I
assume we are all familiar with the concept of the trinity, Th idea
that god is three yet somehow one. However this is NOT a bog entry on
religion. This is a blog entry on ethics.
You see ethics just like the bible claims that god does also comes in three varieties (actually it's more but then my entire analogy breaks down so bear with me).
These three are:
You see ethics just like the bible claims that god does also comes in three varieties (actually it's more but then my entire analogy breaks down so bear with me).
These three are:
Duty ethics, also often
called moral absolutism. It says that an action has an inherent moral
or ethical value, proponents of this version of ethics are Aristotle,
who gave us the golden rule ”One should treat others as one would
like others to treat oneself ”, Jesus, who was very fond of quoting
Aristotle’s golden rule and much later Immanuel Kant, who perfected
the golden rule to his categorical imperative ”Act only according
to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law without contradiction.”, which means act
only in such a manner that you'd see raised to common practice.
This philosophy of ethics have the problem that it doesn't take circumstances into account. It is also utterly to fascinated with the past. Other arguments against it is that people may want to see some very odd things raised to common practice.
Consequence ethics, as culminating in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, often reduced to one of several statements such as “Greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people” Or least amount of suffering to the least amount of people. Also often quoted as “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (Thank you mister Spock). Whilst an open acknowledgement that we may not ever be able to find a perfect course of action that brings everyone happiness or spares everyone suffering (though cynical minds have suggested that the later can be accomplished by wiping out all life leaving nothing alive to suffer). Unfortunately the moment we stop trying to save everyone we make it morally acceptable to save no one.
Which leads us very smoothly to our last, and by far most controversial structure of ethics. The ethics of the ego. Since we cannot rid ourselves of the ego, that we at the most fundamental level are wired to be selfish, we should not try to. We should accept this and instead try to make as good a decision of what serves our self interest as one can. From this arises the idea of enlightened self-interest. That by helping others we in turn help ourselves in the long run. Or if not ourselves then our progeny or their progeny, or so on, that we by acting to the detriment of our own interests in the present actually serve to fulfil our primary genetic imperative,the highest form of self-interest. Which leads us back to where we started, while these three methods of arriving at a conclusion are vastly different from each other, they will often arrive at very similar conclusions. A follower of the idea of inseparable self-interest will tell you that our ideas of a ego separated morality is just an instinctual grasp of enlightened self-interest that evolution has given us. Thus it is perhaps a short cut to construct a categorical imperative or to consider the needs of the many allowing us to quicker make hard decisions without having the total or at least vast knowledge needed to argue ethics from the point of ego.
Subsequently the three are separate in theory but one in practice.
Now I mentioned earlier that there are actually more schools of thought here, two more actually, two that in some ways are subsets of two of the others, the first of these is the morality of intentions. It is very similar to the ethics of consequences, it however judges actions based on the intended consequences rather than the achived consequences. It is always to some extent part of the consequential ethics since we can only really judge the consequences of an action with hindsight (and even then it requires not overlooking aspects). But there's also the old maxim that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while old maxims are often wrong (just ask the next guy) one could argue that Stalin and Hitler had the best of intentions (and yet they failed both from an egotistical and a utilitarian standpoint), so I guess there's something to it.
Who's the last guy then? The ethics of transcendence. Friedrich Nietzsche argued that there are no such universal truths that we have no such universally applying ethics that we must ourselves judge what we deem important, and do what we can accept having done to achieve those goals. He called it imposing ones will on the universe. And told us that life and the universe itself is will to power and nothing else. But he also tells us that others will be imposing their will on the universe and as such we must be mindful of the consequences that we incur by placing ourselves in the crosshair of others ability to impose their will upon the universe. One could see it as do what you argue that you must do and accept the consequences of your actions, if those consequences are to steep, then you don't do it. In a way this is a less tangible form of the morality of ego, it relinquishes the idea that there have to be inherent things that we all strive towards, because even if those things may have come naturally we are capable of setting ourselves above that too. What we evolved to be and what we are have long since separated. Nietzsche also warns us against accepting others maxims of morality as our own blindly. That's not to say there is no morality but that we must transcend the expectations of our society and forge our own personal code of ethics if we wish to become supermen and impose our will on the universe.
Nietzsche may seem impossible to combine with the earlier statement that the three are really one but again it all comes down to the question how you arrive at a conclusion. All neitzsche's philosophy says is that you should find the answers yourself, because an answer given to you by someone else is worthless, if you cannot argue why an action is good or bad then you're not making a decision of morality, and as such the action has no moral value, you can chose to cure cancer or end all war but if you don't understand why you are doing it, then you have no right to take responsibility for the action, you are merely a tool for the one who chose to impose his or her will upon you. And a decision to let someone else decide for you is always a bad thing. To many horrible things in the history of mankind have been done by people who were only following orders.
Of course perhaps that is me (and by association Nietzsche) imposing my will and moral code on you.
This philosophy of ethics have the problem that it doesn't take circumstances into account. It is also utterly to fascinated with the past. Other arguments against it is that people may want to see some very odd things raised to common practice.
Consequence ethics, as culminating in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, often reduced to one of several statements such as “Greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people” Or least amount of suffering to the least amount of people. Also often quoted as “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (Thank you mister Spock). Whilst an open acknowledgement that we may not ever be able to find a perfect course of action that brings everyone happiness or spares everyone suffering (though cynical minds have suggested that the later can be accomplished by wiping out all life leaving nothing alive to suffer). Unfortunately the moment we stop trying to save everyone we make it morally acceptable to save no one.
Which leads us very smoothly to our last, and by far most controversial structure of ethics. The ethics of the ego. Since we cannot rid ourselves of the ego, that we at the most fundamental level are wired to be selfish, we should not try to. We should accept this and instead try to make as good a decision of what serves our self interest as one can. From this arises the idea of enlightened self-interest. That by helping others we in turn help ourselves in the long run. Or if not ourselves then our progeny or their progeny, or so on, that we by acting to the detriment of our own interests in the present actually serve to fulfil our primary genetic imperative,the highest form of self-interest. Which leads us back to where we started, while these three methods of arriving at a conclusion are vastly different from each other, they will often arrive at very similar conclusions. A follower of the idea of inseparable self-interest will tell you that our ideas of a ego separated morality is just an instinctual grasp of enlightened self-interest that evolution has given us. Thus it is perhaps a short cut to construct a categorical imperative or to consider the needs of the many allowing us to quicker make hard decisions without having the total or at least vast knowledge needed to argue ethics from the point of ego.
Subsequently the three are separate in theory but one in practice.
Now I mentioned earlier that there are actually more schools of thought here, two more actually, two that in some ways are subsets of two of the others, the first of these is the morality of intentions. It is very similar to the ethics of consequences, it however judges actions based on the intended consequences rather than the achived consequences. It is always to some extent part of the consequential ethics since we can only really judge the consequences of an action with hindsight (and even then it requires not overlooking aspects). But there's also the old maxim that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while old maxims are often wrong (just ask the next guy) one could argue that Stalin and Hitler had the best of intentions (and yet they failed both from an egotistical and a utilitarian standpoint), so I guess there's something to it.
Who's the last guy then? The ethics of transcendence. Friedrich Nietzsche argued that there are no such universal truths that we have no such universally applying ethics that we must ourselves judge what we deem important, and do what we can accept having done to achieve those goals. He called it imposing ones will on the universe. And told us that life and the universe itself is will to power and nothing else. But he also tells us that others will be imposing their will on the universe and as such we must be mindful of the consequences that we incur by placing ourselves in the crosshair of others ability to impose their will upon the universe. One could see it as do what you argue that you must do and accept the consequences of your actions, if those consequences are to steep, then you don't do it. In a way this is a less tangible form of the morality of ego, it relinquishes the idea that there have to be inherent things that we all strive towards, because even if those things may have come naturally we are capable of setting ourselves above that too. What we evolved to be and what we are have long since separated. Nietzsche also warns us against accepting others maxims of morality as our own blindly. That's not to say there is no morality but that we must transcend the expectations of our society and forge our own personal code of ethics if we wish to become supermen and impose our will on the universe.
Nietzsche may seem impossible to combine with the earlier statement that the three are really one but again it all comes down to the question how you arrive at a conclusion. All neitzsche's philosophy says is that you should find the answers yourself, because an answer given to you by someone else is worthless, if you cannot argue why an action is good or bad then you're not making a decision of morality, and as such the action has no moral value, you can chose to cure cancer or end all war but if you don't understand why you are doing it, then you have no right to take responsibility for the action, you are merely a tool for the one who chose to impose his or her will upon you. And a decision to let someone else decide for you is always a bad thing. To many horrible things in the history of mankind have been done by people who were only following orders.
Of course perhaps that is me (and by association Nietzsche) imposing my will and moral code on you.
