Ambient Deontology
 

I was writing a monologue for a character in a story this evening, and I got a bit carried away with theoretical ethics, or more precisely, a lack of them. I'll post this characters rambling here and ask if anyone has any commentary about it, I think the subject matter is pretty self-evident, and really I'd just like to see how the forumites react to such a cynical outlook.

.................................................. .

I seem to sense morality indirectly, it's a filter through which I can view reality if I so choose to. It's never something attached to the principal of myself, never an immutable facet of my life. I swim through the over arching rights and wrongs in immediate contact with me, each wave of dogma serving only to propel me forward, into different waters and beyond. Morality is such a convenient mechanism, it allows control of so many people at once using only the most minimal effort.

I tend to think of all social phenomena as having a very direct purpose. Religion is a reactionary development used to answer questions and normalize reality around a formal consensus, thusly making people more comfortable. Ethics are ostensibly an attempt to create a civilization agreeable to the highest possible percentage of it's members, modern science is a result of technological advancement needing a driving force and of increased general knowledge levels, it feeds into itself, the grand ouroboros of our shrinking world. All of these vital components of human life could theoretically be entirely altruistic enterprises, berefet of any malevolent influence.

However theory is seldom so spot-on.


The tantalizingly vicious truth of the matter is that each of these pillars of society is as exploitable as the creatures which constructed them.

What is required of a person who wishes to take advantage of the cracks in our systems?

The answer is simple really, a detachment from guilt. Absence is far more powerful than inclusion in this sense, when the unnecesaary portions of a personality are excised the results can be spectacular, dangerous. Civilization operates on the assumption that entities without regard for it will be few and easily subdued. It is this concept that people place faith in, the crux of civilization. It stands to reason then that the perpetuation of an easily exploitable system is dependent on a sense of the infallibility of order. If a great enough percentage of members of the group attempted to exploit it, the sytem would fail catastrophically as every member either embarked on a doomed endeavor of exploitation or became dissilusioned by the collapse of society. There is a delicate balance to be maintained, and a select few who can dance the line of contradiction without tripping.

I'm not so sure it is neccessarily cynical. Nor do I think it is an unlikely stance for someone to take. In some ways I even identify (as I believe many of us do from time to time).

There is a time in childhood when morality is simple. It is what parents and teachers and authority figures tell us it is. But as we mature and begin to develop our own thoughts we realize that somebody else's say-so isn't enough to justify a moral position. We need to find our own reasons. So we question our morals. And if we are the self-analytical type we try to ferret out the roots of our conclusions and see what they say about ourselves.

If one does this for too long one becomes (perhaps overly) cerebral. Conscience and moral instinct depart as one second-guesses one's every judgement. Morals that others take for granted are no longer so easily relied upon; conscience is optional.

And that's when we realize that morality is gray and difficult.

Anyway, I hope that's useful to you. In any case good conversation starter.

Indeed, it's easy not to go along with the system. People could be apathetic of the results, or ignorant of them. Both are easily possible.

One trap people in the former group may fall into is thinking that their singular contribution to the deterioration of the system will have no real, noticeable effect. While this is true, they're also thinking they're the only ones following such a train of thought, although there are probably thousands. And thousands are indeed able to have a significant effect.

It seems to me that patriotism can be a successful method of making people more society-minded; it creates a sort of pseudoaltruism. You're not doing something for yourself, you're doing it for your country. Personally I feel that such a motivation is in itself somewhat ridiculous, but no matter, whatever gets society moving... Now if only people were to care as much about their planet or their species, or their general civilization...

detachment from guilt is all it takes to be your own person, unfortunately, there's no telling whether you'll choose to do what would be considered immoral or to do what would be considered moral.

For example, I wouldn't say that I live my life entirely free of guilt, but I'd say it's not really a huge deciding factor in my actions. However, I choose not to murder, and I choose not to steal, because I know the consequences of those actions are not going to be desirable, particularly if the rest of society is not guilt free.

Patriotism is a faux-solution. Before saying anything else: the "amoral choice," as it were, is almost always chosen due to how easy it is to carry out. In almost every (I'd venture to say every) situation, attempting to work things out in a well-thought out manner is more taxing, more time-consuming, and to many, the benefits, despite being long-term, are non-existant.

I think these "bad choices" (if we assume that deliberately being deleterious to society is bad...which I do :P) more often than not have to do with sheer motivation. Few have the will to routinely 'be good to their fellow man.' A gun is so tantalizing because it toys with that impulsive, hedonistic side of ourselves as humans. When held in ones hands, it is far too easy to succumb to the temptation to pull the trigger--or find an excuse to pull it. It's simple, and logical. I do this, something happens. Whereas something like...I donno, let's say Demography involves consideration of innumerable factors, harmonising them all together, and making assessments and predictions about society and culture--already your brain is reaching far out. Guns vs. Demography--which is easier to wrap your head around? Which is easier to choose?

So it is that human beings, while they have the massively important gift of being able to think abstractly and understand the macrocosm, they are still far too animalistic to ever consistently make choices that benefit the whole. Of course, there are those who "breakthrough," who overcome this obstacle. But Utilitarianism, Humanism...they are hardly the norm in human society. What do we have in their place? Religion, punditry, violence...war.

Humankind is in desperate need of reeducation, lest we end up an infinite cycle of self-destruction. But what would an ideal, "Utopian" society be like? We don't even know--we don't even want to know. It is so difficult to fathom that it almost doesn't seem worth it. I almost feel like people knowingly, or at least subconsciously in some way, contribute to the overall precarious state of things, simply because the alternative is frightening. It's too different.

I don't know what the key steps are, but ideally, there would be a series of events that, when studied, hermeneutically conveyed a dire need for unity as a species. A global disaster? Hopefully not. Much less plausible would be a renaissance, if you will, in various arts that tried to imbue some sense of reason in the general populace.

The growth of our philosophies is also being needlessly truncated by Relativism. We can't grow beyond these archaic boundaries because every ideology is both simultaneously considered correct and incorrect, and so we are stuck in this confusing see-saw.

Anyhoo, I ramble. I'd like to read the story, Funka.

I think this is perhaps too broad a generalization. One would most likely suspect this statement to be true in most if not all cases of adult ethical standards, I'll go as far as saying I sincerely wish it were, however there seem to be certain ethical beliefs that are inviolate even into our old age. There are "truths" which remain unexamined from the dawn of sentience to the eve of death for many people.

These truths are often times cultural phenomena, basic stereotypical revelations that people of a certain society are expected to realize. The concepts of "being a man" and "obeying just laws" are examples of ethical standards which never really need to be questioned for most. The very concept of Justice is veritably preprogrammed into our reality, our lot is to either accept this or fight against the world which berthed us. Knowing these standardized convictions and how they tend to influence the thoughts and actions of people while simultaneously not subscribing to them yourself is a powerful advantage in many circumstances.

Ah, see here we meet the timeless assumption that criminals are all slackers and amotivated churls. "Well thought out" is not synonomous with moral. In fact, using unethical means supported by proper research and planning could produce frighteningly effective results. The sort of amorality I refer to is not a gun placed to someones head in order to procure the contents of their wallet. I speak of manipulating governments and humanity itself by playing it's unexamined convictions like a musical instrument.

For example, crashing planes into the side of a prominent building.

This reminds me of a concept for a story I had recently, one in which humanity is manipulated into a ceaseless war that is engineered to never end. The reasoning is quite simple, conflict breeds technological advance and unity of certain groups. Humanity is at it's peak technological output when facing an enemy of some sort. A "Renaissance" period occurs in order to advance esoteric expressions of humanity and technology into levels equivalent to military technology.

The real concept I mean to convey with this topic, however, is not one of general moral degradation, as the populace is honestly an easily manipulated beast. You have a few riots here and there, but so long as there isn't too much death and discomfort, people will go along with almost anything that ensures their safety. I am speaking of singular individuals who take advantage of moral codes for their own benefit. I think that the existence of identity, of a knowledge of self, will always lead people to think selfishly.

Ayn Rand has written more on this topic than I'm sure even she'd care to read, so it's nothing original, but Altruism is a faulted system. There has never existed a truly altruistic society, all morality is enforced through punishment of non-observers. Severity levels have changed, but there has never been societal acceptance of aberrant ethics, such a state would defeat the very purpose of a moral code.

also, you used "hermeneutic" as an adverb, that really made my day for some reason. XD

I think you misunderstand my meaning. If you think about it, if you truly thought it out--let's say, killing someone in cold blood--then you would reach the moral conclusion. If you thought for a long time and still killed the person, you did not think hard enough, and hardly "well" enough. Also, I wasn;t implying an image of a "slacker" at all--quite the contrary.

The image I was hoping to paint was of everyone--everyone is susceptible to this flaw. In various facets of your life, whether it be a fist or a rumor. There's always one that, at its core, is metaphorically the gun, and the other that is likewise metaphorically the...shit, i donno. You get my meaning.

Besides, I thought we weren't discussing efficacy. Yes, amoral acts can be very "efficient" in gaining some progress towards some goal. I thought we were just talking about the ethical side? Even these 'genius evil plans' that you describe are short-sighted in a grander sense: they are trying to achieve some exploitative goal for their gain in some capacity. This is short-sighted in its inability to see not only why this project's harm done is unethical, but how it is detrimental to the greater scope of humanity and society.

Truthfully, I agree. But I don't view this as an endless cycle. Rather, I view this as a phase humanity has to grow out of. Do I think it will? We'll get to that in a second. The point is: I don't think this an immutable truth. There's a certain point where we would advance sans conflict. This maxim may have functioned perfectly well for the past few millennia, but if (if!) things are to change, we have no more use for such atavistic nonsense.

Again I agree. But I think there are certain levels, delineations in this: the desire for you yourself to eat is usually placed above others, but is hardly a "bad" form of selfishness. I say this because unless we weld together all our body parts, we'll never be "One." (yeah, I capitalised that shit. ominous, huh?) As long as we are a "population," some semblance of self has to exist. So, what do you propose? Again the ideal would be a society in which the self is curbed and the group is paramount.

First of all: My friend had something to say about Ayn Rand that I think captured my feelings quite well: "If there was one person who I could revive from the grave just so I could kill them again, over and over, besides Hitler or other perpetrators of genocide/dictators, it'd be Ayn Rand."

Ahem.

Despite what I say, despite the great hope I have for humanity, I honestly do think we'll end up destroying ourselves. The pity of it all to me is that we have the knowledge sitting out there, right in front of us, and we (essentially) voluntarily refuse it. I ride on the sliver of a chance that humanity might make it. And I don't envision these ideal scenarios, really. I don't think we can achieve a "perfectly moral" society. However, I do think we can achieve a "highly moral" society.

Yes, well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Whether or not such a thing as "perfect morality" even exists deserves its own discussion (I believe I've seen one here...). It's a bit out of the reach of a discussion about how people are known to refuse even the obvious stuff...

I'm not exactly an Ayn Rand fan either, but I don't quite understand why you feel so much animosity towards a woman who simply wrote philosophy novels (however flawed they may be.) I mean, I think communism is a dipshit political system, but I don't harbor any ill will against Karl Marx, because I don't hold him personally responsible for having done anything wrong. In fact, his theories are rather intriguing, just utter idiocy to implement in practice. I feel about the same way with Ayn Rand.

Now see where I would differ with that is, Ayn Rand's ideas are horseshit in theory, too.

I mean at least Karl Marx is saying, you know, it might be nice if we all tried to get along. I'm actually okay with that, in theory.

Ayn Rand's theory is, worship the rich for shitting in your eye. And then if they feel so disposed, maybe they might shit on you a little bit less.

That theory I'm not okay with, even as just a theory.

But in any case, there's bigger and more interesting ideas to be had at here, than lame-ass old marxist communism or randian libertarianism.