Pre-Aristolte

I believe that if there is a single goal that all humans are intent on achieving, it is the will to live a justified life, that is, a life that one can be proud of and satisfied with when they die. If this was not the goal of an individual human, then that human would undoubtedly commit suicide because they will have come to the conclusion that life cannot be justified and is therefore not worth living. As Albert Camus wrote, "The greatest philospical question is suicide, all others stem from whether or not life is worth living." What, and the way in which, one defines as "justified" is a different thing unto itself. Because this definition varies from person to person, we can see why there are many different ethical systems that different people adhere to. For me to propose an ethical system that will allow people to live a justified life, therefore, is folly - it is ridiculous, because I don't know what each individual perceives a justification for living. Allow me to make this more clear. It is my belief the intrinsic metaphysical facts of existence do not allow for there to be a universal ethical stance. To quote a line from Stephen Crane:

A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

This is what I have found, that in their search for justification people look beyond themselves, for a higher power, a higher order or sense of being, in order to give themselves something to live for. To the Christian, the Muslim world-view is absurd, to the Muslim, the Hindu world view is absurd, to the Hindu the Jewish world view is absurd. Religion, and ethical systems based on the metaphysical, all claim to portray the correct way to live. People adhere to these systems because they cannot find justification by themselves, since the basic facts of existence create a sense of indifference. The ONLY way to justify a faith in one of these religious or metaphysically based systems is through Kierkegaardian "leap of faith". It is clear that there is no "proof" that the Jew is correct and the Muslim wrong, or the Christian is correct and the Hindu wrong, etc. If there were, then the whole world would adhere to that belief. Thus, a leap must be mad, but a leap to which religion? The answer is unclear.

Moving on to non-metaphysical based ethical systems, or what I will call "logic based ethical systems", there is no uniformity here either. There are, it appears, to contrasting theories, Utilitarianism, which believes that all decisions should be based on the amount of pleasure (hedons) or pain (dolers) it causes, thus one must be conscious of how one's decisions affect others at all times. The other extreme is Callicles style Ethical Egoism, which states that it is the natural order for the strong to rule over the weak, and that if everyone acting in their own rational self interest, the world would progress better. Which will provide a person a justification for living? Again, I cannot say, that is not my privilege. Both appear to be logical, both have strong arguments for and against them. It is a personal choice, and, indeed, responsibility to choose and defend ones own ethical position, regardless of the details. That, I can conclude, is what MY ethical belief is. It is this:

That every human acknowledge that he/she must justify his/her existence for his/her self, and the means, or ethical system he/she uses to do this is a personal choice that he/she must be prepared to defend, even if it is indefensible, for no other reason than that it justifies his/her life.