ETHICS PART 2: REASON AND MORALITY
There are many who might read the previous posts on metaphysics and epistemology and be receptive to the ideas and logic of them. They might acknowledge that reason is our only means of objective knowledge, and to reject the supernatural. However, when it comes to ethics (a.k.a. morality), even people we would consider "level-headed" or "logical" don't attempt to apply logic and reason to this field. After all, how can you prove something is good or evil? Right or wrong? How can the study of what you ought to do be grounded in reason. After all isn't it subjective? These are some of the "rationales" that have taken away the study of ethics from reason and relegated it to the land of the supernatural and the irrational. Do we really need to throw away everything we've learned in metaphysics and epistemology, and turn to faith and emotion as our guide in ethics? The answer, thankfully, is no, and ethics is where reason is needed the most, not the least, as this is the field that guides our actions. Unfortunately, the field of ethics has been virtually dominated by faith and emotion, so it may be a little uncomfortable for some to think differently, since it's been so ingrained in our heads. Historically, there are three main schools of thought when it comes to ethics, none based on reason, and each still influential today. There are flaws with all three, for different reasons, but primarily because they don't take into account the nature of man and the necessity for us to follow reason to survive and prosper.
RELIGION
For most of human history, morality was almost exclusively in the realm of religious teachings, and it's still the dominant force that shapes morality to this day. From ancient Greek myths to Native American legends, almost every civilization had some sort of morality that was taught, and almost all (if not all) were based on the supernatural or faith in some way. Maybe it was a story warning of the horrors and wrath that the Gods would bring if one didn't worship them, or maybe it took the opposite route and tried to show the wondrous life and heavens that could be had if only one would obey a certain morality. Documents like the Ten Commandments or the Five Pillars of Islam gave clear rules for what we ought to do (and ought NOT to do!). While there are some notable differences between religions, most modern religions hold fairly similar views of ethics and generally give similar rules of morality such as don't be "greedy", don't have sex before marriage or commit adultery, help others, and above all be subservient to God and always remember to worship Him. In essence, live not for yourself first, but for God, and then you will be rewarded.
Almost all religions preach the morality of altruism, which is the idea that self-sacrifice is noble and good. Kind of a roundabout way of being selfish, as the whole goal is to have a better life and get to heaven, but you have to put yourself and your interests on the back burner in order to achieve it. Of course, no one can actually live up to the ideals of altruism, because they go against the nature of man, and creates a constant struggle in one's life. To religion, it's the inherent "evil" in us that is envious, lazy, and wants to cheat on our wives. Life becomes a series of mistakes and blunders that results from our sinful nature and requires us to get on our knees or run to the nearest church for forgiveness. Ultimately, the religious ethical view is that it's not within our power to be moral on our own, as we are a flawed being and we need outside, supernatural help. I will say that I find many religious people to be generally "good", and I agree with parts of their ethics. However, I believe seriously and consistently following a religious doctrine sets one up for failure, as it teaches to follow faith, not reason (which is our tool of survival), and fills one's head with harmful contradictions that become especially apparent in politics. It's not a coincidence that all religious-based governments are a disaster.
For most of human history, morality was almost exclusively in the realm of religious teachings, and it's still the dominant force that shapes morality to this day. From ancient Greek myths to Native American legends, almost every civilization had some sort of morality that was taught, and almost all (if not all) were based on the supernatural or faith in some way. Maybe it was a story warning of the horrors and wrath that the Gods would bring if one didn't worship them, or maybe it took the opposite route and tried to show the wondrous life and heavens that could be had if only one would obey a certain morality. Documents like the Ten Commandments or the Five Pillars of Islam gave clear rules for what we ought to do (and ought NOT to do!). While there are some notable differences between religions, most modern religions hold fairly similar views of ethics and generally give similar rules of morality such as don't be "greedy", don't have sex before marriage or commit adultery, help others, and above all be subservient to God and always remember to worship Him. In essence, live not for yourself first, but for God, and then you will be rewarded.
Almost all religions preach the morality of altruism, which is the idea that self-sacrifice is noble and good. Kind of a roundabout way of being selfish, as the whole goal is to have a better life and get to heaven, but you have to put yourself and your interests on the back burner in order to achieve it. Of course, no one can actually live up to the ideals of altruism, because they go against the nature of man, and creates a constant struggle in one's life. To religion, it's the inherent "evil" in us that is envious, lazy, and wants to cheat on our wives. Life becomes a series of mistakes and blunders that results from our sinful nature and requires us to get on our knees or run to the nearest church for forgiveness. Ultimately, the religious ethical view is that it's not within our power to be moral on our own, as we are a flawed being and we need outside, supernatural help. I will say that I find many religious people to be generally "good", and I agree with parts of their ethics. However, I believe seriously and consistently following a religious doctrine sets one up for failure, as it teaches to follow faith, not reason (which is our tool of survival), and fills one's head with harmful contradictions that become especially apparent in politics. It's not a coincidence that all religious-based governments are a disaster.
SECULAR ALTRUISM
As the study of philosophy moved away from religion toward reason during the Enlightenment (which is why it was the Enlightenment!), the study of ethics became a problem, as it needed to be secularized and still make sense to philosophers without relying on God or religion. It took a man of profoundly evil genius by the name of Immanuel Kant to do this. Essentially what Kant did, was to remove reason from ethics, and to hold ethics above reason. As a brilliant man, Kant knew that altruism had to have a mystical base in order to exist, and in order to save the morality of altruism he had to secularize it. Although he and his followers claimed to uphold reason, he created things like the "categorical imperative" and his concept of "duty" deliberately to sever reason from ethics, although he did it in such a way that it seemed to uphold reason at the same time. Just when the field of ethics needed an advocate for reason the most, Kant was there to make sure it didn't grab hold. Through his "superior" intellect, he offered very complex and lengthy arguments, a tangled mess that took twists and turns no mere mortal could keep up with. If you want to see for yourself try plodding through Critique of Pure Reason, although I wouldn't recommend it!
As the study of philosophy moved away from religion toward reason during the Enlightenment (which is why it was the Enlightenment!), the study of ethics became a problem, as it needed to be secularized and still make sense to philosophers without relying on God or religion. It took a man of profoundly evil genius by the name of Immanuel Kant to do this. Essentially what Kant did, was to remove reason from ethics, and to hold ethics above reason. As a brilliant man, Kant knew that altruism had to have a mystical base in order to exist, and in order to save the morality of altruism he had to secularize it. Although he and his followers claimed to uphold reason, he created things like the "categorical imperative" and his concept of "duty" deliberately to sever reason from ethics, although he did it in such a way that it seemed to uphold reason at the same time. Just when the field of ethics needed an advocate for reason the most, Kant was there to make sure it didn't grab hold. Through his "superior" intellect, he offered very complex and lengthy arguments, a tangled mess that took twists and turns no mere mortal could keep up with. If you want to see for yourself try plodding through Critique of Pure Reason, although I wouldn't recommend it!
"Hey, where are your kids at? Remember your Kantian duty of honesty!"
Under the Kantian view of ethics, the highest form of morality is to be selfless. To be moral, one must act out of a sense of "duty", and gain no benefit from their actions. The more one acts without benefiting themselves, the more moral they become. Ultimately, following this line of reasoning means that in order to be good you have to want to be evil, and that morality means acting against your self-interest. After all, if you were naturally good, it would be in your self-interest to act that way and it would benefit you! Almost no one today completely believes in Kantian ethics, as it would require you to take actions that seem horrific. For instance, if an intruder came into your home and asked where the jewelry box is, you would need to tell them to fulfill your duty of honesty! Saving money for your kid's college fund would be morally inferior to donating it to some child you've never met. What his theory did, though, was give rise to the notion that the practical and the moral are at odds with each other. Any action that benefits yourself is not considered moral, while anything done for "duty" or for others is. At it's core this philosophy is anti-reason, as it advocates not only ignoring what our "head" tells us to do, but tells us that in order to be moral we must deliberately go against it. This is the foundation, the bedrock of modern day altruism, and is pervasive in almost all elements of our culture and politics, particularly liberal politics. Kant is the granddaddy of all this, and his philosophy is what ultimately led to Marxism and even Nazism (although it could be argued that they perverted his philosophy).
Kant secularized the religious view of altruism, but still left ethics in the realm of faith. Instead of living one's life for God, now it became moral to live one's life for "society" (or the state, under Marxism). Most of modern day politics is a constant battle between the altruism of religion against the altruism of Kant, with just enough respect for liberty to keep it from devolving into totalitarianism (for now). Kant was one of the most evil of all philosophers, because he was smart enough to know what he was doing, and his unstated goal was to make reason impotent. It's clear from his writings and ideas that he despised reason and he used his intellectual gift to take its legs out just as it had made a comeback during the Enlightenment. The fact that he appeared to advocate reason while at the same time destroying it, makes it even worse. Unfortunately, if his goal was to stagnate the march of reason in ethics, he did a damn good job, as his theories still have tremendous influence in secular ethics today. This form of altruism, while it likes to pretend it's all about helping others, is really just a front for a more sinister purpose. It's real goal is to get the individual to sacrifice the essence of what it is to be human, what allows us to flourish and ultimately be happy, which is the ability to reason. It has us sacrifice our humanity and independence for the sake of "duty".
Kant secularized the religious view of altruism, but still left ethics in the realm of faith. Instead of living one's life for God, now it became moral to live one's life for "society" (or the state, under Marxism). Most of modern day politics is a constant battle between the altruism of religion against the altruism of Kant, with just enough respect for liberty to keep it from devolving into totalitarianism (for now). Kant was one of the most evil of all philosophers, because he was smart enough to know what he was doing, and his unstated goal was to make reason impotent. It's clear from his writings and ideas that he despised reason and he used his intellectual gift to take its legs out just as it had made a comeback during the Enlightenment. The fact that he appeared to advocate reason while at the same time destroying it, makes it even worse. Unfortunately, if his goal was to stagnate the march of reason in ethics, he did a damn good job, as his theories still have tremendous influence in secular ethics today. This form of altruism, while it likes to pretend it's all about helping others, is really just a front for a more sinister purpose. It's real goal is to get the individual to sacrifice the essence of what it is to be human, what allows us to flourish and ultimately be happy, which is the ability to reason. It has us sacrifice our humanity and independence for the sake of "duty".
EXISTENTIALISM
There is another view of ethics that has crept up in the last century or two, which is hard to give a name to because it's cognitively all over the place, but we can label it existentialism as a general group. It has its roots in Friedrich Nietzsche, and was made more popular by 20th century writers like John-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. This line of thought is similar to Kant, in the regard that it holds ethics above reason and operates on faith (whether or not they admit it). However, unlike Kant who had "rules" of ethics, the existentialists put forth that we can make up our own rules. They view the consciousness of each individual as the creator of its own reality, and thus ethics should be up to the individual, who should be guided by their own arbitrary feelings. In other words, things like good and evil are subjective, and based only on the perceptions and feelings of each person. This, of course, is advocating the "primacy of consciousness" viewpoint we discussed back in Metaphysics Part 2 as being faulty. This line of thinking can conjure up a wide range of ethics, from those who advocate "living in the moment" and doing "what feels good", to "screw you, every man for himself!", to "being one with nature", to "we're all interconnected and should live for one another". It could be a hippie, a psychopath, or an anarchist. The defining difference from Kant is that there are no "objective" rules, and what is moral for one may not be for another, and one may even change their rules of morality at any given moment! Since this kind of ethics could conjure up all sorts of different conclusions, it may occasionally be correct, as is a stopped clock. As a whole, though, it's harmful and should be rejected as its ethics is subjective, and ethics shouldn't be left to personal whims.
There is another view of ethics that has crept up in the last century or two, which is hard to give a name to because it's cognitively all over the place, but we can label it existentialism as a general group. It has its roots in Friedrich Nietzsche, and was made more popular by 20th century writers like John-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. This line of thought is similar to Kant, in the regard that it holds ethics above reason and operates on faith (whether or not they admit it). However, unlike Kant who had "rules" of ethics, the existentialists put forth that we can make up our own rules. They view the consciousness of each individual as the creator of its own reality, and thus ethics should be up to the individual, who should be guided by their own arbitrary feelings. In other words, things like good and evil are subjective, and based only on the perceptions and feelings of each person. This, of course, is advocating the "primacy of consciousness" viewpoint we discussed back in Metaphysics Part 2 as being faulty. This line of thinking can conjure up a wide range of ethics, from those who advocate "living in the moment" and doing "what feels good", to "screw you, every man for himself!", to "being one with nature", to "we're all interconnected and should live for one another". It could be a hippie, a psychopath, or an anarchist. The defining difference from Kant is that there are no "objective" rules, and what is moral for one may not be for another, and one may even change their rules of morality at any given moment! Since this kind of ethics could conjure up all sorts of different conclusions, it may occasionally be correct, as is a stopped clock. As a whole, though, it's harmful and should be rejected as its ethics is subjective, and ethics shouldn't be left to personal whims.
Fortunately, these aren't the only options in studying ethics, and what is laid out in the following posts is a code of ethics that is unfortunately exceedingly rare, as it holds reason as an absolute, and not some whimsical device that can be thrown out when we feel like it. It's sad to say, but it's rare to talk about ethics as an objective study (no, Kant doesn't count!), and to use objective facts about man and reality to arrive at ethical conclusions. Not only can reason be applied to ethics, it's imperative that it is. Metaphysics and epistemology are all but useless if you don't apply them consistently to ethics. If you agreed with the posts on metaphysics and epistemology, then it should bother you to adopt any of the irrational views of ethics above, as it could potentially allow a major contradiction into your philosophy. It would be like saying, "I accept reason as our only means of objective knowledge, but ethics is different, and we don't actually need knowledge to study it. I think I'll just go with the flow and follow what feels right."
Following a rational set of ethics consistently is not only the key to happiness and to avoid the "demons" in our head, but the key to achieving one's full potential as a human being, whether we're a genius or a moron. It's also required as a foundation to politics, as all of politics rests on ethics. No government can stand the test of time without a firm and correct base in ethics, and the foundation in this country is currently about as firm as a limp noodle! Some of the ethics put forth will jive with traditional ethics like "thou shalt not steal" or "don't cheat on your wife". It will show that initiating the use of force on another is always immoral. The main, but crucial difference will be that conventional altruism isn't compatible with man's nature and should be rejected. The goal is not to tell you how to live your life, but to show you a code of ethics that you may not be familiar with, justify it with reason, and then let you make up your own mind. The next post will deal with the root of ethics, "values".
Following a rational set of ethics consistently is not only the key to happiness and to avoid the "demons" in our head, but the key to achieving one's full potential as a human being, whether we're a genius or a moron. It's also required as a foundation to politics, as all of politics rests on ethics. No government can stand the test of time without a firm and correct base in ethics, and the foundation in this country is currently about as firm as a limp noodle! Some of the ethics put forth will jive with traditional ethics like "thou shalt not steal" or "don't cheat on your wife". It will show that initiating the use of force on another is always immoral. The main, but crucial difference will be that conventional altruism isn't compatible with man's nature and should be rejected. The goal is not to tell you how to live your life, but to show you a code of ethics that you may not be familiar with, justify it with reason, and then let you make up your own mind. The next post will deal with the root of ethics, "values".