A while ago I tried to set up a pantheism thread and failed pretty miserably--the whole thing never rose above taunting on all sides. I realize now that it is not a good idea to try to deal with matters from the top downwards and so I've started this thread so that we can more rationally discuss the roots of the issue (the only real reason I set up the other thread was so that I could eventually talk about ethics). That being said, I don't think my ethical system can be understood fully without pantheism but that is beside the issue as I will not talk about God at all in the rest of the thread as I think my ethical system can be viewed from any stand point.
Given a single value, it is immediately apparent that in every situation there will a single decision or single course of action which most promotes and furthers that value. Objective ethics are just an extension of this--an attempt to describe how to act in a manner that furthers a desirable goal. Of course, the creation of ethics is hindered by the fact that we are not omniscient, omnipotent beings and therefore cannot know which actions are most advantageous nor would we be necessarily able to fulfill our vision if somehow enlightened. This does not, however, imply the nonexistence of ethics since ethics as a concept transcends humanity’s attempts to implement it practically. Furthermore, the fact that all realities are approaching the same ideal of perfection from different directions does not make that ideal ambiguous in any way. My system of ethics is a guideline towards objectively furthering an unspecified value as efficiently as possible. The objectivity of ethics is necessary due to the fact that some “most-value-promoting action” must exist; the efficiency of ethics is assumed because even if inefficiency was something to be valued, this could be achieved through efficiently implementing another value and therefore completely neglecting the actual value of inefficiency.
With that in mind, I have come up with a hierarchy of considerations the individual must take into account when acting, regardless of the value society promotes:
1. Simplicity
2. Motivation
3. Responsibility
4. Respect
5. Utility
The main goal of ethics is to achieve a value as simply as possible in order to maximize the efficiency by which that value is created and to facilitate the objective implementation of the theory through avoiding convolution and obscurity. This mantra of simplicity extends beyond mere advice and represents the fundamental problems with which ethics wrestles. Oftentimes, the biggest concern threatening a society is that the individual, by seemingly pursuing the promotion of the value the society cherishes, in fact reduces that value. One major form of this is negative competition--anything that can be likened to an arms race wherein each party would feel incredibly unsafe if they stopped building weapons but through this continued mentality everyone involved feels increasingly insecure. There are two ways in which this could be avoided: either all individuals could simply trust one another or a larger entity must intercede and set a limit on how far the competition can escalate. Regardless, both of these options seek the same thing: to avoid the unnecessary complexity generated by negative competition and to instead find contentment in some form of simplicity. From this perspective, crimes must be prosecuted by the state because if allowed, they would continue to escalate (if murder was rampant, paranoia would be ubiquitous and everyone would rush to kill off their neighbors so that their neighbors did not kill them first). This is essential because otherwise people who always seek to fulfill the value they are supposed to will act contrary to the value’s promotion even while still thinking they are acting correctly. This, more organized aspect of ethics, is very different from the remainder (which is more concerned with the endeavor of the individual) and assumes that ultimately, humanity will be unable to trust each other. This form of competition limiting is the role of the governments of the world and the only facet of ethics they can really cover as one can’t control the mindsets of people. Even on an individual level, though, trust must be fostered and some level of conformity (but only to the point of simplicity) is necessary for any value to be promoted.
Any system of ethics can either focus on the period preceding an action (motivation), the action itself, or the period following the action (consequences) to determine the merits of the action itself. Most theories on the subject of ethics acknowledge the fact that it is necessary to consider the motivation as it is absurd to assume that the man who did something by accident is as culpable as the man who did that same thing deliberately. By doing so they do not simply lay down instruction and hope it is followed but instead hope to cultivate correct mindset in the individual so that they understand the purpose of ethics and that they therefore do the advantageous thing regardless of the situation. This is because following some code of ethics means nothing if the individual is doing so only as long as breaking it isn't more attractive or society is no longer forcing them to it. It is incredibly important that once a motivation that furthers the value of choice is chosen, the individual never deviates from being in that state of mind. For even if no harmful actions occurred due to this loss of correct motivation, the individual’s expectation for incorrect mindset will have been increased and therefore they are more likely to be motivated incorrectly when it is of importance to act correctly. It is immediately apparent that motivation holds appeal over simply considering actions and consequences as motivations can easily be understood and replicated--a necessity if we are trying to formulate a system of objective ethics.
The next question, after we have established the necessity of incorporating motivation into any system of objective ethics, which of the remaining two possible focal points of ethics are more important, actions or consequences? Though it has been the argument of deontologists such as Kant to associate motivations with actions and avoid situational consequences completely because we cannot predict with complete certainty what those consequences would be, this is an argument that seems, intuitively, to be incredibly irresponsible and therefore out of place in ethics. Just because we cannot know what the specific consequences of our actions are does not mean we should not consider the specific consequences of our actions in order to say we have the correct ethical mindset. Such a mindset, as stated before, would be completely focused on the promotion of ethical value by virtue of the characteristics of the value itself and would always endeavor to implement the associated ethical system as a result. This is a much more reliable mindset for ethics, once achieved, than Kant’s notion of obedient good will and, in general, all deontological theories require similarly lifeless individuals who are so caught up in the present they lose sight of everything else around them and ahead of them.
Of course, just because the extremes of deontology are unsatisfactory, doesn’t mean we can simply do the opposite and come away with ethics, a middle path must be tread. As displeasing as the irresponsibility of believing the ends don’t justify the means is, the irresponsibility associated with constantly anticipating the improvements of the future or the otherwise unseen and therefore never acting realistically--potentially harming others in order to prepare for the improbable--is at least as worse. Even more disturbing is the belief that you can always correctly predict the events of the future or are otherwise more entitled to create various justifications for your own actions. There are a whole host of other irresponsible attitudes that correspond to believing that the ends do justify the means from the hubristic to the disregard of the seemingly “illusory” concerns of this universe. Therefore the path of responsibility is one to be treaded with extreme caution (be responsible responsibly)--one must concern oneself with the future but not anticipate the future, one must believe that the ends do justify the means but not actively attempt to justify their own actions, etc. Personal responsibility for the ramifications of ones actions and not the actions themselves is another necessity of any ethical system, regardless of its values.
Finally, another aspect of individual ethics can be formed from the requirements of simplicity and responsibility: that trust is built and that the individual does not assume he can foresee all consequences of his actions and therefore does not actively seek to create justifications for his actions. This notion is that of respect: that one individual cannot notice that his neighbor is not furthering ethical value and therefore take it upon himself to make said neighbor act “correctly.” Oftentimes, a critique lodged at objective ethics (and particularly at utilitarianism) by moral relativists is that it is wrong to impose your own will on others--not only is this a misperception of objective ethics, but objective ethics would in fact require that individuals respect one another (except in cases where philosophical simplicity would be gained through the violation of this respect such as in the imprisonment of a criminal). Only after an individual has considered whether they are promoting simplicity, motivated correctly, acting responsibly, and respecting others should they turn towards a utilitarian view and actively try to predict the consequences of their actions in order to decide how to act with regard to the ethical value of society (this is the final consideration of utility).
Now, of course, so far I have talked very abstractly and avoided talking about what this "ethical value" would be so that the above system could be used in service of any value one could foresee. However, the general purpose of ethics is no secret as it is identical to the only real desire of humankind: happiness. This, of course, cannot be justified as "objective" without religion so we have to settle for the fact that happiness is generally thought of as ideal.
Nothing really needs to be done to explain the relationship between simplicity and happiness as negative competition only results in arbitrary and needless complexity that is detrimental to everyone. What about individual motivation in a happy-oriented ethical system?
I have investigated a lot of different mindsets and the only one that I think leads to the happiness of others is selflessness. "Kindness" or sympathy towards others would only go so far as it would be skewed towards those in your immediate vicinity which would breed xenophobia (an excess of empathy leads to hostility towards those who aren't as similar to you as you thought they were) and since this would cause unnecessary war and genocide, it cannot be ethical. As I said before, it means nothing if you only act ethically while it's attractive or out of obedience to some entity that might not always be there, so neither of these work, either. Furthermore, I have concocted a very lengthy argument for why selflessness directly leads to the individual's happiness and will be happy to reveal it, if pressed, but this first post is already long enough as it is. Assuming this, ethical egoism is also faulty simply because it would not fulfill its own premise that by pursuing happiness, one could gain happiness.
It is important to note that selflessness of this form would not lead to mindless destruction of the self as this would not promote simplicity. A critique of utilitarianism is that one could never go to sleep because better actions could always be taken and that one would be prompted to sawing off limbs whenever possible; this is not a lacking of my theory as such arbitrary selflessness would only lead to needless complexity and therefore be avoided easily because it would not possess the same unstoppable nature as negative competition has. Responsibility and respect would go relatively unchanged as concepts when comparing their incarnations in both generic objective ethics and happy-centered ethics. A small addition to the concept of respect would be forgiveness as you could not be grateful for what you have nor mindful of the future if you were constantly concerned with the past. Again, my theory would have the advantage over utilitarianism that it does not advise doctors to collect people off the street in order to harvest their organs for the greater good as this does is neither responsible nor respectful (and in all likelihood, does not lead to simplicity). Additionally, since my system does ultimately hold that the ends do justify the means (though this path needs to be tread extremely carefully), you would not be prevented from killing a single person in order to save the world as you would in deontological systems.
)
