come to a sound conclusion. Doing such and such is wrong, just because it is. We wouldn’t have to think nearly as long and hard about it because that’s already been done for us. So my conclusion is this: while there are many around the world who don’t need to religion to aid them in their moral conundrums, there are just as many who find comfort in knowing that they’re doing the right thing, as has been predetermined by some of the best thinkers humanity has had to offer.

Introduction to Virtue Ethics

We’ve discussed quite a few types of ethics in this forum already, but today I’d like to discuss one more. This one has to do with virtues of the individual and the group. In a previous post, a statement was made:

“This leads me to the idea that in order for someone to be virtuous or moral, they need to be for the right reasons, not just because they fear the results or repercussions of their actions. If it were any other way, their seemingly moral act wouldn’t be moral at all.”

This quote is very telling. It describes a few different types of personalities among us. If a deontologist were asked to do a good deed, he or she might respond by asking if there’s a rule that forces them to. They’d want to know if there was some sort of requirement to do so. If a utilitarian was asked to do the same good deed, he or she might reply by wondering out loud their perception of whether or not the outcome would produce a better outcome than if they didn’t do the deed. If a virtue ethicist was asked to do the good deed, they’d consider whether or not a virtuous person would do the deed that’s being asked of them. With these three examples, we have one that describes someone who is bound by rules, one who is bound by outcomes, and one who is bound by feelings. The final one ultimately desires to be a good person. They want to live a virtuous life; one that is defined by honesty, trustworthiness, and generosity. They place much less importance on duty and obligation. They want everyone to be happy and in order to be happy, we need to be good and virtuous humans. So if we look again and the quote from above, we can see that not only is morality based on doing the good or right thing, it’s also based on doing it for the right reasons. And the right reasons for a virtue ethicist would be to increase happiness across the board.

When I was a kid, my mother brought me to church every weekend. In this church, we recited seemingly rules and commands that would make us better people. We’d recite, sing, and chant all sorts of different things and then some of us would go home and beat our spouses, rob banks, and pilfer candy from the candy aisle from the closest grocery store. The rules, or “virtues,” we learned in church didn’t really have much of an effect on many of us. I suppose we were deontologists because they didn’t have any bite to them. There was no repercussion if we didn’t follow them. And if we did break a command and if we got caught doing so, all we’d have to do is confess our sins and everything would go away.

When it comes to virtue ethics, we look beyond simple rules and commands that are easily broken or argued against. Whether these rules stem from a religion or the law, they’re things many of us don’t benefit from obeying. With virtue ethics, we look past the rules. We learn how to to make the right decision and why it may be important to do so. Obviously, there can’t be a hard rule or law for every single situation and that’s why it’s important to have the wisdom to understand the entire framework that contains goodness and virtue.

Virtue ethicists don’t subscribe to the notion that states we as humans must follow hard and fast rules and regulations for every single circumstance. Alternately, they much more prefer a consensus of wisdom and character that comprises basic ethical principles. What have they learned throughout life that can lead to the best outcome? The happiest outcome? What would be the most ethical course of action? How can reflection help lead them down the right path? How can discipline do the same thing? How can they make their own decisions based on what they know to be right? How can they be more virtuous and less dogmatic?

Some types of virtue ethics rely on God as the ultimate source of goodness and some do not. Whatever the type, all types utilize a keen sense of moral intuition to derive moral wisdom and good character in a belief that these traits will transcend themselves into the most ethical action and goodness.

Excellence & Aristotle

Have you ever heard of the word Eudaimonia? It’s actually a Greek word that translates as happiness, welfare, or contentedness. Some say it means human flourishing, prosperity, or blessedness. Aristotle used this word to describe how humans are meant to live their lives. He said that eudaimonia means living well, which is more than simply having one good day. He referred to someone having endured a good life as having experienced eudaimonia. And this is what this post is about.

Aristotle believed that the key to complete understanding of something or someone is to understand its or their purpose, nature, and function. He claimed that each thing had an ultimate purpose, whether we know what that purpose is or not. The purpose of the object or thing is its end goal. It’s how it moves in nature without restraint. Flowers are meant to grow and exhibit beauty, animals are meant to hunt, eat, play, and reproduce. Humans are meant to endure contentment. These things do this not because they try to, but more because it’s their nature to do them. There isn’t some sort of rule book that needs to be followed. It just is the way it is. And when a human follows its natural form and function, it’s said to experience flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia isn’t a one time thing. It’s much more a series of long term behaviors. It’s what humans were meant to do and to experience. He claimed that it’s in human nature and it’s a human’s goal to live well and to be blessed and happy. We as humans sacrifice much to meet this goal. We work hard and create families and improve out futures all with the goal of living well.

What does it mean to flourish? Well, it can be described as acting in ways that lead you down a path of your most excellent form of expression. According to Aristotle, living the good life can only be achieved by living a life of virtue, practical wisdom, and excellence. He said that a good life can be achieved in accordance with appropriate virtue and when the soul is in accordance with this virtue. Notice the word appropriate. This means that not all virtue is universally good. It means that certain actions are warranted at certain times.

Good character begets ethical wisdom, which begets good actions, which beget a good life. One thing naturally leads to another, which is why it’s critical to work effortlessly toward our own development of good characters. Without this, no other thing can stem. And if that good character is achieved, virtuous actions can also ultimately be achieved, which inherently leads to being a virtuous person. Do you see how all of this is connected? It all begins with the will of character and actions.

Now this is where things become slightly more complicated. I’ll do my best at explaining Aristotle’s logic behind his thought process. To Aristotle, ethics wasn’t just a set of feelings that surrounded what’s good and what’s not good. To him, the study of ethics was actually a science. And as we know, science is built upon rational thought processes and reason. I’m not sure Aristotle took advantage of, or even knew of, the scientific method, but what he claimed ethics to be was something akin to and which stemmed from objective rational principles. He deemed that someone’s “goodness” stemmed from objectivity. That a person’s goodness can be viewed in an objective manner. It wasn’t a feeling or a hunch. It was a rigorous understanding of what was truly good and what wasn’t. He used an empirical method to acquire the necessary knowledge to make his judgements and that’s what he taught his followers. He observed, applied rigorous skepticism to what he saw, and then he interpreted those observations.

Aristotle also found the human soul to contain three things, or have three compartments. They are:

Nutritive Part: Responsible for acquiring nutrition.

Appetitive Part: Responsible for reacting to the environment and desires that lead to action.

Rational Part: Responsible for being productive and rational.

If you think about these three compartments of being situated in a hierarchy, you’ll find that the nutritive part is at the bottom, the appetitive part in the middle, and the rational part at the top. The primary battle occurs between the top two parts. There’s always an appetite to obtain desires, but it’s up to the rational part to decide whether those desires should be obtained or not. The desires must comply with reason. It’s only within a person who has achieved a virtuous life that reason can be used to attain the sought after desires of the appetite. The stable and virtuous soul will not be swayed. And according to Aristotle, ethical decision making isn’t innately ingrained into the psyche of the individual. It’s rather ingrained by a process of making good decisions and having habits formed by good and rational behavior.

The question remains, how can an average ordinary person learn what’s ethical and not ethical? How can they learn what’s right and what’s not right and incorporate those things into life? The answer, according to Aristotle, has to do with what he refers to as a balanced course of action. He says that virtue is a state of being. A character that’s built upon the concern for a choice that’s determined by a rational principle. Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean says that this principle is one that can be concluded by someone of practical wisdom. So essentially, I think he’s saying that you can come to determine your own virtuous course of action by emulating those other courses of action taken by friends and neighbors – people in society who exhibit wisdom and good decision making skills. The average person doesn’t need to leave every decision up to themselves when they can simply wait and watch what other trusted individuals would do in similar situations.

Just to clarify Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean, we can view any decision that’s presented to a person on a scale of deficiency to excessiveness. the mean would be the half way point between the two. According to Aristotle, moral virtue lies at the midpoint between too little and too much. So, if we have cowardice and foolhardiness, the mean would be bravery. If we have stinginess and profligacy, we have generosity. If we have self loathing and boastfulness, we have confidence. You get the idea. The mean is of neither extreme and it sits in the area that most wise and practical people feel comfortable.

Remember though that the mean resides on a scale of independent and unique circumstances. What might be too little or too much for one person might be too much or not enough for another. These types of virtuous situations really do rely on the circumstances and who is involved. What may seem brave under one circumstance may be flat out stupid in another. And what may seen like boasting can easily be viewed as confidence by many. So take the situation into account when determining the mean and your own view on virtue. Also remember that it’s more important to learn how to make ethical decisions than to learn and remember exactly what ethical decisions are. Good decisions are balanced and create a well lived life.

I mentioned that it’s important to seek out the actions and choices made by those who have practical wisdom to help guide you with your own decision making, but can an average individual form their own practical wisdom? Is that possible or is that something that’s attained by only a select few? The answer to those questions is that the average person can certainly become more wise. The more the average person acts according to the mean, the more they’ll train themselves to seek out and recognize that which is practical and wise. These types of actions become habit and soon enough, it’ll be others who look to you for guidance.

Also, wisdom is open to influence. As we all learn to meet our ethical goals, we’ll encounter new information. It’s important for us to analyze this information to determine if a course correction is necessary. This is a rational undertaking. No wise person is steadfast in his or her beliefs. New information is abound and it needs to be taken into consideration. An ethical environment is one that’s agreed upon by many, so it’s critical for those many to remain rational and open-minded. A rational and virtuous individual recognizes and realized what he or she is engaging in, makes the decision to partake in a particular act for the simple sake of it being the most virtuous alternative, is guided by those who have settled upon a moral stance before, and makes their decisions easily and with good character.

It’s more a of habitual virtuous disposition that’s developed over time. The more we strive for and practice a virtuous way of living, the more easily that type of life will find us. The more rational we are, the happier we’ll be and that’s exactly what being human is about.

Atlas Shrugged – Part 3 – A is A

If you look up what’s behind “A is A” you’ll find that it’s Aristotle’s Law of Identity. Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.

The first two sections of the book are: Non-Contradiction and Either-Or, so you can see the trend.

I’m enjoying this book. There have been so many terms that have led me to the computer to look up their meaning. Of course, one thing leads to another and I end up finding out that the day I just lived wasn’t a complete waste. I actually learned something. This book pulls back so many curtains, it’s terrible.

Strange thing… I was talking about Marxism just this morning. Last night I was reading about the Labor Theory of Value and thought it was interesting. I follow a blog that was put together by some people who are much smarter than I am. Much smarter than I will ever be. Anyway, they were talking about Karl Marx and Carl Menger and their differing views. I happen to agree with one of these men, but I won’t say which one. It seems that if someone has an opinion on economics these days, it’s the wrong opinion. Maybe I’ll write a post about the “Labor theory of value” another time.

The funny thing is, when I was just re-reading the Wikipedia page on Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” I came across this line:

In addition to the plot’s more obvious statements about the significance of industrialists to society, and the sharp contrast it provides to the Marxist version of the Labor Theory of Value, this explicit conflict is used by Rand to draw wider philosophical conclusions, both implicit in the plot and via the characters’ own statements.

Isn’t that interesting? See, I had a feeling this all this stuff can be wrapped up in a ball to hold in your hand. I wrote an earlier post on my other blog about how challenging learning about philosophy was going to be. I am beginning to notice that most of us who are interested in philosophy are talking in circles with each other. We get the basics and share them. Now, there are people out there who blow us away with their knowledge. They are great, but what’s even greater are those who don’t just have knowledge, but who create knowledge. I gave up on that a long time ago. Even if I did come up with something great, I am not sure I would even share it with anyone. I just don’t have the ego to argue something like that.

Here’s a funny story that goes hand in hand with the “Where the heck have I been?” statement I wrote about earlier. A few weeks ago, I was looking through YouTube for some video on Atlas Shrugged. I wanted to see if anyone was planning a movie based on the book. I didn’t really come across any clear answers, but I did come across some book reviews. There were a few of the typical “males” who reviewed the book and were taken aback by it power. It seemed as these guys had a newfound reason for living. I have seen them before.

What was interesting and a bit embarrassing was a girl who was in high school who also gave a review. Her YouTube page showed tons of books that she gave reviews on. So what’s embarrassing about that? Well, besides the fact that a high schooler has read more books before tenth grade than I will read in my lifetime, I guess nothing. Again, where the heck was I? Oh yeah, I figured this one out yesterday. I was out in the driveway playing with my car. I know, I know. My fault.

I’m not sure what to write about when I finish the book. I don’t want to give a review on it since that’s been done many times before. Perhaps I will simply inform you that I’m done and whether I liked it or not. Then, you can make the decision whether to read it or to go about your day. So far, I can suggest that you read it.

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

I’m currently reading “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand. Before I begin, you should really watch this interview so you can get a picture of what Ayn Rand’s personality is like:

Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1

Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 2

The Fountainhead was published in 1943, fourteen years before Atlas Shrugged. So far, it is proving to have a slow momentum, as opposed to Atlas Shrugged, which I found interesting almost from the very beginning. But this isn’t a comparison between the two books. I will say though that the words, “I wish I was still reading Atlas Shrugged” came out of my mouth a few days ago. I miss the book.

Even though The Fountainhead is off to a slower start, I think I am getting into the meat and potatoes of the whole thing. There was a conversation I read a few nights ago that prompted me to read and then re-read. Here goes…

“You know, Alvah, it would be terrible if I had a job I really wanted.”

“Well, of all things! Well, of all fool things to say! What do you mean?”

“Just that. That it would be terrible to have a job I enjoyed and did not want to lose.”

“Why?”

“Because I would have to depend on you–you’re a wonderful person, Alvah, but not exactly inspiring and I don’t think it would be beautiful to cringe before a whip in your hand–oh, don’t protest, it would be such a polite little whip, and that’s what would make it uglier. I would have to depend on our boss Gail–he’s a great man, I’m sure, only I’d just as soon never set eyes on him.”

“Whatever gives you such a crazy attitude? When you know that Gail and I would do anything for you, and I personally…”

“It’s not only that, Alvah. It’s not you alone. If I found a job, a project, an idea or a person I wanted–I’d have to depend on the whole world. Everything has strings leading to everything else. We’re all so tied together. We’re all in a net, the net is waiting, and we’re pushed into it by one single desire. You want a thing and it’s precious to you. Do you know who is standing ready to tear it out of your hands? You can’t know, it may be so involved and so far away, but someone is ready, and you’re afraid of them all. And you cringe and you crawl and you beg and you accept them–just so they’ll let you keep it. And look at whom you come to accept.”

“If I’m correct in gathering that you’re criticizing mankind in general…”

“You know, it’s such a peculiar thing–our idea of mankind in general. We all have a sort of vague, glowing picture when we say that, something solemn, big and important. But actually all we know of it is the people we meet in our lifetime. Look at them. Do you know any you’d feel big and solemn about? There’s nothing but housewives haggling at pushcarts, drooling brats who write dirty words on the sidewalks, and drunken debutantes. Or their spiritual equivalent. As a matter of fact, one can feel some respect for people when they suffer. They have a certain dignity. But have you ever looked at them when they’re enjoying themselves? That’s when you see the truth. Look at those who spend the money they’ve slaved for–at amusement parks and side shows. Look at those who’re rich and have the whole world open to them. Observe what they pick out for enjoyment. Watch them in the smarter speak-easies. That’s your mankind in general. I don’t want to touch it.”

“But hell! That’s not the way to look at it. That’s not the whole picture. There’s some good in the worst of us. There’s always a redeeming feature.”

“So much the worse. Is it an inspiring sight to see a man commit a heroic gesture, and then learn that he goes to vaudeville shows for relaxation? Or see a man who’s painted a magnificent canvas–and learn that he spends his time sleeping with every slut he meets?”

“What do you want? Perfection?”

“–or nothing. So, you see, I take the nothing.”

Basically, the beginning of this particular conversation reminds me of the poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson:

I hold it true, whate’er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
‘Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

We all want things and the joy associated with them, but the question remains: How much are we going to give up for what we want?

I was talking about his particular conversation a few days ago. Without writing a really long post here, I will sum up what I said. I concluded that we all make sacrifices for things we think we want and we weigh those sacrifices against what our own tolerance for pain is.

Some people may want a powerful job with awesome responsibility, money and the feeling of importance. The pain associated with that job is that it may be thankless at times. You may not see your family. It may be high risk. You may be fired or experience more stress than the human body is built to handle for long periods of time.

Some people may want children and the experience and joy that comes along with them. The pain associated with that is the worry and fear of something happening.

Some people want to date the most beautiful person in town. The pain that comes along with beauty is that everyone wants it; the fact that you are dating it doesn’t seem to matter.

I usually have a pretty firm position on things. But the more I talk about something, the more I try to realize things from a different perspective. In this particular case, towards the end of our conversation, I realized that no matter what people do, they do things that they are comfortable with. If they are not comfortable with the feeling of loss, they will probably not choose to have a family or many pets. If they are aware that they can’t handle stress, they most likely won’t go for that high responsibility job. You get the idea. It’s a mental thing and it has to be considered on a case by case basis. This is why generalizing usually isn’t the best tactic when trying to gauge people.

So, in the conversation from the book above, I concluded that the first speaker (named Dominique) doesn’t have much tolerance for bowing to the power of someone else. She would choose to not mentally participate in whatever she is doing. She will do it, but no one will mentally own her. She obviously doesn’t have a tolerance for deceit or things that aren’t transparent. This is where Ayn Rand’s personality really comes through. That’s why I wanted you to watch the interview above.

I don’t know, I just found this conversation interesting. I liked it because it’s so familiar in so many people’s lives. Personally, I struggle with people who aren’t as curious as I am. I haven’t a clue as to why someone wouldn’t want to know something. But then again, I choose not to watch horror films because I get all stressed out. Some people love them. My point is that we avoid what’s generally uncomfortable and gravitate towards what makes us feel good.

A Brave New World and The Fountainhead

I read a paragraph in The Fountainhead a few nights ago that made me recall the last chapter of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” It had to do with self punishment. Well, after thinking about it for two or so days, that’s what I came up with.

From The Fountainhead:

Sometimes, not often, he sat up and did not move for a long time; then he smiled, the slow smile of an executioner watching a victim. He thought of the days going by, of the buildings he could have been doing, should have been doing and, perhaps, never would be doing again. He watched the pain’s unsummoned appearance with a cold, detached curiosity; he said to himself: Well, here it is again. He waited to see how long it would last. It gave him a strange, hard pleasure to watch his fight against it, and he could forget that it was his own suffering; he could smile in contempt, not realizing that he smiled at his own agony. Such moments were rare. But when they came, he felt as he did in the quarry: that he had to drill through granite, that he had to drive a wedge and blast the thing within him which persisted in calling to his pity.

And from Brave New World:

Half an hour later, three Delta-Minus landworkers from one of the Puttenham Bokanovsky Groups happened to be driving to Elstead and, at the top of the hill, were astonished to see a young man standing outside the abandoned lighthouse stripped to the waist and hitting himself with a whip of knotted cords. His back was horizontally streaked with crimson, and from weal to weal ran thin trickles of blood. The driver of the lorry pulled up at the side of the road and, with his two companions, stared open-mouthed at the extraordinary spectacle. One, two three–they counted the strokes. After the eighth, the young man interrupted his self-punishment to run to the wood’s edge and there be violently sick. When he had finished, he picked up the whip and began hitting himself again. Nine, ten, eleven, twelve…

Of course, you would have to read the surrounding paragraphs to get the full gist of what’s going on, but these types of scenarios are quite common in these types of books. It’s something I really enjoy reading.

Back in the beginning, I wondered why certain authors continually brought up various types of self punishment. They made a real effort to convey the agony of certain characters…agony these characters inflicted upon themselves (so it seemed). I would think to myself various ways to avoid this type of pain. After a while, I came to enjoy reading about challenges, defeat and how people through the ages just let it happen.

There are so many examples of huge historic figures giving in to the forces of those around them. To many people, it might seem that these figures have simply surrendered, but to those in the know, it’s quite the opposite. I don’t want to get off track here, but just think of Socrates…

Socrates’s followers encouraged him to flee, and citizens expected him to do so and were probably not averse to it; but he refused on principle. Apparently in accordance with his philosophy of obedience to law, he carried out his own execution, by drinking the hemlock poison provided to him. Socrates died at the age of 70. (Wikipedia)

I admire Socrates’ values.

Anyway, back to the self punishment thing. Here’s what I have come up with – For those of us who are brave enough and strong enough, we are willing to look at pain and explore it. We don’t push it aside in an effort to think of something more friendly. Pain is a reaction to something that needs to be changed (if one of your goals is to “live the good life” as they say). In today’s societies, so much negativity is plastered over. It’s hidden by what we have created to mask what we refuse to think about. Consider what we are forced to endure during our lives and what we do to ease what we try to avoid. And remember, it’s completely natural to try to avoid these types of feelings, it’s almost out of our hands. I’ll just name a few:

…actually, I’m not going to talk about that. I changed my mind. I would like to talk about the feeling of guilt for a while. Guilt is the source of so many other things and guilt isn’t discussed much. Well, I haven’t heard about it very often. Here’s my opinion: Guilt is something that someone else gives you. It’s a feeling that can last a lifetime and it’s not valid. If you were living alone on earth, there would be no action you could ever perform to feel guilty about, therefore, guilt is one of those gifts you shouldn’t accept. Guilt is a powerful de-motivator and control of genuine action.

I am getting so off track here, it’s not even funny.

Anyway, how does guilt, shame, fear, sadness, anxiety, loneliness, etc…relate to what many philosophical authors have written about through the ages? Well, I think these are all emotions that we attempt to eliminate. We find various ways to sooth our feelings instead of facing them. It’s interesting to think about how many of us may never have a genuine feeling in our lives. When someone says they have “died inside,” I don’t think they are experiencing extreme sadness, I think they have lost their ability to feel. What these authors are trying to convey are those very real experiences of feeling. As in “Brave New World,” the character (the Savage) who was whipping himself was experiencing something he had lost for a long time. He chose to do this because he had trouble handling the new society those around him so gaily enjoyed. Take a look at this:

The Savage had chosen as his hermitage the old light-house which stood on the crest of the hill between Puttenham and Elstead. The building was of ferro-concrete and in excellent condition–almost too comfortable the Savage had thought when he first explored the place, almost too civilizedly luxurious. He pacified his conscience by promising himself a compensatingly harder self-discipline, purifications the more complete and thorough. His first night in the hermitage was, deliberately, a sleepless one. He spent the hours on his knees praying, now to that Heaven from which the guilty Claudius had begged forgiveness…

The Savage chose not to live in a society that didn’t encourage genuine feeling and self-awareness. When there’s an answer for everything, a drug we can take or a group that can help us feel better about what’s going on in our minds, we lose the ability to really focus on the issue’s source. I believe this creates a habit of avoidance. How can people solve issues when they don’t discuss them or feel the necessary pain associated with them?

Ayn Rand is particularly clever when it comes to this type of thing. Many of her characters have completely ignored any emotion that society has offered to replace self-awareness. What goes on in Atlas Shrugged is a topic unto itself, so I’ll just discuss a bit about a character in The Fountainhead.

Dominique Francon is one of the main characters of the book. For 205 pages, she has been steadily emotionless. After she meets Howard Roark (the character from the excerpt above), things change. For the first time in her life, she has met someone who is in touch with his personal identity.

It is only through Roark that her love of adversity and autonomy meets a worthy equal. These strengths are also what she initially lets stifle her growth and make her life miserable. She begins thinking that the world did not deserve her sincerity and intellect, because the people around her did not measure up to her standards. She starts out punishing the world and herself for all the things about man which she despises, through self-defeating behavior. She initially believes that greatness, such as Roark’s, is doomed to fail and will be destroyed by the ‘collectivist’ masses around them. She eventually joins Roark romantically, but before she can do this, she must learn to join him in his perspective and purpose. (Wikipedia)

The wonderful thing about these books and the way philosophy explains topics like this is that people can finally get an understanding of why they are the way they are.

How this relates to me…

I will admit to you that I am not the most amiable person at times. I tend to seek the truth in everything. Complacency makes my blood boil and I have difficulty getting along with certain types of people. I don’t know why, but it’s getting worse. As I grow older and become more aware, I get more and more frustrated with those who aren’t. Growing more aware that is.

So many times…so many times I have tried to just grin and bear it, but I can’t. It’s impossible.

I think that’s why I identify with so much of what’s written above. Very few have spent the time and effort analyzing and feeling enough to achieve any type of mental result, but when I find someone who has, I truly appreciate it.

Anyway, I just thought those were interesting excerpts and I enjoyed talking about them.

Self-Defeating Statements

A few days ago, my lady and I took a trip to Martha’s Vineyard. We left Rhode Island on a ferry and arrived at the Vineyard about an hour and forty minutes later. It was a nice day.

On the ferry, there were all sorts of characters. I’m sure you can imagine the bunch. From the golfers to the strange lady with the Golden Retriever…they were all there. Needless to say, practically everyone on the boat was more wealthy than I. An eccentric group, if you will.

As I sat on the center deck, leaning over with my head in my hands, trying to grab some shuteye, a small group of semi-rowdy middle aged men were discussing the origins of the universe. I thought this was apropos because we were all getting a little loose by the thought of going somewhere so exciting.

As I sat there, listening, my ears perked up. I had my eyes closed as to not give them any indication I was in fact attuned to their conversation. Now, let me tell you, when anyone begins a conversation regarding the beginning of space’s great expanse, it’s difficult not to salivate over the soon-to-be learned theories. Unfortunately, the first few sentences is basically where the intelligence of this conversation began and ended.

The louder and more outgoing of the group gave his theory. He said that god made the universe. Not one god in particular, but any god would do. Okay. That’s one theory. Now, from what I have gathered throughout my life, there is only one other available theory about how the universe was born…”it was always here.” This is where things got slippery.

As the conversation progressed and theories flew in from left field, the group of men became more subdued in their vocalism. They began to engage in “groupthink.” By this I mean they started to realize there were no real answers and they wanted to get back on the same playing field so they could move on with their day. Also, after a while, the conversation was pretty much beat.

Towards the end of the discussion, the leader of the group said something along the lines of, “Well, there is nothing that has always been in existence. Nothing can just be. A god had to have created the universe.” Of course, this is the point a small smile formed from my lips.

If you have ever heard the term, Self-Defeating Statement before, you will know that it means: A self-defeating (or self-refuting) statement is a statement that fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it kind of cancels itself out.

This is a very interesting tidbit of education because once you learn what self-defeating statements are, you begin to recognize them almost everywhere. You can poke holes in people’s logic and become a much more effective conversationalist and debater.

A famous example of a self defeating statement is: There is no truth. (Thank you Apologetic Junkie) As you can see, if there was no truth, the statement, “There is no truth” would be false. The statement cancelled itself out by what it said.

So, back to what was said on the boat – “Well, there is nothing that has always been in existence. Nothing can just be. A god had to have created the universe.”

Let’s take this statement apart. When this fella said, “Well, there is nothing that has always been in existence.” he may have been correct. We haven’t a clue if there is or isn’t anything that has existed forever. It’s a very debatable point (actually it’s not since we have no evidence). After that, he said, “Nothing can just be.” He may have been correct about that as well. While this is nothing more than a wild guess, I couldn’t offer anything that would have convinced him that he was wrong. He got into trouble when he said, “A god had to have created the universe.”

Now, the statement “A god had to have created the universe.” isn’t self-defeating by itself. It’s actually quite similar to this gentleman’s first two statements. It’s the connectedness of the statements that made the last one self-defeating. Does that make sense? If nothing has been in existence forever and if nothing can just be, where did these gods come from?

As a side note, this is what has always made me wonder about the big bang theory. If the universe was created by a chunk of mass exploding, where did that chunk of mass come from? The chain of questions goes on and on.

It’s a tough world out there. So many of us try to mix logic with faith with emotion with everyday life. It’s challenging to say the least. I think the safest thing to say is that we are all wrong a good percentage of the time. That’s okay, because we are nothing more than human and as we all know, “to err is human…”

I hope you enjoyed this section about self-defeating statements. If you are a philosophy buff and would like to add or correct anything, I surely would welcome your comment.

Great Philosophy Websites

I’ve only dabbled in philosophy, but I’d like to learn a lot more. So far in my life, I’ve read a few books that have given me just a tad of background. About ten years ago, I read an Ethics paperback. That one was called A Handbook For Ethics and it was written by Robert C. Solomon. I enjoyed that book a lot and I wish I still had it. I probably sold it along the way somewhere. I also read A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Oh yeah, and The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand as well. I actually enjoyed all of these books and will write about them in this forum.

I’ll be writing a lot of philosophy posts as I learn. I’ll begin with the study of ethics and move on from there. I was browsing around on Amazon this afternoon and found quite a few books I think I’d be interested in, so I’m sure I’ll have lots to say. Even if it’s me putting what I learn into my own words. Sometimes doing that helps concepts to sink in.

As an aside, I’ve got a funny story for you. Back when I was going to business school, I needed to take an elective. Time was running out to sign up, so I was forced to rummage through the course guide in the college’s registration office. I was in the room along with the administrator and another student. I saw a class that appeared interesting and I said, “Hey, what’s this? It’s called Nietzsche.” But I pronounced the name something like, “Nigh-Etch.” The student looked at me and said, “If you can’t even pronounce the name, you really shouldn’t be taking the class.” I agreed and took something else. I do know how to pronounce the name now though. It sounds like, “Nee-Chee.” How’s that for learning?

A Thought Experiment About a Basilisk

I watched a very interesting video a few days ago that had to do with a basilisk. It discussed a thought experiment that a user named Roko posted on a philosophy blog called LessWrong that was apparently removed due to its alleged propensity to do mental harm to someone’s brain. I’ll post the video down below, just in case you would like to watch it. The guy who made it suggested that the thought experiment contained therein would make anyone who listened to the video, think. I suppose he was correct because it has made me think and here I am writing about it. I don’t actually think the thought experiment was as dangerous as the original poster thought it would be, but it’s fun nonetheless.

In my synopsis here, I’m not going to use a basilisk as part of the representation of what I heard in the video. I’ll simply go with artificial intelligence instead. I’ll call that artificial intelligence, “AI.” By the way, if you would really like to think about something, I encourage you to read The Last Question by Isaac Asimov. That one is a brain twister.

Okay, let’s get going. Let’s say that some time in the future, perhaps with the assistance of existing artificial intelligence, humans create an all knowing AI. This AI can do all sorts of things and can see the future as well as the past. It pretty much knows everything. It’s the most advanced piece of intelligence in the universe. After the AI is built, humans ask it to optimize the human species. We’d like to become the best we can be. After this request is made, the AI decides, for whatever reasons that are much too advanced for humans to comprehend, that it must inflict the most ultimate and eternal pain on any human who didn’t want the AI to be created or who didn’t assist in the creation of the AI itself. It can be inferred that in order for the AI to completely optimize humans overall, it will need to have been created in the first place and that it will also need to be the best AI it can be. And in order for that to happen, as many humans as possible will have needed to have assisted in its creation.

You may be asking yourself, how could the AI know which humans in the past were for or against its creation in the future? Think of it this way: if intelligence is intelligent enough, it can know everything. It can create simulations upon simulations that can calculate every single decision or possible outcome of every event and of every thing, living or not living, in a split second. After all, this AI is the epitome of intelligence. It can literally know everything.

The question is, if it’s a real possibility that this AI may be created in the future and if its revenge could possibly occur, shouldn’t everyone who knows about this dilemma begin building the AI? Or at least assist in its creation? After all, if the existence of this AI is a possibility in the future and if its revenge on those who don’t help create it will be the infliction of the utmost and eternal pain, then it would behoove all of humanity to create it, lest they suffer for all time.

The good news for those who haven’t read this post is that they aren’t faced with any dilemma. They simply don’t know something like this is out there. The bad news for those of you who did is that you’ve now been given something to ponder that may keep you up at night, at least according to the moderator of the blog LessWrong, who removed the original post for being too dangerous to those who read it.

So, what would you do? Would you begin building the AI or would you completely ignore this dilemma altogether?

Here’s the video:

Comments

Jim

December 9, 2022 at 7:11 pm

I’ve been hearing about moral subjectivism. I’m not sure what this is and I can’t find any good literature on it. How does it compare to normative relativism and moral objectivism?

- Jay Gaulard
  
  December 9, 2022 at 7:11 pm
  
  You probably already know that morality can be either objective or subjective, meaning, it can be firm and absolute or flexible and changing depending on who’s thinking about it. With objective morality, or moral objectivism, if something is wrong, it’s wrong everywhere, no matter what. No matter who’s considering it or where they’re considering it. According to this theory, there are absolute truths in the world. Some activities are moral while others are not.
  
  When it comes to subjective morality, or moral subjectivism, things are quite the opposite. Instead of morals or rules being firm and true, they’re based on the individual who’s thinking of them. Morality is decided by the smallest unit, which is the individual. With this theory, it’s not the community, village, culture, or other group that decides on what’s moral and what isn’t, it’s, again, the single person.
  
  To moral subjectivists, it’s said that morals are based on how an individual thinks. What their tastes, moods, opinions, and other thoughts are. Ethics and morals can change like the wind. For instance, if someone decides that kicking a puppy is moral and just, then it is. If someone else thinks that stealing gas from a gas station is okay, then it is. The types of people who subscribe to this moral theory reject the assertion that some activities are right and wrong. To them, it’s up to each and every person to decide what type of moral code they’ll live by.
  
Jim

December 9, 2022 at 7:21 pm

A sacrifice is choosing a lesser good over a greater good. That’s Rand’s definition and I believe it was taken from Websters a long time ago. As you can see, the choices you make that are to your benefit are not sacrifices.

Dominique’s greater good is her ideal man, job, life…she would rather have nothing than have the wrong thing. She strives for the best but makes several philosophical errors in her thinking. These are mostly resolved through her experiences with Howard. Excellent post.

Jim

December 9, 2022 at 7:29 pm

Regarding the basilisk:

I absolutely love paradoxes and hate then at the same time. It’s remarkable how uncomfortable I feel when my brain hurts. The paradox you described above is a good one, not only because there is no good answer, but also because it’s got an ethical component to it as well. I read an ethics book a while ago that this sort of reminds me of. And to answer your question, I would probably ignore the dilemma, simply because I don’t have the energy to build the AI, or to help anyone else do it.

You inspired me to search Google for “Paradox” and I found two links that list quite a few of them.

This page actually describes each paradox, so you don’t have to go hunting for them. They’re pretty short and easy to read.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/59040/10-mind-boggling-paradoxes

And this is the Wikipedia page with tons of good ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

I was just reading The Boy or the Girl Paradox and The Bootstrap Paradox. Thanks. Now my head hurts.

What is Ethics?​

Ethics Defined

Approaches to Ethics

Why Should We Bother Studying Ethics?

How Ethics Relates to People

Ethical Realists vs. Ethical Non-Realists

Some Ethical Definitions

What’s the Source of Ethics?

Do Universal Moral Rules Exist?

Can Ethics be Subjective?​

Realism vs. Anti-Realism​

What is Descriptive Relativism?​

What is Metaethical Relativism?​

Problems with Moral Diversity​

Steven Pinker on Moralistic Solutions

How Large Does a Relativistic Culture Need to Be?​

What is Normative Relativism?​

Are Some Actions Just Plain Wrong?​

Is Moral Relativism Another Name for Tolerance?​

Moral Relativism Doesn’t Allow for Improvement​

Blind Tolerance is Immoral​

Ethics & Religion: An Introduction​

What’s the Goal for Humanity?​

Morality & the Divine Command Theory​

Can Religion by Itself be Moral?​

Introduction to Virtue Ethics​

Excellence & Aristotle​

Atlas Shrugged – Part 3 – A is A​

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand​

A Brave New World and The Fountainhead​

Self-Defeating Statements​

Great Philosophy Websites​

A Thought Experiment About a Basilisk​

Related posts:

Reader Interactions