Ethics: Argument
This entry continues on from a number of previous posts (the latest of which can be found
here) it also answers a number of points raised by a commentor, Don Jr., who reacted to a comment I left on the blog
dangerous ideas. His name does not link to any blog, so I can’t link there, unfortunately.
First of all I want to clarify my stance on objectivity and subjectivity. I am not suggesting that the entire world is subjective (though I admit I did talk about it). Complete subjectivity does not work with my theory. There needs to be a truth that we all share (a truth that I will call objective for the rest of this entry). All humans understand and accept certain inalienable truths such as ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’, ‘when I drop this pen it will drop’ and ‘one die I will die’. (Whether these are part of an absolute and unalterable world or simply preconceptions that we all share with each other, is a matter that I will leave for another entry.)
Ethical Darwinism needs some sort of objective reality. It is only through a shared reality that competition, and therefore evolution, can take place.
Now onto the touchy subject of child rape.
Don Jr. says
most say that child rape is wrong regardless of what child rapists think. Unless it can be shown that the majority of the world's population (those that think that child rape is objectively wrong) is indeed irrational in their belief, I don't think there's any warrant at all to think they're just simply mistaken.I have read this type of argument many times and I understand its merit, but I believe that in this case it doesn’t provide the same amount of punch as in other situations. You see, I believe that the child rape argument is mainly an emotive argument, rather than an analytical argument. It is based on ‘wrong’ and ‘right’.
What happens, however, if we consider wrong and right trained into us through evolution? It would be like saying evolution hardwired us to believe that child rape is wrong, but because I and the majority of people absolutely accept that child rape is wrong evolution can’t possibly have trained it into us. If evolution is strong enough to give us eyes, hands, speech and survival instincts then I believe that it is strong enough to ingrain certain responses.
We have been taught to believe certain things over many generations and this makes our belief in them strong. Just look at nudity, for instance. Many people would be shocked (and quite offended) by a nude person running down the street, playing with his genitals and slapping his ass. Yet, clothes and modesty did not originally exist. They have been trained into us through numerous generations.
Most animals protect their young. We humans are exceptionally devoted to it. It is necessary for us because our young take a very long time to develop and if we would not protect them, they would die, which would mean we would leave no heritage behind. Would it be such a strange idea to say that our ingrained belief of ‘child rape is absolutely wrong’ sprang forth from this instinct?
Now, as for the question ‘are all our views equally correct?’ (I realise that the question was not asked this way) No, they aren’t. Just like not all species in the world are equally adept at surviving. Some ethical models (such as those of many aboriginal tribes) have been learned for a specific environment and a specific group of people with certain skills. These Ethical Models are being out competed by rival models. Now, from an anthropological point of view that is a terrible shame, but from an evolutionary point of view that makes perfect sense.
The view that all views are equally true is held by moral relativists, this is not my view. I hold that if enough people in a society prefer chicken to, say, pork, then why shouldn’t they impose their will on those that like pork? (Something that has already happened in two ethical models) To say that people shouldn’t be allowed to impose their will on others because their view is a matter of preference is making a moral judgement, something which Moral relativists aren’t supposed to do. (Now I realise that that is a moral judgement on my part, but I get to make them, seeing as I’m not a moral relativist. (hah!))
The argument
If you [say] that in order for mankind to survive you ought to be concerned with mankind's survival then your just uttering a vacuous statement. And if you reply that he ought to be concerned with the survival of mankind then your just begging the question (not to mention, asserting a moral absolute). (this comment was also uttered by Don Jr.)
This is possibly one of the best arguments I have heard so far. I will give it some more thought today, but let me respond to it at this point by pointing out a few things. First off, Darwinian ethics is a meta ethical model. It discusses the movement and evolution of ethical models and does not propose to be an ethical model itself.
Also, simply because something is wrong doesn’t mean it doesn’t have evolutionary merit. If god does not exist, for instance, that does not mean that believing in god is not beneficial. Meme theory is largely occupied with the fact that some of the most successful memes are sometimes just not true (look at urban legends), still they persist, often told on despite both the speaker and the listener questioning their validity.
In the end ethical models that help us are more likely to survive, while ethical models that do harm are more likely to die along with their hosts. Currently existing ethical models have been tested, time and again, even within our own life times (imagine the strain they have been put under over the entire existence of our species).
I personally believe that we should not steal, rape, kill or do a whole host of other things that my ethical model tells me not to do. I just suggest that I should not accept these moral judgements from the viewpoint that absolutes exist, but rather that theses views have been tested and tried by the grinding forces of evolution and have held up as part of the strongest and most prevalent ethical model. So what I’m saying is that even though the rapist says that rape is right, that is no reason for us to let him off. We disagree and we are more than within our evolutionary ‘right’ to act on that belief.
Basically, what I’m suggesting is that I arrive at the same ethical conclusions, but I just arrive there from a standpoint that is evolutionary (rather than an absolutist). I'll expand on this later.
Ethics: The Appeal of Absolutes
This entry continues on from a course of thought that I started a few weeks ago (the latest entry can be found
here). If this entry does not make sense, it might be a good idea to look there for explanations. Don’t be afraid to comment, however.
Absolutes are a part of our lives. They help us form our judgements, decide who to put in jail and let us decide what course of action is best for all of us, from the lowest to the highest. Absolutes are an accepted part of most people’s lives. Often accepted without question. Learned from authority figures, like parents, teachers, politicians and priests.
Some areas influenced by absolutes are law (good and evil), relationships (love), politics (the unalienable rights of man) and religion (God, heaven, hell).
Yet what do absolutes mean for us? Why, if Darwinian Ethics holds true, do we have them? Darwinian Ethics suggests that there are no real absolutes, that ethical models exist because they make life better for the species as a whole. If Darwinian Ethics holds true then absolutes exist only in our own minds and are only as real as any concept can be.
Absolutes exist because they make our lives easier. Even if they don’t actually exist in any physical sense absolutes make life more bearable. A group of people that already has to spend most of its energy battling its environment does not have the energy to spare to doubt. Doubt, though important, uses a huge amount of energy. It makes us uncertain of what action to take and any time spent on indecision is time not spent on increasing our chances for survival. People simply didn’t have time for uncertainty.
A group of people that has absolutes can make quick judgement calls, even while groups that embrace relativity can’t make those same calls The first group might be wrong more often, but that is more than overbalanced by their ability to act quickly and more aggressively (absolutes are necessary fanaticisms, it’s very hard to be fanatic about relativism, unless, of course, you consider relativism as an absolute.)
Then there is the argument of homogeneity. For most of the existence of man homogeneity was highly desirable. Homogeneity creates unity and unity allows us to overcome our enemies (during wartime we see countries coming together to fight a common enemy. Extolling virtues such as nationalism, absolute trust and love for one’s fellows.) It is far easier to fall in line with a set of absolute truths than relativistic mumbling.
Our young wouldn’t be able to understand why they should fall in line with a number of relativistic ethical concepts when everybody around us admits that they are no more right than any other set of beliefs. It is simply in our nature to try look for absolutes (I myself often fall prey to the desire for absolute truth).
So, in other words, Absolutes made our life better. That, of course, begs the question, ‘why, then, try and debunk them?’ as I seem to be trying to do in these articles. The reason for that is two fold. First off there is my need to find the truth (which has pushed our technological advancement, which, as far as I can see has made our lives a great deal better. Yes, that is a slippery slope, but I can live with that.) Secondly there is the problems that I see arising from the absolutes that we adhere to.
First off all there is a big difference between us now and several centuries ago. We now have a great deal of energy left over from our industrialisation and technological advancement which we can (and often do) invest indecisiveness (such as science). These have led to some amazing discoveries, which in turn have given us even more energy to ‘waste’.
Secondly, and far more importantly right now, absolutes generate conflict. Most religious conflict, for instance, has sprung forth from disagreement about absolutes, (i.e. God). A great deal of fighting used to occur mainly because we were striving for resources. Now, however, we strive more and more often about ideology (largely because we often believe we already have enough resources.) Ideological conflict, I believe, are all about absolutes rubbing each other the wrong way.
My perception of GOOD and EVIL is better than your perception of GOOD and EVIL (with better, of course, being another word linked to absolutes).
Absolutes worked very well for us before, but now that we have physical changed the world and ourselves (or, at least how we behave and how we spend our time) we have to change our mindset as well. To quote Albert Einstein:
"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them."
Ethics: Meta Ethics
This entry continues on from a number of previous entries, the last of which can be found
here. This entry will probably not make a great deal of sense without considering those entries first. You have been warned.
I had a chance to discuss my meta-ethical model as it exists right now and to get some basic reactions to it. The person I spoke to made the assumption that I’m advocating that people should abandon their current ethical model and replace it with an easier life style, one where they would not, for instance, have to pray five times, avoid beef or consider the sound of one hand clapping.
The apparently believed I was suggesting an alternative way for people to live their lives. I can understand why people would think that, but I would like to point out at this point that that is not what I’m doing. I am not suggesting that people should abandon their current ethical model (or religion, or anything like that). What I’ve outlined in the previous entries does not operate at that level, but rather tries to examine the system that governs why certain ethical models are held by a huge number of people, even while other ethical models have almost completely died out.
Trying to use my theory to explain how people should behave is a bit like trying to use linguistic theory to understand Japanese. Linguistic theory might explain why the Japanese language works the way it works, but it won’t make it possible for you to understand it.
Darwinian Ethics does not propose that any ethical model is wrong. It does quite the opposite. It says that every ethical model has at least some of the answers, that’s why they still exist. Only those ethical models that don’t exist anymore can be said to have been ‘wrong’ (and then only from our current perspective in time).
So what is the purpose of Darwinian Ethics? Well, if Darwinian Ethics is right (And that’s a mighty big if) then it might help us understand what we’re doing better, as well as why. We can observe the actions we undertake and possibly help accelerate ethical evolution through conscious effort. I see it much like how we first learn how the world works around us and then use that knowledge to make better use of the world.
All the ethical models that exist right now, and especially the dominant ones, are in that position for a reason. They have certain ideas and concepts that are helping those that hold those ethical models to thrive. Those ethical models are spreading because they are appealing to the people that encounter them. They should not be abandoned, but instead by examined carefully, so that we might find what makes them capable of out competing other, older models.
So, I reiterate (just to be certain that it is understood) I am not advising people to change their life style, I am only suggesting a theory that might explain why they live the way they live and why the believe what they believe. Everything is in this world for a reason, be it tree, rock or belief. I am just trying to explain why some of those beliefs might be there.
Ethics: Competition
This post continues on from several previous posts, of which the most recent one (before this) can be found
here. Note that I posted twice today. If anything is unclear look there for an explanation.
I believe that the minds of people have become a battlefield for different Ethical Models (some would call it ideologies, but I think that sounds a bit too negative.)
These compete with each other, much like animals compete with each other for dominance of different geographical area. Though I don’t see them as living organisms exactly, I do believe that they act very much like living organisms, in that they mutate, ‘strive’ to survive and compete for limited resources.
Ethical Models all try to fight for the same niche in our mindscape and we cannot have several controlling us at the same time. One Ethical Model will hold dominance, even if that Ethical Model might be a fusion of different models that have entered our thoughts.
This is, as I mentioned before, a battle of the fittest (Ethical Darwinism). Each Ethical Model has a survival strategy. Some ‘replicate’ easily (i.e. are easy to accept by people) while others imbed themselves very deeply into a person’s psyche (like a cult). Yet others are very close and therefore compatible with already existing ethical models. Some give the people that believe in those models a better chance of prospering than others and thereby spread out across the population.
The western Ethical Model can, for instance, be said to fit into this last category. The western Ethical Model has led to a great deal of wealth for those people that have embraced it and this has led to the Ethical Model (i.e. western values) to be desirable for many other societies (the effect of this has been the steady spread of western values across the globe).
Other Ethical Models might offer solidarity, diversity, adaptability or a whole other host of advantages to those that hold to that specific belief. The greater the advantages of the model, the stronger that model becomes and the greater a portion of the world population and, by extension, the world’s resources that Ethical Model will end up controlling.
Since different Ethical Models are in conflict with each other there is a constant struggle for more territory (not physical territory, but rather the territory in our mindscape). Generally these battles are fought out with words, but sometimes (Iraq could be seen as an example) these battles of these different Ethical Models actually spill over into physical violence.
Ultimately this type of competition can be seen as beneficial, as each ethical model will end up becoming more suited to the environment in which they exist. (Many people would of course argue that the loss of life is not worth it and I could cheekily answer that that is just a judgement call, which is subjective anyway).
Each Ethical Model has to strive to become a leaner, meaner survival machine, which is better suited to the environment around it. This means that it allows us to work in harmony with the world around us, as well as with our newest discoveries.
There are two types of mutation that occur in the mind. The first type of mutation we are all familiar with, namely the mutation as information is passed from mind to mind (and reinterpreted by a slightly different worldview), which is basically the same as the mutations that can occur from parents to children.
The second form of mutation is unique to ideas and computer programs (and I’m not going to talk about the latter). This is mutation within a lifetime. To use an analogy, originally it was thought that a giraffe’s neck was as long as it was because it constantly stretched for leaves. Ultimately this would lead to the neck stretching slightly and this newly stretched neck was then passed on to the children. Mutation within one generation, if you will. Of course DNA disproved this theory.
Of course Ethical Models don’t seem to have any DNA. Any modification that occurs within the mind of a person as they consider, adapt and modify will be passed on to the next person that they tell their Ethical Model to. In this way evolution happens far more quickly.
Ultimately this type of evolution is bound to lead to better ethical models, which will give society a consistently better chance at survival.
Ethics: Perceived Objectivity
This entry continues on from a number of previous entries. The last of which can be found
here. In each previous entry there is a link to an entry before and in that way you can find your way back to the very first entry about this topic. These entries might make things more logical if what is written here isn’t clear.
I imagine that it is very hard for many people to understand why I think that their worldview is very much completely relative and subjective. The reason for this is, quite simply, that they only ever see one view of the world. They are forever stuck in their own head and can never see the world through another person’s eyes (even when we try to understand what another person thinks, feels and experiences we still interpret everything they say through the filter of our own perceptions)
Your worldview is a sphere permanently centered on you, which you cannot escape and which colours each and every observation you ever make. Now add to that the fact that most people, from the moment they are born, are taught about absolutes (absolute good, i.e. what they and the people around them believe; and absolute evil, i.e. the stuff that they and the people around them believe is bad) and you start to form a pretty good idea why people think they are pretty objective.
The only way that people start to realise how subjective their worldview is, is by rubbing shoulders with people with considerably different viewpoints. These viewpoints ‘infect’ these people and make them understand that their own way of seeing things is not necessarily the only way to view the situation.
Interestingly enough, the people that rub shoulders the least with other viewpoints are going to think that they are the most objective, yet are probably the people with the most extreme opinions (and are probably the most subjective). Extremists are convinced of their own ‘righness’ (and therefore their own objectivity). They are often the people that have taken the least time examining other viewpoints.
Some extremists, however, spend a considerable amount of time living in other cultures (i.e. the 911 hijacker) and are not influenced by the viewpoints around them. This is explainable through ‘lock out mechanisms’ (a term I was introduced to in the book ‘Mindwars’, by
Ian McFadyen), which means that a person has been trained to see anything contrary to their beliefs as something that came from ‘the enemy’ and which should, under no circumstances, be listened to or even believed. (Most ethical models try to instil something like this in their followers, some - like cults - are more successful at it than others, however. It seems to depend on the size of the group.)
Ethics: Evolution
This entry regarding ethics continues on from
this previous entry. If things are unclear you might want to look there, first.
First off I would like to deal with the comments left on the previous entry.
The first comment was
what is help and what is hinder? by
Amazonian.
This is a good question. Quite simply what I meant with ‘help’ and ‘hinder’ was what would help and hinder the species that held the beliefs. In this case a belief that helps is one that improves the survival chances for that sub species (i.e. humans) that hold the view (have this Meme), while a belief that hinders is one that reduces the survival chances of that group.
The second comment was
Are you trying to draw an analogy of Relativism (in ethics) to Einstein's Theory? In Einstein's world, there is one absolute: The speed of light travelling though a vacuum and not under the influence of any large gravitational bodies. What is the corresponding absolute in the worldview of ethical relativity? by
Singapore SerfYes, I am drawing a parallel between ethical relativism and Einstein’s theory of Relativity, or rather I am trying to explain how the theory of Relativity inspired me to think of ethical relativity. I have not really thought about if there are any constants in ethical relativity.
So far the only thing that would come close to being a constant would be change. Of course that is wonderfully vague, but I’m going to have to leave it at that until I have given your question a great deal more thought. There might be no absolute constants in ethics.
Thank you both for your questions. I believe that progress can only ever be achieved through discussion.
Since yesterday my theory has evolved. I have looked into some ethical texts for inspiration and comparable theories. The closest I managed to find was something called ‘moral relativism’ (the name, as you probably noticed, is damned close to what I called my concept). Here is how
Philosophy: the basics describes moral relativism:
It is uncontroversially true that people in different societies have different customs and different ideas about right and wrong. There is no world consensus on which actions are right and wrong, even though there is a considerable overlap between views on this. If we consider how much moral views have changed both from place to place and from age to age it can be tempting to think that there are no absolute moral facts, but rather that morality is always relative to the society in which you have been brought up.
On such a view, since slavery was morally acceptable to most Ancient Greeks but is not to most Europeans today, slavery was right for the Ancient Greeks but would be wrong for today’s Europeans. This view, known as moral relativism, makes morality simply a description of the values held by a particular society at a particular time.
This is a meta-ethical view about the nature of moral judgements. Moral judgements can only be judged true or false relative to a particular society. There are no absolute moral judgements: they are all relative. Moral relativism contrasts starkly with the view that some actions are absolutely right or wrong. The book then goes on to discuss and refute a subgroup of moral relativism known as normative relativism, which is basically the idea that since no one moral model is superior to any other, no one model should be allowed to eradicate or even influence another. That is however not important, as my theory doesn’t hold that view anyway.
Alright, so that is moral relativism. What is the difference between that and what I have proposed? Well, to begin with, I don’t think that simply because our ethical model is different from others that we cannot make moral judgements about another group. We can make a moral judgement about the actions of others based on our own ethical model and that moral judgement will hold true within our society, or group.
The big difference between moral relativism and what I dubbed ethical relativity is that I believe that ethical systems can be compared to each other, based on how much they have helped or hindered the group that holds those views. I think, for that reason, that it is important that I make the distinction between moral relativism and ethical relativity clearer, for that reason I am going to rename ethical relativity (i.e. my theory) as Ethical Darwinism.
The relativity is important to understand why different groups have different ethical view points, but it is the survival rate of those that follow a specific ethical model (and therefore the survival chances of that ethical model) that decide how effective that model is.
Ethics – much like claws, teeth, reason and fur – are tools that we use to survive and prosper, as individuals and as groups. It is ethics that creates the rules for how we should interact, or rather the most desirable way that all of us should interact with each other within one group. Different ethical models often lead to conflict, as we end up doing something off hand that is considered disgusting in another culture.
At this point I would like to counter the argument that is bound to come up, which goes ‘but if ethics are so relative, then how come so many ethical views are so similar across the world? For instance, why is everybody against killing and theft?’
Why do almost all plants grow up? Why do almost all animals have four limbs, a head and a body? Why do birds have feathers? Because that is what gave them the best chance for survival. Societies that were pro murder have a significantly lower chance of procreating. Rules against murder are a good mutation.
Ethical systems that say ‘stealing should be admired’ have mutated in a harmful way.
Now the interesting thing is that many people seem to find the idea that ethics could be an evolved trait abhorrent. When I looked up ‘Ethical Darwinism’ on the internet (just to be certain that it was relatively unused) those references that did come up seemed to see it as something bad. The suggested that it was a highly undesirable ethical model. I don’t see why.
Something that has been tried and tested through thousands of years of evolution and tinkering is something I trust far more than something that was simply ordained one day by some higher being. I have never met this higher being, yet I have spent my entire life on this planet and anything that has been through the gauntlet of our minds, especially for thousands of years, is something I admire greatly.
A tool that is constantly being remolded and reforged in the fire of our minds, with only those ideas that make us stronger and better managing to survive, while those ideas that weaken us falling prey to the powerful forces of natural selection.
Ethics: First Proposal
This entry goes on from an entry earlier today click
here to read it. Please note that some things here might not make sense without reading that entry first.
So now that I’ve put out the rules for my approach I want to get into my original theory. I have one. We’re bound all to have one, even if we haven’t thought about it in great detail. I will post the theory here and then see what is right with it and what is wrong.
First off, like I said last time, there is no absolute good and evil (with absolute I mean perfect, unchanging, unalterable absolutely perfect good and evil. I will from hereon in refer to absolute good and evil as GOOD and EVIL). Without GOOD and EVIL mixtures of good and evil become rather hard to measure. It is like trying to understand the chemical composition of a substance without having (even a potential) periodic table.
I base the lack of GOOD and EVIL on the lack of proof of their existence. Without GOOD and EVIL all other good and evil becomes a grey mass of relativity. Good and evil are up for personal interpretation. (I will sit down later and try to prove that without GOOD and EVIL you cannot have relative good and evil)
Right now all ethics is based on the assumption that good and evil exist. How can you judge an action as unethical if there is no good or evil? We can only condemn murder if we believe that it is an inherently evil act. We can only praise a Good Samaritan because we believe their actions (as their name suggests) are inherently good.
Take away the inherency and your left with nothing but opinion. This action is good only because I believe it is. Rescuing a life is only a good action because we say it is so. What we say is true, becomes true. Relativity.
For most this idea is scary and I believe that this is why many embrace God. God is an absolute. Accept that one absolute can exist and it becomes possible to accept that other absolutes exist. Of course, as I outlined in my previous entry, I will not for the sake of this argument accept the existence of God. He or she might exist, but I do not think or ethical model should be dependent on that.
(At another time I will explain how the existence of absolute good and evil and the existence of God actually generates some very interesting ethical dilemmas)
So what now? GOOD and EVIL are out, so we must now find another way to scale our ethics. In steps Darwin. I think ideas (or
Memes, as they are sometimes called) experience Darwinian evolution just as our species does (heck, even if you don’t believe in Darwinian evolution on a species wide scale, you should at least be able to embrace it on a Meme scale.)
‘Good’ mutations survive and prosper, while ‘bad’ mutations simply die out. As the environment of our mindscape changes entire Meme species are eradicated and replaced by new ones who aim to fill the niche left behind. Even while thousands of other Memes came and went (the world is flat, Zues sits on mount Olympus, flying is impossible, etc.) ethical Memes (there are many) continued to thrive, change and grow.
(Interestingly enough, GOOD and EVIL are also Memes...)
The reason some Memes survive while others die is because they give the people that believe in them a decided edge over other people. The Meme ‘Cooking meat is good for you’ won over ‘cooking meat is bad for you’ because the people that believed in the first Meme lived longer and better. Thus they replicated more often and slowly forced those that believed ‘cooking meat is bad for you’ to change or perish.
Ethics was a good meme because it gave man a better chance for survival (a society that had less murder was more likely to prosper than one that had a lot of murder). I believe that we started believing in GOOD and EVIL for the same reason. It was easier for a group of humans that believed that they had GOOD on their side to win over a group that was uncertain about what they were doing and if it was the right course of action.
So, what I propose is that ethics should be measure on the scale of whether it will ultimately help or hinder. This is not Utilitarianism, before anybody mistakes it as such. I am not talking about the survival of the species. I am talking about the survival of the Meme and the people that believe in it. Some ethical models win over others because they give their believers a decided edge. I want to find out why. Based on that I want to then reexamine ethics and create an encompassing theory that creates a flexible, yet ultimately beneficial ethical model, that is suitable to the situation and the living conditions.
Understand that I do not propose that people can simply change their ethics at a whim so that they might get what they want. If that would have been the best ethical model then that would already be supreme. There is a good reason why ethics holds us back from certain actions, while it proposes others. I just don’t believe this is because of GOOD and EVIL but rather because of something far more basic and essential to our survival.
So that is my initial proposal for what I want to do. The next step is to examine it, try to prove it and probably rip it apart. Once that is completed we will collect the pieces and create a second proposal, to then repeat the process again. Repeat ad infinitum, (or until we have the truth, which, by the way, is another one of those annoying absolutes).
Ethics: The rules
As you might have noticed I’ve been quite for a while. I’ve been busy, so you’ll have to forgive me. I have had little time to write about my personal life and, to be perfectly honest, I haven’t really felt the urge to share my personal problems and triumphs with those that dwell in virtual space. I am not trying to be insulting, just more careful, I guess. What we write out here isn’t private, however much we think it is. It is read by far more people than we would like and often not by those who we want, but rather by those that shouldn’t. Big brother is watching.
So instead I want to talk about some ethical questions that have recently been spinning through my mind. If everything goes well this topic will span several posts, if not several months. These ethical questions are not answered in my own mind yet, so today I’ll only be posing a whole host of questions and what I think might be possible answers. Everything is still swirling around, so I really have no idea what to think yet.
I was in borders the other day and found a book entitled ‘A Briefer History of Time’ by Steven Hawkins. For those of you that are not aware of the original book, entitled ‘A Brief History of Time’ it was a book that explained some of the most important advances made in the field of Physics.
I sat down for about an hour and read the first quarter of the book or so and ended up with my head spinning. I headed out of the building, instead of upstairs where I was expected. I backtracked and went up the wrong escalators, forgot my bag, had to go back and didn’t even really notice all these things happening because I was so lost in my own little world.
Did I understand what was going on? No, even though I had heard most of what the book had to say before I don’t think I really got it. Physics students study for years to get the stuff that the book talks about, so I don’t think I can quite understand it within an hour. Still, some of the ideas in the book stuck in my head and latched onto other ideas that have dwelled in there for at least a few months now.
The most important idea for me was Einstein’s idea of relativity. The idea that everything in the world can only be measured in relation to something else. Something is only standing still because we are moving at the same speed as it is moving. The moment that relation changes (i.e. one of you starts moving) it becomes impossible to say what is moving. You, or it? Is the bus your sitting in moving, or is it stationary while the rest of the world moves around it?
We assume that we move when we get into the car, but if we’re really honest about it, we know it is the world that moves around us, even while we stay at the center of our own little perceived sphere of reality. Only the truly drug f*cked will ever be able to leave their own sphere of perception (imagine picking up groceries, even while your mental manifestation stays at home, reading a book.)
Relativity. Everything can only ever be perceived in relation to something else. The very act of perceiving alters the thing being perceived. Heisenberg considers this on the atomic level, in his uncertainty principle, but I believe (like many others) that it holds true on every level. Light changes as it is observed and since it is light we use to understand almost everything around us, everything becomes suspect.
Relativity as it exists now only exists on the scale of the smallest (the atomic) and the largest (galaxies). I want to pull it into another field, namely the ethical. I understand that in doing so I leave behind the scientific and enter into the realms of philosophy, psychology and potentially even mystic mumbo jumbo, but I am willing to risk that.
I want to explore Ethical Relativity (probably a term already coined by some other nut job like myself, but please consider out work separate and distinct from theirs) and what such a concept might mean for us.
A very important point that I should state here is that I do not want to break down the barriers of conventional ethics. I do not want to turn the state into an anarchistic monster of blood and slaughter. I just want to understand ethics better and with that I not only mean my personal ethics, but the ethics of others I do not and cannot understand.
For Ethical Relativity to work I understand I have to do away with absolute good and evil. I have no problem with that myself. We have no proof of absolute good and evil. In fact I believe that these two concepts were created to make life more bearable. Yet I understand that others might find that difficult to accept. All I can really say is tough luck.
Don’t worry, I will certainly come back to them to consider them, but I believe to give this the best chance of working I must work only with what we’ve got, not what we wish we have. As long as we cannot prove the existence of Good, Evil or even God I am going to consider them as peripheral to our current ethical construct. Though I will certainly admit their huge influence on our current ethical model, I will not consider them as ‘true’ until somebody can prove their existence.
Furthermore, I accept that logic as a whole is potentially and probably completely flawed. I accept that to use logic is to shut my eyes to a great number of things that cannot be explained by the rigid rules of reason. Unfortunately I have to work with what I’ve got. We have nothing else. If we throw away the only tool we’ve got then we might as well climb back into the trees and give up. (The first question ever asked was probably ‘ook ook?’)
In every step our existence we used our simpler tools to make more complex ones.
Now you have been warned. If you want to participate here please by kind enough to respect what I’ve put forward. That means, use logic, not emotion; use reason, not faith; and use scientific theory, not mystical dogma.
Please call me out on it if I don’t obey my own rules. I want to be corrected, I need to be corrected for the only way to find truth is to first realise what beliefs are false. But know, at this point, that any bible bashing, or saber rattling will simply be ignored.
The Difference
So, what has changed? What has made me decide that working now for future enjoyment is actually a good thing? Little, really. I’m in Singapore, which I also was when I last held the view that it was better to enjoy now and work later. I’m only one or two years less young. I haven’t had any deliberating illness, I haven’t lost an arm, leg, or even a part of my brain. I’m, in many respects, quite similar to how I was. Though I did lose some hair.
Discounting the ‘short term gain correlates to hair’ theory, I can think of only one thing that changed and, then again, didn’t. I went to Australia and hated it. I spent 10 months of my life working my ass off for little to no physical gain (We actually came back with less money than we left with).
I ran around Austria and came to understand exactly how /not/ to work. How to slave away for ten, to twelve hours for only enough money to piss away within an hour in a bar. I came to understand living from hand to mouth and I came to understand the people who are content living that way.
At the fear of sounding arrogant, I saw the blue-collar life, the life of the less ambitious, the life of those more comfortable with ‘the price is right’ than a controversial thought. I saw their life for ten months (I had, to tell the truth, never been in that situation before) and I hated it. What was more, and I think this made an even bigger impact on me, I saw that they weren’t all that content there, either.
Maybe ignorance is bliss, but these people were not ignorant of the fact that many people seemed to be having more fun than them. They just had were impotent to do anything about it. So what happened? Substance abuse happened. This person grabbed for the bottle, that person for the joint, a third person abused harder substances. These people, though they were good people all, grabbed onto drugs and substances for escapism, because that was all they really had.
I realised that that was not the life I wanted to live. I had seen the more ambitious (who I had always thought of as less happy) and realised that their drive actually gave them happiness. I came to understand the difference between one group’s desperation to get out and the other group’s easy to move on. I came to realise that I wanted to be more than I was and make more while I was doing it.
So I got busy and that’s where I am now. And yes, it is better. I am enjoying life more and enjoying the respect that comes with doing a good job at something that people actually care about. Being respected for doing something and not scoffed at and treated as something less than human.
I enjoy the white-collar world and yes, I even enjoy working a twelve-hour day on occasion, especially since it is what I want to work at, as well as at the salary level that I find fair for what I’m doing. I would be hard pressed to piss away twelve-hour’s work within a bar within an hour now!
(Interestingly enough, I also feel less inclined to try, though that might be just a phase.)
