Modern ethics
Posted by Ian Raugh on Saturday, 13 August 2011
Philosophers are trying to use intuitive definitions of good, and evil without really explaining objectively what each one is. I can’t say I blame them for shying away from such a definition. It would have to be objective enough that everyone agrees while simultaneously satisfying every person’s own intuition about good and evil. Some philosophies sidestep the issue by using different terms, such as pleasure, but then there is the logical question of why is what is pleasurable (for example) good? It is something people want, but that does not necessarily make it good in the ethical sense. We need new standards.
The roots of ethics
The root of the issue is that philosophy has removed itself from the motivations and intuitions of people, even in simply observing that they exist. It assumes that we are perfectly rational all the time, which is one of the gravest mistakes any field can make. No, we are not rational all the time, we use a mixture of emotions and logic to navigate our ways through life and that mix has worked quite well for most of our history so I am inclined to promote it.
With that in mind, I suggest we change our ethical system to virtue ethics. Virtue ethics, for those new to the concept, basically proposes that we praise certain virtues or traits as desirable and that actions made in accordance with those traits, such as acting compassionately or courageously, are morally correct. It also contains a concept called the Golden mean which says that a virtue can turn into a vice if held insufficiently or in excess, such as too little courage or too much compassion. Virtue ethics is an intuitive framework in which we can function easily. It allows for the shades of grey that do exist in the world while simultaneously giving a vantage point to make value judgements, once we agree on which virtues to espouse.
That, of course, is what has been causing the problems with virtue ethics: which virtues do we espouse and why? I think that, instead of answering the which first, we should figure out why. Why should we, as a species, support certain virtues? My argument is that we already do it intuitively. There are three virtues that all of humanity (brain damage and psychosis aside) share: Compassion, Empathy, and Respect. Why? These are the virtues which, through reasonable practice, have allowed our species to survive. Every social interaction requires each of these, remove one and suddenly every interaction becomes harder, or at least less amiable. Without these three virtues practised in moderation, our species would quickly destroy itself.
An extreme excess of all of the core attributes results in those visionaries of humanitarian efforts, although they also can frequently fall prey to their own excesses of humanity. Too much of any given one puts someone at a social disadvantage, they can be trampled over by those with even a slight lacking of one of the attributes. Too little of any given one results in someone willing to trample over people to get what they want. An extreme lack of any of them results in behaviour that is anti-social in the worst sense of the term, not necessarily criminal but not exactly wholesome either.
Now we have our standards, and our system. Moral behaviour (note, I will not use the word good or evil) is behaviour in accordance with the Golden means of compassion, empathy, and respect. Immoral behaviour violates those means, either by excess or absence. I know that it seems a little odd to call someone who is too nice to others immoral, but consider one thing: aren’t they hurting themselves through their excess of compassion for others?
As per usual, any and all feedback is much appreciated.
