Morals, ethics, and virtue
Let’s begin with definitions.
Morals are the set of internal rules that govern our personal (no one else is directly effected) and social (others are directly effected) behavior. If our actions would not change even in those circumstances in which there is no outside observer to render a judgment on those actions, that is one moral framework. If our actions would change in the presence of an outside observer, that creates a different moral framework. However, both frameworks constitute a set of morals since they reflect the internal rules that govern behavior.
Ethics are the rules we employ in the treatment of another person or persons. In other words, ethical behavior is a manifestation of morals (the social behavior part). If they are the same for any other person, that creates one ethical framework. If our ethics change as a consequence of the other person’s religion, social status, nationality, race, gender, etc., that creates another ethical frame work. However, both frameworks constitute a set of ethics since they reflect the rules we employ in the treatment of others.
As is apparent, these definitions are merely descriptive of how each term applies in the human condition. In consequence, everyone has moral and ethical values since they are a universal condition of being human. This approach to the terms allows us to recognize the statement that “John Smith is a moral person” is a tautology and, therefore, meaningless, since everyone is a moral person in the sense that everyone has a moral framework of some sort. The crucial issue is not whether someone is labeled a moral or ethical person, but rather whether that particular set of moral or ethical values promotes “virtue”.
In order to resolve this issue, of course, we must have some sense of what constitutes “virtue”. This could be a difficult and frustrating undertaking since there are many differing, and often contradictory, claims about what constitutes virtue, based on such things as a casual consensus, tradition, divine revelation, the authority of special persons, etc. Essentially, this is the same dilemma we faced in commencing our analysis with investigations as to what constitutes the truth. But as was the case with truth determination, we have been able to reason our way to a resolution of the dilemma with regard to the question of virtue. As understood through the evolution of Darwinian dynamics, we have discerned the fundamental virtue (based on objectified information) is human decency. It is fundamental since the practice of human decency increases the probability of the survival and success of the human species. We know that a claim to virtue is fraudulent, if action arising from that claim violates any of the principles enumerated in the section on Human Decency.
As is apparent, the evolutionary idea of virtue is concerned only with ethics. Rationalizations that an individual makes, that have no effect on others, fall into the category of insights necessary for the support of that individual’s idiosyncratic configuration. And as such, no outside observer has the competence to judge their appropriateness. Therefore, if one’s ethics are virtue producing, we have no interest in the personal rationalizations that produce that happy result. We have no interest because it is not possible to fully understand, and thus test the appropriateness of, the personal rationalizations that support the idiosyncratic configuration of someone else. Similarly, if one’s ethics are destructive of virtue, we can apply negative sanctions against that person, but we can provide no fail/safe prescription as to how their personal rationalizations must be adjusted to produce an ethics that promotes virtue. That type of recalibration can only be worked out by the individual.
We also know, from the previous analysis, that the impulse to fairness in the human condition is the bedrock out of which the idea of virtue (human decency) evolves. It “evolves” because as new objectified information (truth) becomes available, the idea can be improved. We also know, from the section on Human Decency, that Darwinian dynamics make it extremely unlikely that the currently constituted social authorities would be hospitable to any evolution of the idea which changes, in a fundamental way, the current social arrangements - since their authority is based on those arrangements. Therefore, as previously concluded, the evolution of the idea of virtue is decidedly a “bottoms up” rather than a “tops down” operation. The “bottom”, of course, is constituted of every individual human being. As each individual recalibrates their understanding of the idea of virtue to conform to the best objectified information available, the cumulative effect will be to incrementally push social arrangements in the direction of virtue promotion
This understanding produces the most effective method for the propagation of virtue that is available in the human condition. Instead of being intimidated and manipulated by the imposition of a moral framework based on un-vetted ideological assumptions, every human being would be empowered with the ability to render a judgment as to the value such framework has for the promotion of virtue. That is, all human beings can become active participants in the promotion of virtue, and are freed from the delusion that there are moral or ethical “experts” to whose judgments they must defer. Indeed, not only can each individual become an active participant in this quest, they must. The promotion of virtue is dependent on the informed consensus arising from the participation of all individuals.
Finally, we need an antonym for the word virtue. That is, how should we characterize activities that are destructive of the promotion of virtue? Since the promotion of virtue enhances the probability for the survival and success of the human species, there can be no bigger “crime” than indulging in activities which compromise that probability. Therefore, crime shall be defined as the antithesis of virtue and, therefore, its antonym. Adjusting our definition to this sensibility, allows to see clearly that a legal code only gives the definitions of “legal” and “illegal”. And those terms are no more helpful in determining the issue of crime then the terms “moral” and “ethical” are in determining virtue. Indeed, there are numerous examples of duly enacted laws that are, in fact, criminal in themselves. The obvious example is the “Jim Crow” laws that prevailed over vast sections of the United States. Therefore, we must remain sensitive to the existence “legal” crimes. Of course, such laws must be changed if possible, and if not possible, disobeyed.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution