Various Bits of Philosophy

... in one corner of the Eastern Galactic Arm lies the large forest planet Oglaroon, the entire "intelligent" population of which lives permanently in one fairly small and crowded nut tree. In which tree they are born, live, fall in love, carve tiny speculative articles in the bark on the meaning of life, the futility of death, and the importance of birth control, fight a few extremely minor wars and eventually die strapped to the underside of some of the less accessible outer branches.

In fact the only Oglaroonians who ever leave their tree are those who are hurled out of it for the heinous crime of wondering whether any of the other trees might be capable of supporting life at all, or indeed whether the other trees are anything other than illusions brought on by eating too many Oglanuts.

--Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the EEnd of the Universe

Thoughts on Ethics and Morals

Why is the distinction between morals and ethics important?

Suppose that there is no God. I submit that in the absence of a deity, there is no a priori basis for right and wrong; absolute right and wrong imply an absolute arbiter who has defined them. Therefore in the absence of a deity right and wrong exist only as they are defined by an individual. I would define morals as a code of behavior based on belief in an absolute right and wrong, derived from Divine judgement interpreted from religious texts, whereas ethics are a code of behavior based on the judgement of an individual as to what constitutes right and wrong.

Consider how different people might answer the question, "Why is it wrong to kill someone?" A Christian or Jew might reply, "Because it breaks the sixth Commandment; God has said that killing is wrong." A Muslim might similarly cite Islamic law. But what if you ask an atheist? To a true atheist, a divinely revealed writing has no special significance; you might as well attribute the Commandments to the Tooth Fairy.

Why, then might an atheist consider it wrong to kill?

As a reluctant atheist, I do not believe in an afterlife. To me, death is final and absolute, and represents the eternal absence of being. In my thinking, death is the worst possible consequence of any action, and therefore murder is the worst possible act. Given that life is a short excursion into light punctuated at either end by unending darkness, my ethical system is based on what makes people's lives more pleasant. Those acts which make people happy, I deem to be good acts, and those which inflict suffering I deem to be bad acts.

This may seem a trivial belief system, and I am hesitant to admit that it was the result of a great deal of careful thought, but it occurs to me that there may be people who place such faith in divinely derived morals that their belief systems could be blind to such considerations.

I feel that strict reliance on a written body of law for guidance in right and wrong encourages legal finagling of the sort that we have seen in the recent impeachment hearings. Neither side will speak truthfully; one hides behind tortured legal definitions of sexual conduct while the other dresses up partisan hypocrisy as righteous ardor.

This is at the heart of the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. Ultimately the problem is that right has come to be defined, not as that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number, but as that which you can get away with.

A Note on Right, Wrong, and the Law

I feel that some laws may be enacted simply because of public sentiment, or prevailing hysteria, or political expedience, rather than through any well-guided consideration of what really should or should not be legal. I tend to be skeptical when the only reason someone can give for a behavior being wrong is that it is illegal.

During the years 1920 to 1933, no less a body than the Constitution of these United States prohibited, among other things, the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages in the United States. Was the consumption of alcohol wrong during the years of prohibition, and right both before and after? Was the Constitution itself wrong in so prohibiting the production of alcohol, or is it wrong in not doing so now?

If the consumption of alcohol was wrong during prohibition but was right before and after, to what Heavenly revolution may we attribute these reversals in its morality?

Feedback

dmorenus@san.rr.com

Back to my homepage
Back to the 4100 block of the residential district of RainForest
This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page