Nathan Tyree: ETHICS
The Ethics
I hold that man* is a mortal, material creature. There is no god or higher power to guide us and define for us an objective morality. Ethics are an invention of the human mind. We could ask: why have an ethical system at all? Surely, if morality is subjective then it is meaningless. The answer to this question is simple:
To function a society must have rules. It is left to us to choose (some would say fashion) these rules for ourselves. Philosophers have attempted to define and refine ethical systems. Everyone from Kant to Nietzsche has taken a shot at it. Mostly they have failed. Only two systems of ethics have come really close to being workable. One is The Social Contract as put forth by Hobbes (See Leviathan) and Rousseau (See The Social Contract). The other is the Utilitarianism of J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham (Mill’s formulation is better than Bentham’s in my humble opinion).
Both of these systems are rational, clear and effective. However, both are flawed. I will provide a truncated view of how they work here.
The Social Contract basically states that as members of society we agree to a set of reciprocal rules and must abide by them. You agree not to burn down my house because I agree not to burn down your house. You won’t steal my watch because I won’t steal your watch. This goes on and on. The failing of the contract is that it can only apply to those who can take part in the contract. It does not apply to dogs, chickens, the mentally retarded, etc. It is on that point that Hobbes system dissolves.
Utilitarianism avoids that failing. At base it states that pleasure (or avoidance of pain) is good and pain (or avoidance of pleasure) is bad. In undertaking an action one must weigh the amount of pleasure caused by the act to the amount of pain caused. If the pleasure outweighs the pain, it is a morally permissible act. All pleasure and pain count (so it does apply to dogs, chicks, and the mentally retarded). Mill adds that both quantity and quality of pleasure or pain must be considered. Thus a Rabbit’s pleasure is less important than a Man’s. Under this system you could obviously kill a cow to feed your family, but you can’t slaughter coyotes for sport.
Where does Utilitarianism fail? Imagine that a man puts a hidden camera in a girl’s locker room. He is certain that he will never be caught, so the girls he peeps at will never know that their privacy has been invaded. Under a Utility driven view this would be ethically permissible.
How are we to deal with this? My solution is by using a combination of these two systems. Because we apply both systems (in their stricter senses) we have all of the restrictions of each. Where one fails (and lets in what we would naturally presume to be ethically wrong) the other over laps. The contract covers our privacy (and many other things) where Utility fails it. Utilitarianism protects those that cannot take part in the contract. And thus, we have an ethical system we can live with.
I also make one adjustment to these. I believe that as Persons are the top of this chain (I’m tempted to get planet of the apes and say “lawgiversâ€Â) that they deserve a special exemption. It is never permissible for one person to kill another person (note that I use the term “another,’ specifically what one does to oneself is one’s own business- suicide is not a matter of morality). We also must be clear on the definition of person. A person is any of the great apes.
I believe (with Jared Diamond and Richard Dawkins) that Humans are a species of Chimpanzee. It seems to follow from this that ALL of the great apes deserve personhood status (both legally and ethically).
Anyway, that is my ethics in a nutshell.
*please, for simplicity ignore the sexist language and assume that when I say Man I mean Men and Women.
The Ethics
I hold that man* is a mortal, material creature. There is no god or higher power to guide us and define for us an objective morality. Ethics are an invention of the human mind. We could ask: why have an ethical system at all? Surely, if morality is subjective then it is meaningless. The answer to this question is simple:
To function a society must have rules. It is left to us to choose (some would say fashion) these rules for ourselves. Philosophers have attempted to define and refine ethical systems. Everyone from Kant to Nietzsche has taken a shot at it. Mostly they have failed. Only two systems of ethics have come really close to being workable. One is The Social Contract as put forth by Hobbes (See Leviathan) and Rousseau (See The Social Contract). The other is the Utilitarianism of J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham (Mill’s formulation is better than Bentham’s in my humble opinion).
Both of these systems are rational, clear and effective. However, both are flawed. I will provide a truncated view of how they work here.
The Social Contract basically states that as members of society we agree to a set of reciprocal rules and must abide by them. You agree not to burn down my house because I agree not to burn down your house. You won’t steal my watch because I won’t steal your watch. This goes on and on. The failing of the contract is that it can only apply to those who can take part in the contract. It does not apply to dogs, chickens, the mentally retarded, etc. It is on that point that Hobbes system dissolves.
Utilitarianism avoids that failing. At base it states that pleasure (or avoidance of pain) is good and pain (or avoidance of pleasure) is bad. In undertaking an action one must weigh the amount of pleasure caused by the act to the amount of pain caused. If the pleasure outweighs the pain, it is a morally permissible act. All pleasure and pain count (so it does apply to dogs, chicks, and the mentally retarded). Mill adds that both quantity and quality of pleasure or pain must be considered. Thus a Rabbit’s pleasure is less important than a Man’s. Under this system you could obviously kill a cow to feed your family, but you can’t slaughter coyotes for sport.
Where does Utilitarianism fail? Imagine that a man puts a hidden camera in a girl’s locker room. He is certain that he will never be caught, so the girls he peeps at will never know that their privacy has been invaded. Under a Utility driven view this would be ethically permissible.
How are we to deal with this? My solution is by using a combination of these two systems. Because we apply both systems (in their stricter senses) we have all of the restrictions of each. Where one fails (and lets in what we would naturally presume to be ethically wrong) the other over laps. The contract covers our privacy (and many other things) where Utility fails it. Utilitarianism protects those that cannot take part in the contract. And thus, we have an ethical system we can live with.
I also make one adjustment to these. I believe that as Persons are the top of this chain (I’m tempted to get planet of the apes and say “lawgiversâ€Â) that they deserve a special exemption. It is never permissible for one person to kill another person (note that I use the term “another,’ specifically what one does to oneself is one’s own business- suicide is not a matter of morality). We also must be clear on the definition of person. A person is any of the great apes.
I believe (with Jared Diamond and Richard Dawkins) that Humans are a species of Chimpanzee. It seems to follow from this that ALL of the great apes deserve personhood status (both legally and ethically).
Anyway, that is my ethics in a nutshell.
*please, for simplicity ignore the sexist language and assume that when I say Man I mean Men and Women.
![[Valid RSS]](themes/mario-world/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")