8 principles of ethics
Offline Hi, I'm new here. As an atheist, I try to devellop my own ethical system (I'm doing a PhD in moral philosophy in Belgium). My moral project consists of trying to articulate my moral intuitions into a consistent set of ethical principles that form the basis of an ethical system of ecological justice. Below is the tentative result so far: eight most important principles of my (for most people radical) ethics. Feel free to comment. 
1) A just distribution of quality of life. Maximize the qualities of life (values of well-being) of all sentient beings, giving a strong priority on increasing the lowest values of well being. I.e. maximize the qualities of life of the worst off individuals, unless this is at the expense of much more well-being of others. Sentient beings are all beings who have a functioning complex nervous system (they developed the capacity to feel and have not yet permanently lost this capacity). These include future generations, vertebrate animals, some squids,.. See ‘quasi-maximin principle’ in http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/a-model-for-a-theory-of-justice/
2) The basic right of living beings (plants and all beings with complex interests, such as staying alive). Never allow the killing or injuring a non-sentient living being for luxury needs. (We are allowed to use plants for basic needs.)
3) The basic right of sentient beings (beings with complex interests and the capacity to subjectively experience their needs). Never allow the use of sentient beings as merely means to someone else’s ends (including both luxury, basic and vital needs). One exception: sentient beings who became dependent (by evolution) on other animals in order to survive, are allowed to hunt for their vital needs, until feasible alternatives exist (but we are allowed to defend the prey, if we feel compassion). See ‘basic right principle’ in http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/a-model-for-a-theory-of-justice/
4) The intrinsic value of biodiversity. Protect the biodiversity, because the biodiversity for ecosystems is analogous to well-being for sentient beings: both are intrinsically valuable properties of an entity (ecosystem, sentient being) that is unique and irreplaceable.
5) Restorative justice. Strive for reconciliation, forgiveness, non-violence, and moral growth, instead of retributions and punishment.
6) Universal love. Develop a feeling of universal love, a solidarity and compassion with all life, even with humans doing highly immoral things. Never regard someone as an enemy. This love is like the unconditional care of a mother for her children: Even when her son does the most terrible things, the mother still loves him deeply, she has no hatred or disdain but empathy and respect, but she’ll do whatever she can to stop his immoral behavior. She will not trust her son, and she may use violence, as long as the violence is accompanied with love. See http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/the-essentials-of-universal-love/
7) Just caring. When helping others, you are allowed to give (to some level) priority to those with whom you feel a personal or emotional concern or involvement, on the condition that you should tolerate the choice of other caregivers to give priority to whom they prefer. So you should tolerate the choice of other helpers. See ‘tolerated choice equality’ in http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/a-model-for-a-theory-of-justice/
The golden rule. Abide by those principles which we would like that everyone abides them. Give the good example, en do that what every moral being should have to do, even if no-one else does so. This is an unconditional commitment and we should, if need be, swim up against the stream. We should abide by those principles which are generalizable, which means that if every moral being should follow those principles and consequently apply them, there will be no undesirable consequences that violate one of the above principles.
Note that the above 8 principles are a combination of consequentialist ethics (principles 1 and 4), deontological ethics (principles 2, 3 and , virtue ethics (principle 6) and ethics of care (principles 5 and 7). Let’s illustrate a few implications that can be derived from the above principles:
-Eat vegan (100% plant based diet). We don’t need animal products to have a healthy life (American Dietetic Association). Inform yourself about healthy, well-planned vegan diets. Don’t use animals for things we would not use humans for: clothing, experimenting, amusement, trade, slavery,…
-Only use environmentally friendly technology.
-No overconsumption, but sobriety and voluntary simplicity. Lower your ecological footprint, don’t use luxury (all products used to increase social status, needs created by commercial advertisement, fashion trends,&hellip
. By consuming less, the saved money should be given to help the most vulnerable life (poor people, animals, nature,&hellip.
-No overpopulation. Help create fair conditions for a worldwide voluntary pregnancy limitation. Financially support organizations working on reproductive health an family planning, especially in countries with high fertility rates.
-Do actions to help vulnerable life (humans, non-human sentient beings and nature)
Mod edit: Fixed.
- Login to post comments
but in flipping the switch, there is no violation of someone's basic right (= right not to be used as merely means to ends). You don't use anyone as merely means, in that dilemma. So I don't yet understand your question. If there is no basic right violation, it falls back to a consequentialist ethics (where you can count things).
but by flipping the switch, there is no violation of someone's basic right (= right not to be used as merely means to ends). You don't use anyone as merely means, in that dilemma. So I don't yet understand your question. If there is no basic right violation, it falls back to a consequentialist ethics (where you can count things).
Ok, I see what you mean.
What about the hospital example? If others had to kill you to save everyone else instead of just 5 people, would it still be ok for you to refuse, and would the others be justified in killing you anyway?
^^^ This.
It's been studied. It's being studied. It'll continually be studied.
It's no different than economics, or geo politics. The ramifications and permutations of any actions, can be as simple, or complex, depending on 'scope'.
It's relative to your objectives, which of course, are subjective.
You want peace among humans?
Lobotomize them, and cripple them.
Who wants to be the first?
* cricket cricket ....*
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I don't like the language of 'rights'.
The first principle, to me, would still be "First, do no harm".
Then the issue is how to resolve conflicting interests, which has to be primarily situational and consequential, trying to balance the wishes of the parties, and due allowance for any long-term environmental or wider social damage. Some consideration should also be given to the more difficult problem of allowing for the desires of entities who cannot articulate their wishes as easily, if at all.
I see no real value in trying to quantify such intrinsically subjective considerations, except maybe in the broadest terms. As long as all relevant interests are acknowledged, it should be a process of informed debate and discussion in each case.
Then there is the negative Golden Rule.
If minimizing these negative issues was seriously addressed, we would be in a far better world than we are now.
Then we should consider equity issues, ie 'fairness', a fundamental sense which we share with many 'higher' animals.
Finally, we should be striving for maximizing the 'good', by whatever criteria a consensus can arrive at. I don't mean by 'finally' to convey the sense of an afterthought, but as a relative priority. If we have resources and opportunity to address both, fine.
Ecological and environmental issues I still see more as a combination of practical and aesthetic imperatives.
I actually see a problem in trying too hard to make such things into ethical issues, when there are clear utilitarian, even ultimate survival issues. It can make it too easy for opponents of restraint and care to dismiss it as 'merely' an emotional thing.
The most important thing here is to continue discussion on these issues, so I absolutely welcome your contribution.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I agree, I see his view as very naive/self defeating. The only reason we're even able to entertain those ideas is because we live in a society that has reached a wasteful level of consumption. There are no voluntary vegans in third world countries, until I emigrated to Canada I didn't even know what a vegan was, had a concept of the term vegetarian only from an animal perspective and have heard of it, but didn't know anyone that practiced it.
In order to follow what the OP is proposing we would have to give up on anything that would advance science/progress. The major advances in technology was brought on by war. The computer as in the PC, was a luxury at first, the research to split the atom was funded by war money/effort. In order for stuff to become affordable and improve quickly there almost has to be a wasteful amount of consumption of it, look at the Smart-Phone trend in the recent years.
What Bob is proposing is a much more basic and hence easier to adhere to ethics philosophy.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
What has often occurred to me over recent years is how much new technology that we may easily dismiss as indulgence, is being seized upon in developing countries as ways to really help them progress and manage their lives.
Cell phones and/or the internet are helping rural farmers to keep informed about markets and mange their plantings, and access much more information to assist them in other aspects of managing their farms.
Laptop and even more portable computers and the internet are showing real promise in enhancing education, despite some stumbles in trying to get this going.
In urban areas, there are many new opportunities for small businesses based on cell-phones, and texting.
This is a positive side of the competition for the consumer's dollar in the US and elsewhere, driving down the cost of these devices. Without the arguably wasteful consumer spending on such things, the technology would be less advanced and more expensive, so not available for the benefit of the 'third-world'. Another reason to not get too carried away with condemning what appears to be wasteful and pointless.
As they get access to more information, and experience with the devices imported from the West, I see signs of the emergence of the next level of self-sufficency, the ability to design and build their own versions of these things, more suited to the local context.
Its a trade-off, a balancing act. Keep alert for the clearer examples of exploitation where there seems no possibility of incidental and unexpected benefits.
It would be nice if society and commerce could be managed to avoid waste and exploitation completely, but it seems a forlorn hope. Marx hoped for something like that, and look how that has worked out so far...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
It's trying to constrain the human nature to an idealized formula. It will never work in practice because we're so flawed. The reason why capitalism has prevailed is because it accounts for more flaws in the human condition. It's by no means a superior concept, it's just a more realistic concept.
Besides, evolution has benefited from environmental adversity, the same has happened with our modern memes having benefited from the adversities generated by all the atrocities from the middle ages to WW2 and through the racist early 1900's. Constraining humanity to a set of values would stagnate our growth.
The way our civilization is going is obviously not self sustaining, relative to the environment. But the pot-smoking 'love and peace' hippie approach is hardly superior or realistic. It's obvious that ethics are subjective, aiming for a complex objective moral compass is impossible. The more complicated the "commandments" the easier it would be to interpret as subjectively as one wishes. Look at the bible, I believe it is a primitive approach at what the OP is proposing, within it's contemporary frame of reference of course, and that turned our perfectly
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Whatever you write down, make sure it's in pencil, and not ink...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris