AIM or Yahoo! Messenger:
GTDreamsmith

On Ethics

The following document contains some of my musings on ethics. It is rather loosly organized, even somewhat random. This is because I had no intention of setting out to write a treatise on the subject. Instead, this document serves as a repository for whatever thoughts I have on the subject from time to time. It is a living document, continually under revision. May Spirit take me before I'm ever foolish enough to think I have all the answers.

Anyhow, here are my more or less random thoughts on more or less random subjects in more or less random order.

"If you harm none, do as you will."

I frequently see people reject this principle for the reason that it is impossible to live without causing harm. Now, I am not for a minute going to argue that you should or should not accept this principle. But whatever you do, you should do with good reason. Make your decisions on something better than incorrect assumptions and sloppy logic.

What's important to note here is not so much what the principle says but what it doesn't. Contrary to popular belief, it does not say, "Harm none (period)." Thus, pointing out that it is impossible to harm none is in no way a valid argument against accepting this principle.

So what does it say? Quite simply, it says you are free to do whatever you want if no harm is caused. It does not say you can never act to cause harm, it only implies that you aren't simply free to do whatever you want in that case. This is a far cry from claiming you should never do it, rather it says you should, under the circumstances that you must cause harm, do so with care. I hope you have some sense of ethics to guide you in such cases, determining to what lengths your actions are justified, but the principle in question doesn't even go that far, much less provide any advice on what those limits should be, it certainly doesn't say "don't do it (period)" as many have claimed.

Their may very well be valid reasons for rejecting this principle. But the idea that it is "too binding" or "too restrictive" or "incapable of being used in practice" is founded on nothing more than misunderstanding. Anyone who claims otherwise simply can't read very well. Read what it says, don't insert into it things it doesn't say. If there is any flaw in the principle, it lies not in it being too restrictive, but rather in the fact that it makes no statement at all about what you should or shouldn't do in the case that you are causing harm, other than not "whatever you want."

On the other hand, if it's not just "whatever", it implies you need to think about what you do. Perhaps that's enough. Ethical principles don't speak to the unethical. They would disobey them in any case. Ethical principles are written for those who are concerned about ethics. If you have genuine concern, if you are of that temperment, then perhaps you need nothing more than that. Simply thinking about your actions in such cases may be all that is required for you do always do the right thing.

I draw no conclusions here. There is something to be said for either side. In fact, I assume that for some, it is all that is required, whereas for others, it is too open ended, and more needs to be said. Some people need more guidance than others. Thus, accepting this principle as sufficient or rejecting it as flawed is ultimately a personal decision for which the right answer varies from person to person. But regardless of what you decide, do so for good reasons, not misunderstanding and sloppy reasoning.

On what constitutes an ethical system...

An ethical system is a system by which one can determine if an action is right or wrong. What's important to note here is not what it is but what it isn't. A list of actions, whether it be a list of allowed or forbidden things, is definately not an ethical system. If you can't define your ethical system without making reference to specific things to do or not do, you don't have one. Regardless of whether they're true or not, the Ten Commandments are not an ethical system and are useless for such purpose.

The counter argument you often see presented to this is that, by studying the list of allowed or forbidden actions (whichever list you choose to be the basis for your ethics, I used the Ten Commandments above simply as an example), you can generalize to discover an ethical system, and use that to guide your actions in cases that aren't on the list.

Even assuming this is true, why not simply state what the ethical system is to begin with? From that, one should be able to derive the list in question, plus many other rules. What's even worse is that by not stating the system behind the list, one effectively advocates relativism, which is not what the advocates of these various lists generally want. Nevertheless, if you refuse to state the system but instead insist one must discover it for oneself by studying and generalizing from the list, one must accept that different people may derive different systems from that study.

It should be further noted that once you have an ethical system, you have no need for lists. You can use the system to determine if any particular action is right or wrong, so all you need to know is the system. Lists may still serve a useful purpose, but only an illustrative one, never as a basis for making judgements.

Positive and negative ethical systems

To me, an ethical system should do more than provide guidance on what you should not do. Such an ethical system is a negative ethical system; it makes only negative statements, "You should not do P." A positive ethical system instead makes statements of the form, "You should do Q." But is this an improvement?

Calling it a "positive" ethical system sure makes it sound nicer, but there are implications that many would find difficult to accept. A positive ethical system is coercive. It doesn't simply tell you what not to do, it presumes to tell you what to do!

One of the negative implications of my own ethical system is that it is wrong to coerce others. People must always act of their own free will. I try very hard not to manipulate others into acting in particular ways, even if I perceive it would be to their benefit or that their current actions are self-destructive. I will happily advise, but I'm always very much out in the open with this. I don't try to secretly manipulate people without their knowledge or consent. This contrasts strongly with a friend of mine, who as a psychologist and former counselor is very gifted at influencing others, with or without their knowledge that she is actively seeking to change their behavior. She sometimes does this on people who have not asked her to do so. Since she is attempting to help people, some would regard this as good, and I can't say that they're wrong. I just don't know. But my own ethical beliefs prevent me from acting in this manner.

But this is not the kind of coercion a positive ethical system provides. For one thing, you choose your own ethical system. Influencing your own actions isn't coercion, it's free will. Choosing to abide by your ethics is still a choice. It is important, however, to note that it must be a person's own choice to accept a positive ethical system. It is wrong to expect others to abide by a positive ethical system. It is wrong because it would be coercive, but as it turns out, it's wrong for an even more fundamental reason.

As I said at the start, I feel that an ethical system should provide more than simply guidance on what not to do. Not harming others unnecessarily is an admirable goal, but I wanted something more than just not causing harm. Not causing harm prevents you from being bad, but I think there's more to being good than simply not being bad. A lack of evil does not make one good. Thus, the positive counterpart in my own ethical system is to consider it my duty to help others. I think this is an admirable goal to strive for. But here's the punchline, completing my thought from the last paragraph: to insist that it simply is my duty, rather than having me voluntarily take it on, would rob it of goodness! I would no longer be doing something good, but would simply be avoiding the evil of ignoring my duties.

Duties and obligations are things we take upon ourselves. They must be things we take upon ourselves, not things we simply have, not things we are born with or have by virtue or who or what we are. You have no obligations save those you have consented to. To say otherwise is not wrong simply because it is coercive, but because it robs them of any semblance of moral goodness!

Ultimately, then, an appeal for positive ethics cannot be based on a claim that there is anything wrong with not having them. Taking on a positive ethical system, or better yet a complete ethical system (both positive and negative) must always be a matter of choice, and one in which there is no "wrong" choice. It cannot be wrong to reject positive ethics (and I know many quite moral people who do).

Nevertheless, as a piece of friendly advice, I would recommend at least exploring the possibility. I feel my own life has been enriched by my taking on a complete ethical system. Try to fit at least one positive directive into your system. If it doesn't work for you, so be it. No ethical system should be carved in stone. You must ultimately find something that works for you, since you can't adhere to something that does not, and that leaves you with no ethics at all. As Buddha once said, it is better to be yourself perfectly than to imitate someone else imperfectly.