I have made it clear for some time that I developed my own ethical theory. I don't want to attack the NAP, or any other theory, whether amoral (a lack of ethical theory) or moral, as I feel that would be counterproductive and only serve to further divide an already fractal movement. However, I do want to eventually publish my theory elsewhere (I've been writing a now nearly complete book for a few years, off and on), and I think SOME of the folks around here are likely to give me a good intellectual 'run for my money' (and thereby will give me constructive comments about what I'm about to say).
So, that said, let's get into something very important...proving ethics even exist before going about debating an ethical theory of any kind, and trying to prove ethics are objective or subjective therefore. If we can't first prove ethics exist, then we cannot claim any ethical theory is worth debating. I know most of you already accept ethics exist (maybe ALL of you do), but nonetheless this isn't a trivial matter in philosophy. What's more, I believe that my proof of ethics existing (below) also simultaneously proves ethical theories beyond a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth are purely subjective, and that when ethical theory is translated into legal theory (which is basically inevitable) anything but polycentric/free market/customary legal "systems" are objectively illogical (and immoral). That means all state legal systems are illogical (and immoral).
The Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (SLOET) is NOT my ethical theory, and if I publish my ethical theory here (which I have, in part, previously) that will become abundantly clear. My ethical theory is called the Path of Least Coercion (PLC), and it will not be discussed further in this post or in the comments below (directly). The reason is, I want to give it a separate post to avoid conflation of the two concepts (SLOET vs PLC), and because the SLOET is totally independent of the PLC. One does not rely on the other. One last thing about the PLC: I don't claim it is objective, but instead subjective, like I consider all ethical theories.
Without further ado, here is the introduction and the SLOET:
I read tonight a post which made think this was the right time to post this. The post said, among other things, the following:
Then it went on to say...The classic example of a syllogism is the following:
All men are mortal (Major, or basic, premise)
Socrates is a man (Minor premise)
Socrates is mortal (Conclusion)
Why did this make me think this was the right time to post my SLOET? Because if my premises cannot be logically (or empirically) destroyed, and my logic that follows the premises cannot be logically (or empirically) destroyed, then my conclusions at the end of the SLOET will stand as truth.Now, let’s return to the example of a syllogism, but change the basic premise.
All men are immortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is immortal.
While the conclusion is logically correct, the conclusion is clearly wrong. Socrates is not immortal. The conclusion is wrong, because the basic premise is wrong: man is not immortal. The acceptance of a bad premise, led to a bad conclusion.
Now, on to the SLOET itself:
To develop an ethical theory, or prove ethics exist at all, one needs to use reason to develop epistemological (the nature and scope of knowledge) and metaphysical (the nature of reality) precepts, and pass them through a prism (logic) to create (or allow to emerge) said ethical theory (or to show that ethics even exist at all). If ethics do in fact exist, we are faced with several problems/questions; Are ethics real (objective)? Are ethical theories real (subjective or objective)? What makes ethics consistent or inconsistent?
I will now attempt to prove ethics exist in an objective sense, ethical theories beyond a singular logical objective ethical truth are subjective, and that the key to a consistent ethical theory is logical consistency (meaning to the degree you are logical/illogical is the degree to which you will have consistency/inconsistency in ethical theory).
The SLOET (Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth):
1. What is the nature of reality? As per the "brain in a vat" (or Descartes' "evil demon") thought experiment, it's clear we can't prove reality even exists. Einstein also said mathematics, and therefore science, cannot prove reality (he said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" and "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality"). However, as Ayn Rand aptly pointed out, there is no point in discussing anything at all, or doing anything at all, if we do not simply assume an objective reality exists. So we assume an objective reality exists (but we view it subjectively; hence 10 witnesses to a crime will all describe it and the criminal slightly, or even vastly, differently).
2. What is the nature of knowledge? Since reality is assumed objective, but is subjectively viewed, then knowledge can only be attained via logic and reason, and their invention of the scientific method (and those things create a filter for the subjective aspects, as to determine what is universally objective). From logic and reason we developed the scientific method, as to test our subjective views to see if we were accurately describing the objective reality we assume we share. Logic, reason, and the scientific method allow us to test our subjective ideas and observations across the globe apart from each other, to see if they are accurately describing the objective reality, or best known truth. ("Best known truth" refers to scientist and philosopher Karl Popper's idea that our view of objective reality through science is really an ever increasing and ever clearer view based on a succession of theories, each less wrong than the last, but none that are perfectly correct simply because they are more correct than the previous theories. Theories in science must stand up to the problem of induction and falsifiability to be true, as that which isn't falsifiable or fails the problem of induction is unproven.)
3. What is the nature of ethics, given 1 and 2? If reality is assumed objective, but viewed subjectively, and if knowledge is only that which can be filtered through logic and the scientific method (and never in an absolute sense via scientific theory), then we can arrive at a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (SLOET). That truth is no view of reality is perfectly known to be correct without being tested, both inductively and then via falsifiability, and since subjective ethical views cannot largely be tested in any scientific way, and the logic used to test them has limits on these subjective views, the SLOET is simply that no one single ethical code should be imposed, via law or social norm, on anyone that is not voluntarily agreeing to it. That is to say, the SLOET says that coercion (of those capable of consent) into one particular ethical standard is invalid logically, as it has to ignore 1 and 2 above. All coercion of those capable of consent into one particular ethical (or legal) standard would have to assume an objective reality is perfectly known, and that assumes it can be perfectly tested - both of which are not possible.
The SLOET is not an ethical code or theory...it's merely an observation of logical truth. All ethical theories will be subjective therefore, and extend from the SLOET. So, I believe I have proven ethics exist in an objective sense, that ethical theories are merely subjective, and that imposition of any ethical theory by force on those capable of consent (but refuse to give it), by law or social norm, is objectively illogical (and therefore unethical - as the degree of immorality is proportionate to the degree of illogic).
I believe this brings people together from different subjective views of reality, as we can discover this truth without needing to agree on ethical theory, what we experience as real, etc. It's purely derived via logic and a few basic, easily understandable, reasonable precepts. If the precepts stand as correct, and logic is applied consistently and correctly, then the SLOET should also be correct.
Thanks for reading, and feel free to comment below (in a constructive manner, please).
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us