1.5.12.7 The Range of Ethics and Core Values

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

In this section we recap the context of our discussion of ethics in Chapter 1.5.

From the perspective of REALigion, a Reasonable Global Way, ethics, and our core ethical values, is related to people, or at least, sentient beings: without sentient beings there would be no ethical issues to resolve. 

●   Why should we worry about a large lifeless rock circulating around a distant star?

●   We should worry about a planet in our solar system, because it could impact on our Earthly life. 

●   Should we worry about a distant planet that might have plant life but no sentient lifeforms?  Some would say we should, because of its potential to facilitate the evolution of sentient, and perhaps intelligent beings.  On the other hand a potential value is not the same as a value.  Humans, if they could ever access this planet, might learn something useful from its mere existence – it complicates, perhaps refutes, religious narratives about god creating life on Earth.  Human might also learn something useful about biology that could help to improve human life.  

●   We should worry if we discover a planet with intelligent life: are they, or will they be, a threat to life on Earth?  Do they suffer and seek fulfillment similarly to humans, and if they do, should we react to them with Love and Compassion rather than fear?  We would probably have to believe that the aliens are not a threat to us before we treat them as having some degree of Equality, on relevant dimensions, to us humans, in deserving at least some degree of Love and Compassion.

●   These are topics worth debating, but right now, on Earth, it is purely academic – purely hypothetical.  Being pragmatic, we don't need to worry right now about the existence of a planet with life, sentient beings or intelligent beings.  Our planet already exists, with sentient beings, and it already complicates things enough.

We are concerned with sentient beings feeling pain, suffering, happiness and well-being, and we are concerned to minimize pain and suffering, and maximize happiness and well-being. 

In ethics, there is a rising consensus that we are concerned about behaviour: we are not directly worried about feelings, thoughts or beliefs except to the extent that they influence our behaviour.

Ethics should not judge a person by the uncontrolled, unwanted coming to mind of a thought. 

●   We are not responsible for this event; no proximate intervention will prevent it from occurring.  Instructing someone to not think of something is self-defeating. 

●   If an improper lustful or hateful thought does enter our heads, what matters is not its short lived, ephemeral existence, but how we react to it.  If we dismiss the thought as unreasonable that is the end of the matter.  No crime has been committed.  We are not responsible for the thought.

●   Nor do we praise someone for simply having a good thought: without any follow through it becomes insignificant.  Planning and action is required for a good thought to lead to praise.

●   Too much mental anguish has been caused by religious leaders berating their adherents for merely having a bad thought, even though they would never act on it.  This has caused mental illness, a debilitating sense of unworthiness, and the belief that the sufferer is actually evil.

●   However ethics does cover conscious planning, and repeated thoughts that influence behaviour, whether they be good or bad – harmful or helpful.  We are responsible for our reactions to the thought.

●   And we are responsible for putting ourselves in a position where we are led to have bad thoughts.  If you join an ethnic supremacy group – such as white supremacists, Hindu supremacists, Buddhist supremacists, or Islamic supremacists – knowing that it opposes equality with other ethnic groups (based eg on race, religion or nationality) and is prone to promote violence against those others, you are choosing to align with a group that does not align with our core values.  Such groups distort history to emphasize the evilness of the others.  They frequently distort science to assert that the others are intrinsically different.  They deny their equality.  They plan to cause them harm.  In this context, hateful and harmful thoughts are not random, ephemeral events that we can easily dismiss.  Some members of ethnic supremacy groups – new recruits and seasoned hands – realise they are being fed hate and leave the group.  Others stay and join in planning harmful actions, and for that they are responsible. 

Ethics is concerned with the degree of conscious behaviour towards sentient beings.

●   Our ethics assumes some degree of freedom of action, that if the context is changed then the behaviour may be changed.  This is how we define our core value of Responsibility.  This is not quite the same as saying that we must have free will. 

●   Most discussions of ethics assume that free will is essential, ignoring the dilemma of causality or chaos vs choice, first raised herein in Chapter 1.1 on Epistemology.) 

●   It is saying that there must be the possibility of a proximate intervention that could potentially change the behaviour for us to assign responsibility for the behaviour.  Whether our choices are made freely, or determined, or probabilistic, we do make choices.

Ethics is dependent on pragmatic core values of Truth, Diversity and Reality.  Ethical behaviour should be evidence based, wherever practical, or at least based on what we know at the time. 

Ethical assessments are based on both intent and outcome, not one or the other exclusively.  As the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  We must not only intend to do good, we must also have some reason to believe that our expected outcome will eventuate and will make the situation better.  We must be as well informed as we can be, given the circumstances, and we must allow for a wide diversity of desires and opinions (some people do not want to be saved from hell – because it doesn’t exist).  We must allow for uncertainties in our understanding of the situation, as well as the risk that the intended outcome might not occur.

Our ethics does not address the supposed supernatural, except to the extent that it impacts on the welfare of humans.  More pointedly, our ethics is NOT about the supposed existence of sacred or sacrilegious objects, or attributes of objects or behaviours that make them taboo, or contaminated or abominations in the sight of the Lord. 

●   Menstrual blood is not evil, taboo, contaminated, or abominable, any more than any other blood. 

●   Pigs and pork are not intrinsically bad, or bad to touch or eat, any more than sheep and mutton. 

●   Just as the universe does not ‘contain’ things, or attributes of things or events, called values, morals or purpose, so the universe does not ‘contain’ things or events that are taboo or abominations.  Values are guides to behaviour, not ethereal things or beings.

In a directly subjective sense, we choose our values, our choices reflect our values and our values guide our choices, but these choices relate to the pain, suffering, happiness or well-being of ‘other’ sentient beings.  We are in the first instance making choices about how we personally shall behave.

A pragmatic outcome of these core value choices is that we adopt derived, effecting (or instrumental) and ancillary values, which lead us to support, as an ideal, liberal pluralist democracies. 

●   At a minimum REALigion, a Reasonable Global Way, supports governance structures – traditions, conventions, institutions, guidelines, laws – in families, social groups, workplaces, corporations, area governments and nongovernment organizations – that are consistent with our pragmatic, ethical and inspirational core values. 

●   Such governance structures value Life, Love, Equality and Responsibility in their interactions with their constituents and stakeholders.  They don't want me harmed, just as they don't want others harmed.  They support my well-being, as they support the well-being of others.  Equally.

●   And Responsibly.  They implement interventions – scowls of disapproval, nudges, laws, rewards, ‘punishments’ or whatever is proximal and effective – so that I, along with my ‘equals’ – the other constituents and stakeholders – suffer least and thrive best.  This means these structures can impose restrictions on me, to prevent me harming myself, and to promote my well-being.  

●   They should do this only to the extent that these interventions don't cause more harm than good (with an abundance of caution, given the historical evidence of widespread state oppression). 

●   Governments have a ‘right’ to make laws that restrict my intake of harmful recreational drugs and laws that ensure I have access to education and information relevant to my life decisions. 

●   Governments have a ‘right’ to make laws that make me contribute to the welfare of others, in life affirming, loving, equal and responsible ways, that are evidence based, realistic, and tolerant.

●   Freedom from harmful government interference is sacrosanct, but freedom is not absolute, and must be balanced against all core values.  Social obligations entail sanctions for recalcitrants, but must not cause more harm to individuals than the benefits to be obtained.

We summarize our conclusions in this area as follows: