![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
This essay is under construction
This is an attempt to put forward my personal system of morality/ethics.
My system is based upon two fundamental principals [[[or_Values,_as_they_say_in_Lincoln-Douglas_debate.?]]] Niceness and Practicality. Two lesser principals are Utilitarianism and Judge By Intent.
Niceness is one aspect of "goodness", but it's a little more concrete, although also somewhat subjective. Niceness refers to just being kind, as it is understood in everyday language. Feeding the hungry is nice. Cursing people out and insulting them personally is not nice.
Niceness is intended to NOT include those things which on the surface appear evil but which might be justified by abstract reasoning. Example: when an authoritarian government beats a kind person up "to maintain order", it may be for the greater good, but it ain't nice. Example: when a boss curses out and insults their subordinates, they may believe that ultimately, this improves productivity and therefore serves the greater good. But it ain't nice.
Be nice.
I'm debating whether this shouldn't be called "Moderation".
Often society makes demands on you that conflict with your moral ideals. You may be required to do something you find immoral.
Sometimes, you should do it.
Not always. If you think your refusal to comply will help to change things more than it will hinder your ability to change things in the future, then refuse.
Example: I think war is murder, although sometimes justifiable. I think supporting unjustified murder in any way in Evil. I disagree with some of the policy choices of the U.S. government. Therefore, paying my taxes is Evil.
Should I refuse to pay taxes, and spend the rest of my life in jail? No.
But if I were asked to do something in my job such as steal or sabotage someone else's research, would I refuse to, on principal? Yes.
Another way of looking at practicality/moderation is: don't take your own ideals too seriously. For example, let's say you have some chain of reasoning that convinces you that it is Good for you to commit genocide. The inference may appear solid, but the conclusion appears, at least on first glance, to be Evil. Rather than doublechecking your reasoning, finding no flaw, and then proceeding to kill lots of people, I would recommend that you simply dismiss the prescription for genocide out of hand, because it is obviously immoderate.
Often we allow ourselves and our friends to do things that conflict with our moral ideals in the name of practicality, but do not extend the same leniency to strangers. For instance, you might encourage a friend to "put your best foot forward" if asked a question at a job interview to which a "direct" answer might torpedo their chances, but when politicians give placating, misleading answers about their true beliefs on a controversial issue, this might lead you to think that politicians are subhuman liars.
A common response to this phenomenon is to urge people to redouble their efforts to hold themselves and their friends to a high standard. But while we for the dawn of the age of a species of human who routinely, without hope of recognition, sabotage their careers in defence of seemingly "minor" moral points, the unequal treatment of friends and strangers does us harm.
When we hold strangers to an higher standard than our friends, two things happen. First, factional divisions are strengthened because we develop an unrealistically rosy view of our allies and, by contrast, others look shabby. Second, we impair our abilty to accurately understand and predict the motivations and plans of strangers.
Since we can't seem to kick the habit of making excuses for our friends, parity can only be restored by making excuses for everybody. So, not only for the sake of getting along, but also in order to be able to objectively assess what is happening, sometimes you should cut people some slack.
No! For example, even if you think it'll be good down the line, genocide would be neither Nice nor Moderate.
But, neither should you refuse to take any effective action because every choice involves doing some small evil.
Simply:
These are outweighed by the more important principals of Niceness and Moderation.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
If there is an action which helps lots of people but harms a few, it is probably Good overall. Of course, if it helps the many a little bit but harms the few a lot, maybe it's bad; you'll have to weigh it.
Another way of putting it; "total good_{action} = \sum_{all individuals I} helps_{action}(i)"
In any case, though, don't let Utilitarianism convince you to do anything abomidable. See Niceness and Moderation, above.
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't assign to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. " - M. L. Plano
People are basically a bunch of stupid monkeys. Even when we honestly try to help, we screw things up.
Give a person credit for doing something that they thought was good, rather than for actually helping.
Example: Great World Leader X sacrificed all of his time and personal life and worked tireless for his country. Unfortunately, his policies involved a bunch of things which are obviously evil to us, but which he thought was helping the Greater Good. What he did was reprehensible and should not be emulated or excused; if X is still alive, he should be prosecuted and punished. But as a person, we should keep in mind that he was basically an altruist who, although possible smart for a human, in the grand scheme of things was just too stupid (just like the rest of us).
Example: Great World Leader X raped, killed, and enslaved thousands for personal pleasure, but looking back on history, unbeknownst to him, it seemed to have averted some larger catestrophe or to have advanced civilization. Don't be fooled; he was Evil.
One of the motivations for excluding "paradoxical good acts" is that it seems no two people agree on which ones are actually good. Saddam Hussein claimed after capture that he was an authoritarian jerk (he tortured people) because that's just the way you have to govern over there.
Furthermore, humans seems to have a tendency to not see the weaknesses in their abstract chains of reasoning, and to believe that they have found the One True Way. Therefore, I'm trying to guard against this by being suspicious of anything which seems evil but which may be justified by abstract reasoning.
Another, lesser motivation is to avoid, as much as possible, the necessity of tracing long lines of abstract reasoning in order to determine if someone is a demon or a saint. Most members of society don't have time to do that, and therefore when a group has 30 minutes for a political discussion and 20 of them are spent on an abstract discussion of ethics, that's a problem. I realize of course that this essay may be part of that problem. Oh well, I can't see a perfect solution.
No! Both Niceness and Moderation/Practicality argue against this. If there's something which seems awful but which might be for the Greater Good, don't do it! This is why I put Utilitarianism as a lesser principal, outweighed by the Niceness and Moderation.
However, let's say you are president. I also don't think that you should spend all your time demanding perfect policies and refusing to compromise, vetoing anything which causes even a tiny amount of Evil, even if it would cause a great deal of good. This is because you must practice Practicalty/Moderation.
The above two paragraphs are too abstract and manage not to really resolve the question, so I'll put it more simply:
(later i added these two to the main drag)
