Moral Modes

There are only a few general modes in morality and ethics almost all of which use the concept of help or harm as a hidden or self-evident foundation. All modes are inevitably based on self-interest, whether group or individual. Here are some of the basics as observed.

1 -- whatever your culture does is best -- probably the most common ethical position in the world. Solves many intellectual issues in ethics because it acknowledges that ethics is a branch of politics (which is itself a department of economics) and so it offers the fewest hurdles for it's acceptance. Problems include: a cause of war and genocide ~ a cause of much confusion to those people who are knowledgeable of other cultures ~ a cause of much physical suffering which is overlooked, like circumcision, and the torturing of enemies ~ a cause of frequent self contradiction and hypocrisy.

2 -- whatever you feel is best is therefore ethically right -- adjunct to cultural norms but it offers more choice and so there can be less cultural confusions and contradictions. Probably the third most popular ethical mode. Two branches come out of this belief. One is like Nietzsche's superman - if you think you have an unquestioned 'nobility' you can do anything you like. The second is very similar in that if you believe whatever you feel comes from some 'correct' source than you can do anything that you feel is right. Both amount to the same thing. Problems include: often a person feels disconnected from his culture or feels like a kind of 'chosen one' ~ there is often stress from working out ones own system ~ there are constant self contradictions and depressing mistakes to deal with ~ extreme beliefs can result, from happy serial murderers to losers with endless guilt trips over unintended slights to others.

3 -- whatever you do just for yourself happens to be best for everyone anyway -- adjunct to both 'cultural norms' and 'doing what you feel is best', but here there is no real concern for others. The claim that others benefit is a careless cover up. They know and accept that harming others is all part of the way things are, which is not something to worry about. This mode is the basis of capitalist attitudes and evolutionary theories and is mainly correct. Probably, this is the second most widely used concept after the use of cultural norms. It is an ethic despite not being concerned with others, because it is still concerned with helping or harming - in this case helping or harming oneself. Incidently, in this mode one is looking after oneself directly whereas most other ethical modes are designed to help the believer indirectly.

4 -- Whatever you don't like if everyone does it, is wrong if only one person does it - (sounds like a cure for hypocrisy) For instance, if everybody stole it would be a mess so no one should steal. Problems include: there are many things that you don't want all people to do, like walk through a door at the same time, or wear the same dress to a party or lead a government. These are fine for only one to do even though everyone shouldn't do it ~ there are also things that you want everyone to do that are not fine if only one does, like fight a war ~ this concept is a recipe for a world without variety ~ some people think everyone should party on Sunday and others say Friday - in other words, many disagreements in ethics are not covered by this idea though they are as important as the so-called big problems.

5 -- virtues - attitudes during actions which conform to set values such as courage or honesty. This mode is betrayed by its tell tale use of assertion and whim. Problems include: virtues often conflict with each other ~ they often cause great harm to all concerned ~ literally anything can be asserted to be a virtue.

6 -- intentions -- attitudes intended to have "good" consequences without regard to actual consequences . An example would be giving money to a beggar with the intention of satisfying his need for happiness. Problems include: a "good" can be anything one asserts ~ or the reality of the action often causes the exact problem which the intention was designed to prevent (ie welfare causes poverty ~ or spoiling someone, which is intended to bring happiness, often brings constant anger and sadness).

7 -- immediate results -- actions which seem to give immediate help to those concerned - i.e. the beggar that smiles after receiving spare change. Problems include: the receiver of the action can have the opposite reaction to the one anticipated therefore causing harm where help was expected ~ harm often follows the help given. For example, the beggar may be mugged for the spare change that you gave. Anyway, the desire for immediate results is only meant to be self-serving, intended for the good feelings which the perpetrator wanted to create or bad feelings that he wanted to alleviate.

8 -- best consequences -- actions and intentions which seem to give the most help and the least harm over the long term. Problems include: complete inability to measure the vast scope of all possible actions and consequences ~ self-contradictory actions and consequences result from this concept.

9 -- whatever is natural is best -- a long standing arbitrary distinction made between human and non-human actions has been characterized as man vs. nature. The premises from this concept imply that what is "natural" is normal, that nature makes laws, that humans can interfere with those laws and that the "natural" path is the one with the least human resistance. At best the concept can be stated as such: should humanity meddle with nature or not? This idea is useful when observing what does not often occur in nature (like masturbating, which occurs spontainiously from birth to old age.) - this data can then determine what cannot correctly be called an ethical issue (i.e. prohibitions on masturbating are unnatural). Problems include: while useful in some ways, especially regarding health and knowing what isn't an ethical concern, this concept has clouded the obvious fact that humanity is always a part of nature and all its actions are therefore natural - including the taking of poisons, the making of human laws and the existence of every crime that is practiced. This means that a genetic inclination to commit some particular act is no more natural than an imitated or self-created action. As for the idea that natural laws might exist and that this could determine a course of action for people, this is a mistake. Everything that happens and is imagined is part of nature, every horror is as natural as health and joy. Norms and abnorms are natural too. These assertions have no special claim to ethics. In conclusion, all actions are natural, so no ethical distinction can be made on that account.

10 -- mystical absolutism regarding personal tenancies -- somehow some people have it in their heads that whatever they think is 'right and wrong' must be absolutely 'right or wrong' simply because it popped into their heads. It is like a divine voice but really it is their wishful dreaming. They never stop to discover any of the countless inconsistencies with their thoughts because their idea is so obtuse it is much easier not to bother thinking about it at all.

11 -- nihilism -- the idea that nothing matters and there is nothing that can be done to help people so anything goes. Problems include: with this concept things still matter enough to the believer to cause despair or to cause ethical actions to be performed, so it is a lie. It is just a sloppy ethic where people give up reasoning and go for their gut reactions to the problems of help and harm - just the same as most of the others.

12 -- game reaction -- the concept that you do what you can to help even if you are just helping yourself. It's your game. You define the goals and rules, and you decide whether you have fulfilled them. It is basically what believers in all the above premises do already but with this overt premise you can recognize what you are doing and have more control of what you do and feel about it all.

END