It is of the utmost importance, in the terms laid out, to avoid being harmed, rather than to avoid causing harm to another person. One cannot EVER not harm another person, because one has no perception of how the other person will relate to the "harm" being preformed. For example, suppose I steal 1000 dollars from another person. Now, let us assume that said person is a millionaire, and doesn't keep track of his money. Have I caused him "harm"? I would argue that ignorance of a crime negates the crime itself. One must be aware, firstly, of a harmful action in order for it to constitute as a crime. Those seeking to be ethical, and to be treated as ethical, must live in the present, in the "real" world, not in the capacity of lofty and abstract ideals. Let us now assume that I am angered at my friend and throw a wild punch at him. Let us now assume that my friend is drunk, thus, he doesn't feel the punch. In fact, in his drunken state, he laughs at me, despite the fact that he is bruised. Has he been harmed? Again, I cannot know how he will feel tomorrow - I have no control over his perceptions. Thus, why should I concern myself with pleasing these abstract, unknowable whims of the "Other". I denote the Other as anything that is not myself, that is, anything that I do not have conscious control over. To live at the whim of the Other, whim by definition cannot be known, is to risk living fully for oneself. The first priority of every rational human should be to protect himself from harm (as he perceives it) not to protect others from harm (as he perceives that they perceive it). Guilt, getting caught, all these things, these dependencies upon which the original action may result, are subjective to the individual. Subjective values, such as the value one places on not feeling guilty, are again beyond my control. All I can concern myself with is my reaction to this feeling of guilt, and to an extent, the value I place on my reaction towards choosing actions that avoid or enhance this feeling.
Therefore, the above points considered, we must place the higher emphasis on the skills to discern whether or not our beliefs are true or false, rather than the skills to persuade others without beliefs. The beliefs of others, again, are subjective. What concern is it of mine the beliefs that others hold, so long as my number one priority is to avoid harm? If I cannot be harmed, and this is my goal, am I not free to discern my own beliefs? I do not leave myself at the whims of others, nor do I attempt to control or influence the beliefs of others - I am a content, complete human. The weak, spineless, and personally unstable are those who try to conform others to their beliefs. As Soren Kierkegaard beautifully put it, "The door to happiness opens outward -- he who tries to push his way in will not be able to enter." Let us look inward, through reflection and mediation, at OUR beliefs, before we dare to attack, change, or influence the beliefs of others. There is no doubt that Kierkegaard would support this claim. To be concerned with the beliefs and opinions of others is to risk losing that which one believes himself. Again, let us examine the Church. Dante places 7 Popes in Hell. These Holy men, these Papal dignitaries, this Vicars of Christ, are men who, in order to spread "The world of God" condoned the murder of thousands, and the abuse of thousands more. It cannot logically be argued based on the historical teachings left behind by Jesus that he would have approved of such things a the Crusades, the Inquisition, the selling of indulgences, the polygamy of the Popes, and yet they preformed these actions in his name. They lost sight of the great ideals they held, the morals they championed, and lost themselves in the process, and, at least according to Dante, earned a spot in Hell.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Preliminary Views on Ethical Systems
“The world itself is the will to power - and nothing else! And you yourself are the will to power - and nothing else!” Friedrich Nietzsche
With regard to what makes a decision ethical, with how ethical statements are perceived, and the power that ethics have in society, it quickly becomes clear that there is no “standard” from culture to culture, or society to society. While all societies share some beliefs, there are many more which are not shared. The human sacrifices of the Aztecs stand in direct contradiction to the western view that life is sacred. The Buddhist conception that selflessness and leading a life free of suffering is primary is contrasted with western emphasis on individualism and capitalism. It therefore becomes of the utmost necessity to ask, “Why is something ethical? What are ethics and how do they relate to the larger picture?”
It becomes clear, not at first, but after careful study, that ethics are always determined by the powerful. An “Ethical System” is simply a means employed by those in power to impose their will over the populace. Via this system, the powerful can integrate their will over the beliefs, lifestyles, and perceptions of the masses. The greatest example of this is the Roman Catholic Church. The basis of the theology of the church is of little concern – the fact is that in order to spread their theological ethics, the Church condoned the murder of hundreds of thousands of infidels in Spain, the persecution of the Jews and Muslims in their homelands, and the colonization of indigenous peoples in the name of these beliefs. The Church could not be challenged, because the church had consolidated all the power. Power and Ethics are in separable. Looking to the Protestant reformation, we see that it was only a success because by converting, German Princes, French Nobles, and British Kings could free themselves from the chains of the Church. Hence, the Church lost power. Those who stayed faithful to the church did so to keep power – Spain was given Papal Authority to rule the entire New World. Of course, had the Church of been weaker, and perhaps the Islamic nations stronger or more centralized, there is no doubt that Europe would have become Muslim. Instead, Europe and America are today “Christian” and these Christian values are so ingrained in our society that it is hard to imagine a non-Christian America.
To take a contemporary example, let us considered the war in Iraq. It is common knowledge that President Bush long felt that it was America’s ethical duty to bring democracy to the Middle East, and that war was the only way to achieve that end. Other high level Cabinet Officials, including Colin Powell, disagreed. President Bush, however, was able to charge into war, because he, as President, had the power to do so. 80% of Americans supported him at the time. That is the power that power has over the ethical beliefs of the masses.
It would seem that people learn, or pick up, at least when they are young, a good number of there beliefs from society. I am a Lockean in this regard - knowledge is obtained simply by viewing and absorbing the repitive nature of events and objects. As a child, I am told that this object with four wooden legs and a flat surface is a table. I then form a preliminary idea of a "table". As I see other tables, and am told more about tables, my preliminary idea begins to change to account for these other tables. Soon, it encompasses nothing more an a definition of the word table - an obeject with 4 legs and a flat surface. I now have my "ideal form" of the table. It is the same with ethics. Through repitition and the careful indocrination of"right" and "wrong", young children in today's society learn the same about ethics. It begins at birth and continues throught primary school - "treat others how you would like to be treated" "learn to share" "work together" "act kind", etc. This is not to say that these are bad lessons, merely thatmany people accept them as a true without reflection. As they come from Authority, they cannot be taken as absolutely true - Authority begs to be questioned, to simply accept everything one hears as true as correct is to lend oneself to ignorance, no matter what the discipline.
Throughout the history of humanity, those in power have enforced the ethical beliefs they support across the world. Regardless of the nature or origins of these beliefs, the sole commonality is that they broaden the base of power of those who support them. Ethics are the cynic’s dearest toolkit. With ethics on his side, any man can control his brothers.
With regard to what makes a decision ethical, with how ethical statements are perceived, and the power that ethics have in society, it quickly becomes clear that there is no “standard” from culture to culture, or society to society. While all societies share some beliefs, there are many more which are not shared. The human sacrifices of the Aztecs stand in direct contradiction to the western view that life is sacred. The Buddhist conception that selflessness and leading a life free of suffering is primary is contrasted with western emphasis on individualism and capitalism. It therefore becomes of the utmost necessity to ask, “Why is something ethical? What are ethics and how do they relate to the larger picture?”
It becomes clear, not at first, but after careful study, that ethics are always determined by the powerful. An “Ethical System” is simply a means employed by those in power to impose their will over the populace. Via this system, the powerful can integrate their will over the beliefs, lifestyles, and perceptions of the masses. The greatest example of this is the Roman Catholic Church. The basis of the theology of the church is of little concern – the fact is that in order to spread their theological ethics, the Church condoned the murder of hundreds of thousands of infidels in Spain, the persecution of the Jews and Muslims in their homelands, and the colonization of indigenous peoples in the name of these beliefs. The Church could not be challenged, because the church had consolidated all the power. Power and Ethics are in separable. Looking to the Protestant reformation, we see that it was only a success because by converting, German Princes, French Nobles, and British Kings could free themselves from the chains of the Church. Hence, the Church lost power. Those who stayed faithful to the church did so to keep power – Spain was given Papal Authority to rule the entire New World. Of course, had the Church of been weaker, and perhaps the Islamic nations stronger or more centralized, there is no doubt that Europe would have become Muslim. Instead, Europe and America are today “Christian” and these Christian values are so ingrained in our society that it is hard to imagine a non-Christian America.
To take a contemporary example, let us considered the war in Iraq. It is common knowledge that President Bush long felt that it was America’s ethical duty to bring democracy to the Middle East, and that war was the only way to achieve that end. Other high level Cabinet Officials, including Colin Powell, disagreed. President Bush, however, was able to charge into war, because he, as President, had the power to do so. 80% of Americans supported him at the time. That is the power that power has over the ethical beliefs of the masses.
It would seem that people learn, or pick up, at least when they are young, a good number of there beliefs from society. I am a Lockean in this regard - knowledge is obtained simply by viewing and absorbing the repitive nature of events and objects. As a child, I am told that this object with four wooden legs and a flat surface is a table. I then form a preliminary idea of a "table". As I see other tables, and am told more about tables, my preliminary idea begins to change to account for these other tables. Soon, it encompasses nothing more an a definition of the word table - an obeject with 4 legs and a flat surface. I now have my "ideal form" of the table. It is the same with ethics. Through repitition and the careful indocrination of"right" and "wrong", young children in today's society learn the same about ethics. It begins at birth and continues throught primary school - "treat others how you would like to be treated" "learn to share" "work together" "act kind", etc. This is not to say that these are bad lessons, merely thatmany people accept them as a true without reflection. As they come from Authority, they cannot be taken as absolutely true - Authority begs to be questioned, to simply accept everything one hears as true as correct is to lend oneself to ignorance, no matter what the discipline.
Throughout the history of humanity, those in power have enforced the ethical beliefs they support across the world. Regardless of the nature or origins of these beliefs, the sole commonality is that they broaden the base of power of those who support them. Ethics are the cynic’s dearest toolkit. With ethics on his side, any man can control his brothers.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
First Post
This is my first post. I've create this blog for my ethics class. Regarding the ethical, I have no specific philosophy or theory that I hold close to my reasoning. I find Religio-Theological ethics too exclusive, Kantionian ethics too impratical, Hume's ethical theory is okay, but simplistic, Utilitarianism is too complex to apply as a blanket, and Ethical Egoism, while connvincing, is a bit unusual to be considered "ethical". So I look forward to learning more about this theories and others over the course of the next few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)