Source of Ethics

1. Source of Ethics A Non-Cognitivist, Subjective, Quasi-Universal Perspective

2. Building a Better Discussion

3. Non-Cognitivism • Non-Cognitivism states that moral propositions are meaningless, despite being syntactically correct. • Language is supposed to serve the concept, but here I believe language has skewed the concept. • We typically phrase a moral question as:"Is it wrong to <action> ?" • This language requires that "wrong" be an objective property of "action“, much like “Is the circle round?” • How would you define "wrong"?  Can you do so in a way that does not involve a person?  Yet this sentence does not mention anybody, so how can "wrong" be assessed? This would be like asking, "Is it fun to <action> ?" • "Right" & "Wrong" are judgments, and therefore moral questions are meaningless without including the judge in the language .

4. Subjective Ethics not necessarily Relativistic.... INSTEAD OF: Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to eat meat? Is it wrong to drink alcohol? Should I give money to charity? Ask: Do I think it’s wrong to steal? Do vegans think it’s wrong to eat meat? Does God think it is wrong for everybodyto drink alcohol? AmI compelled to give money to charity?

5. Building a Better Discussion • Our language is so geared towards objectively understanding the world around us that it fails us in accurately conveying concepts of ethics. This, in turn, skews our understanding. • We come to believe that judgments of our actions and the actions of others are true independently of our minds, and that anyone who sees things a different way is just ignorant, stubborn, confused, or worse – immoral. • Instead, by including the judge in our propositions, the subjective nature of the judgments becomes clear, confusion is alleviated, and discussions can improve. • Furthermore, with the misplaced objectivity removed, reconciliation and consensus building can begin - but we need a common ground, a source… • I'm hoping that so far everything I’ve said is uncontroversial. This is compatible with a wide variety of, including theistic, ethical positions.

6. So What Are the Questions? We make these decisions everyday, but how? Are the criteria consistent across all questions? What if we disagree? How do we decide? What can't I do to others? What can't I do to myself? What should I do for others? What should I do for myself? What can't others do to others? What can't others do onto themselves?

7. How Do We Decide?

8. “Quasi” Universal Source • When we do something we believe is “wrong” we feel bad intuitively. We call this a conscience. At its most elemental level, this conscience is not based on logic or reason and this separation from our conscious thought has led many to believe that an external force is driving it. • I propose an alternate mechanism, instinct, as sufficient to explain our drive to make moral judgments. • Being genetic, instincts are commonly shared across members of a species. However, variation inevitably exists, thus as a source of ethics, Instinct is only quasi-universal. Some individuals may have this trait diminished or non-existent. • This instinct is of course EMPATHY - a process not entirely unique to humans • Do unto others as you would have done unto you • or as they would have done onto themselves.

9. TYPES • PRESCRIPTIVE • Determines what you should do • Altruism leads us to sacrifice surplus individual time & resources for the benefit of the group, thus increasing the survival chances of the individual • RESTRICTIVE • Determines what you can’t do • Cooperation decreases infighting and improves the unity of the group. Possible 3rd? • ASCETIC– Do unto yourself as you would have others do unto themselves • Determines what’s “ideal”? • Prevents hypocrisy, reinforces cultural norms, and increases one’s rapport within the group • Not sure if this is rooted in Empathy

10. Consensus • We don't operate in a social vacuum. We must co-exist which means conflicts arise • Morals must be reconciled for a functional society to form. • Religion has served this purpose since the inception of society, their histories are linked. It was the governmentof early civilizations, and still is for some societies even today. • By offloading the responsibility of moral judgments to a nebulous “god”, individuals were no longer empowered to disagree. Consensus was enforced. • Religion took Restrictive morality a step further and added rules that were not based on empathy. As such, this is much more akin to legality than morality. • Does modern secular government not also serve this purpose of legality? • Can secular philosophies then facilitate the reconciliation of Prescriptive and Ascetic morals?

11. In demanding non-specified faith, institutions are saying that it is acceptable to believe in any authority except one’s own; to take guidance from any moral framework except personal conscience. The greatest sedition is independent thought. -Ally Fog, The Independent Article about Atheists being banned from Boy/Girl Scoutshttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/george-pratts-faith-in-atheism-scouts-must-promise-to-obey--and-if-they-dont-theyre-out-8222605.html