Here are some random thoughts on the topic of ethics: One natural place to begin a discussion of ethics is Kant’s universal categorical imperative (UCI) and compare this idea with the Golden rule (GR). UCI states: ‘Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people’ while the GR states: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. Pretty similar right?
Kant’s categorial imperative is an old ethics idea that appears in the philosopher Emmanuel Kant’s books ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ and ‘The Metaphysics of Morals’. The universal categorical imperative is the idea that there are categorial imperatives or moral laws that everyone should follow independent of what they want or the situation they find themselves in. This categorial imperative is sometimes labeled simply the universalizability principle – ‘every action you decide is proper to do should also be allowed by everyone else’. The biblical golden rule is another way of saying – treat others as you would like to be treated. Now let’s consider some critiques:
Consider the example of John: John judges himself a clever guy and has a physical build such that he is larger and stronger than average. John is in the situation where he has less money and ‘stuff’ compared with other persons in his neighborhood. So John might rationally judge – stealing is fine. My clever brain and my physical strength give me an advantage over others. John can decide to participate in frequent stealing forays and likely he will end up with more money and more ‘stuff’ compared with others. Perhaps others will use weapons to protect their possessions but John judges he also can obtain weapons and he will be still have an advantage in a society where theft is allowed. John’s friend Joe is a thrill seeker. Joe loves the excitement of going on a raid with John so Joe also judges that stealing is fine. Now once John and Joe become wealthy they may decide to change their judgements. Nothing says one can’t change one’s mind over time perhaps dependent on one’s circumstances. Now the wealthy John and Joe will judge that no one should steal because they both want to keep the advantages they have and avoid having to continuously protect their possessions. Doesn’t this sound a bit like how society works. Thieves are poor or like thrills. Once they get older and established they blend into society and firmly protect their advantages by standing behind laws that are beneficial to them.
Consider now Jim who was born physically handicapped and has been told he is not the sharpest tool in the cabinet. But Jim was born into a wealthy family and has acquired significant assets at a young age. Jim might rationally judge that stealing is wrong. He is physically at a disadvantage compared with John and will not win a physical confrontation. So here we have Jim, John and Joe all acting rationally but deciding on different rules within the UCI or GR scenario. The point here is to notice diversity of viewpoints comes in naturally even within the same ethical framework or scenario. In the real world we clearly see diverse viewpoints coming from our neighbors and friends. We haven’t yet explored the process for producing these diverse viewpoints. But we observe a variety of viewpoints in the people around us and this simple example illustrates how basic personality and physical differences can produce diverse viewpoints.
Here’s another example of how the UCI and GR scenario can produce diversity of viewpoints: A more basic critique of UCI considers the principle of lying. Do not tell lies is often suggested as worthy principle in the UCI scenario. And the usual objection to UCI is that the principle of never lying is faulty since there are situations where the occasional lie is of greater benefit to someone than holding fast to the principle of never lying. The conclusion is then that UCI is not always the proper way to act. But this isn’t necessarily the only possible out. Another response could be that the principle of never lying is faulty and this principle should be modified to say – Never lie without a good reason. Nothing states that all principles discerned from UCI must be simple. Examples could be:
- Never lie unless you have a good reason to lie
- Don’t steal unless you or a loved one is starving
- Don’t kill unless you or a loved one is attacked and about to be killed
The point here is that principles obtained under the UCI or GR scenario often are not simply – never do this. Instead there are times and situations where work-arounds need to be found. And the situations requiring work arounds will be different for different people. This is then a second example of how a variety of differing viewpoints and principles can come to be followed by different people. This naturally leads to variation in ethical viewpoints under the same UCI and GR scenario. In blog posts I will discuss my ideas describing the dynamics of viewpoint diversification and the time evolution.