Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- metaphysical_ethical_and_existential_concerns_in_the_threshold [2025/02/04 12:03] – created gm_isla
+++ metaphysical_ethical_and_existential_concerns_in_the_threshold [2025/02/18 16:44] (current) – gm_gareth
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 As a final word, I will say that Sartre sees much of what I have discussed in this essay in a rather pessimistic light. He holds that a man truly aware of his own freedom should be //anguished// by it, by his complete and total responsibility for his actions and purpose. There is certainly a comfort in having your life decided for you, at least if you view the decider benevolently. It means you need not worry as to the consequences of your choices; you need never feel as though you have made a mistake. But I see it differently. Freedom to choose your own purpose means you are not limited. You can be, as mentioned above, whoever you choose to be, do as you choose to do. You are free to find your own place in this world, as in the last, and I find that beautiful.
+===== Second Concern: Morality =====
+Suppose, while walking quite innocently through town, you were to come upon a stranger (call them Sam) who stops, squints at you, and then announces, “I should hurt you.” You might, perchance, stop and stare at them in surprise for a moment; after all, it is a rather strange thing to be told. But suppose they were then to continue, while drawing a blade, “I don’t particularly want to, you see, and I’ve got nothing to gain from it - I don’t want your money or such. It would just be immoral of me to pass you by without hurting you.”
+I expect most people would, quite rightly, be put out by this. Depending on your constitution, you could remind Sam that such a thing would be illegal, and they’d be liable to be punished, or inform them that you are willing and able to defend yourself. Yet to each objection they respond simply, “Yes, it’s terrible. I’ve got to try, though - it’s my moral duty, and I consider myself an ethical fellow.”
+This may seem a rather fanciful scenario, but I believe it cuts right to the heart of some of the key issues facing us in the Threshold today. Just two weeks ago, our gathering was interrupted by the destruction of the Psychopomp tower. The culprits came forward willingly, the process of the act was freely explained - and yet when it came to cast judgement, there was great disagreement from various quarters. Some felt that they should not be punished, others that they should, but by differing methods. Another two weeks before that, a new inhabitant of our block was stabbed, and before even that one of our longest inhabitants was beheaded. These are all the typical subjects of morality, and all acts that would in general be considered wrong, at least in life. As we form our burgeoning new society in the wake of these events, it seems prudent to discuss our approach to them more closely.
+Later in this essay I would like to give my own approach to ethics, if only in the spirit of open communication. First, however, I will discuss a more important question - how should we discuss ethics in general? Is it possible to reach a consensus on ethical problems starting from disparate positions? And so we return to the example I gave earlier. Sam’s moral beliefs seem, to me at least, alien. Certainly were I confronted by them I would want to disagree with their assertion that they have a moral duty to harm me - and not just out of a desire to remain unharmed. When I consider how I would feel if I merely witnessed them making this assertion to someone else, another stranger, I think that I would still find myself disagreeing (although whether I would intervene is another question - I hope I would).
+Evidently, then, there is some contradiction between our moral views. What are we to make of this disagreement? There are really only two options - either there is some objectively correct answer, in which case at least one of us is outright wrong in our belief, or there is not, and we simply hold different opinions on the issue. If we take the first view, then the resolution of the disagreement is, in theory, simple: me and Sam should sit down and deduce morality from first principles, and then apply it to our situation to find which, if either, of us is correct. Of course in practice I might find it quite difficult to convince someone of that, but at that point the problem is simply a logistical one.
+Those who subscribe to the second view are termed ‘subjectivists’, and I imagine that a fair number of those reading this essay would, after some reflection, fall under that label. A truly committed subjectivist should hold that Sam is, in fact, entirely within their rights to hold the view that they should hurt me, because morality is fundamentally a matter of opinion. I might disagree, or even find their beliefs distasteful, but this is the same kind of disagreement as if Sam claimed that red is the best colour, and I disagreed, citing that green is better.
+But this need not mean that there is nothing I could say to Sam to convince them, rationally, to change their beliefs. Suppose for example that they claimed that red is the best colour, but continued, “...because it’s the colour of the sky!” Here, Sam has no particular attachment to red as a colour, but instead has subjectively decided that they think whatever colour the sky is is the best colour. Unfortunately, they are under a misconception that the sky is red. Were I to take them outside and show them that it is, in fact, blue - and supposing that they stuck to their original belief that the colour of the sky is the best colour - they would then believe that blue is the best colour.
+Again, a rather fanciful example, but again I hope to emphasise a key aspect of this issue. Crucially, even our subjective beliefs are often based on evidence and reason. Instead of deciding them all independently, regardless of context, we form more fundamental intuitions and opinions, and build up from them to the choices we make in our day-to-day lives. This, I think, is particularly true in the case of morality. If you were to ask almost anyone why they hold the moral beliefs that they do, they generally would not reply simply that they chose them arbitrarily. Instead, they would begin some explanation, perhaps based on religion, or on the law or societal convention. With some pressing, they might be able to provide you with a principle from which their moral judgments follow - of justice, or duty, or compassion, or divine law.
+Of course there are some people who have given little thought to ethics at all, and who decide their actions based solely on intuition. Even with such people, their intuitions will have formed from the culture in which they’ve grown up, the teachings of the people they respect, and so on; and from these we can extract a rough set of rules that they follow.
+Once we know the fundamental principles from which those around us make their moral decisions, we can begin to negotiate, to seek for common ground. If our principles are similar but we’ve come to different conclusions about a certain situation, we should check whether we both know all the facts; it might be that one of us has missed some key detail, which once explained will resolve our disagreement. If, on the other hand, our principles are contradictory, we might be able to come to a compromise.
+In the case of Sam, I can imagine dozens of reasons for them to have reached the moral conclusions that they have. It might be that the thought that they should hurt me struck them at random, and they chose to commit to it on a whim; in that case there is little that words can do to help, for you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. On the other hand, Sam might believe that they should hurt me because they have been led to believe, for some reason or another, that I want to be hurt. In such a case all that I need to do is put right their incorrect empirical beliefs, like when I showed them that the sky was in fact blue, and I will be able to go on uninjured.
+Applying this to the situation which currently faces us, it seems that there are many different, contradictory moral principles at play in our block. There are those that believe that using force to attempt to drive change is ethically justified in our circumstances - perhaps they would not use the word ‘ethical’, but they believe that it was permissible, or reasonable, for them to do so, and this amounts to the same thing - and there are those who believe that it is not. There are differences in views of how we should enforce justice and the rule of law, and even whether we should. I think that it is in all of our interests to come to some kind of accord, given that we cannot easily leave each others’ company. And in this essay, I have described a path to achieve exactly that. Even for those reading this who hold an objectivist position, unless you can provide a convincing argument for it, the most pragmatic approach is to learn about the principles of the other residents of the block, and attempt to reach a compromise.
+With that said, as promised above, I will make clear the principles that guide my own actions, in the hopes of starting an open conversation and removing any mystery from my decisions. I am what I consider to be a utilitarian, meaning that the only principle upon which I make moral choices is the principle of utility, that I should act in whichever manner maximises happiness and minimises suffering, for everyone. I think those are still highly relevant considerations in the Threshold. Although we cannot die, nor hunger or thirst, we can feel pain and oppression, and conversely happiness and freedom. We all seek for the latter, and avoid the former; and I see no good reason to put my own such desires ahead of the desires of others. Thus I try to act such that everyone can be as free and happy as possible, and to prevent suffering. And I believe I am morally right to act in such a manner.
+I leave you with these questions: how do you believe it is morally right for you and others to act? Why? What principles, if any, do you derive your moral choices from? Are you prepared to compromise with others, with the aim of upholding your morality as far as possible?