Being Ethical

I’ve written numerous posts critical of monotheism, especially of the Abrahamic variety. I’ve pointed out how monotheism fails to account for the existence of evil. I’ve also pointed out that the polytheistic approach to ethics is superior to monotheism. In addition, I’ve shown that Abrahamic monotheists edited ancient Israelite polytheistic mythology to try to make it fit their monotheist worldview.

Despite all of the flaws of monotheism, it’s important to remember that many ethical monotheists exist in the world. 

 

The reader might be surprised by my statement. If monotheism is so flawed, how can there be so many ethical monotheists? Ironically, such confusion itself is a product of another flaw of monotheism. Let me explain.

Monotheism has long claimed that it, and only it, is the source of ethics. However, a review of Abrahamic religious texts reveals a serious lack of ethics in its mythology and commandments. Yahweh drowns untold innocents in the Great Flood. Then He sends the Angel of Death to murder Egyptian innocent firstborn. These are such a few examples.

With all this said, I still maintain that there are large numbers of ethical followers of Abrahamic monotheism.

My proof for this is self-evident. It’s a simple fact that ethical monotheists are all around us. We all know them. And anyone who studies history will find them throughout the ages. Ethical monotheists are present everywhere you turn.

Their large numbers are because ethics is not a product of religion, monotheistic or otherwise. Ethics arises from the human condition. 

The origin of the human condition is complicated and has been debated among philosophers, psychologists, and other scholars for ages. Buckets of ink have been spilled on this subject. My opinion is that it’s likely an emergent property resulting from a complex interplay between genetics, environment, and cognitive reasoning.

The key takeaway is that there is no connection between ethics and religion. Anyone, monotheist, polytheist, or atheist, can be ethical. Religion can help reinforce certain ethical behaviors, but it’s unnecessary.

Monotheism isn’t the source of ethics. Ethics is the product of our humanity.

Danger, Will Robinson!

“You shouldn’t fear immigrants taking your job; you should fear robots.” – Sead Fadilpasic.

Advances in AI are all the talk of the town. And for good reason. Programs such as Midjourney and ChatGPT are very impressive at creating art and text, respectfully. It’s premature to declare these AI programs “sentient.” Sentience requires a general understanding of the world and can function in various areas. Instead, AI programs are currently limited to addressing specific functions, such as writing or art, but not anything outside their specialty.

While the ethical questions about future developments in Artificial Intelligence are interesting, and I want to explore that later, the more pressing problem is the real-world impact of the current level of AI on human affairs. 

AI does have the potential to aid humanity. AI is expected to help streamline processes, and it’s expected to aid in research and scientific studies. All of these may result in not only saving time and money but may also help save lives.

However, the picture of AI isn’t all positive. There’s evidence that the source material used to teach AI has included inappropriate use of copyrighted material. More importantly, AI will replace people’s jobs. Automation has long been known to be a significant player in the loss of jobs, as much or more so than outsourcing. Another concern is that programs like ChatGPT could be used to spread fake news and misinformation. Journalists with news organizations such as The Guardian and USAToday have found that ChatGPT makes up nonexistent sources for studies with incorrect claims. 

Whether we like it or not, AI is here to stay. Pandora’s box has been opened, and it’s impossible to return its contents. What’s necessary is societal oversight in the form of governmental regulation to mitigate its toxic elements.

Flaming Trousers

We all know the childhood taunt, “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” We definitely don’t like people who lie. Just look at the public outcry to a recently elected US Congressional Representative caught lying about his past. 

Is it ever okay to lie? Or is honesty always, with no exceptions, the best policy? Mountains of books have been written about this over the centuries. I cannot sufficiently cover all of the arguments in a blog post. But I’m going to write about it anyway.

Let me get one consideration out the way up front. The Cosmos, Universe, God, or whatever, doesn’t give a damn about us and what we do. We’re on our own for this.

I like thought experiments rather than just theories regarding ethical dilemmas. When discussing ethical absolutes, the setting should be one of the most evil institutions in history. Slavery certainly fits the bill. In this case, slavery in the United States.

Scenario: It’s 1857, and you’re a white abolitionist. In the back of your covered wagon, you’re hiding a family of runaway slaves that you’re helping get to freedom. As you approach the border to cross from the Slave State of Virginia to the Free State of Pennsylvania, you see a roadblock with armed men in your path. One armed man approaches and tells you they’re looking for some runaway slaves. They ask you if you’ve seen any and if you might know where they are? 

Question: Do you lie and tell them that you haven’t seen any? Or do you admit that you have and that they’re in the back of your wagon? 

My Response: I would lie in this thought experiment with no regrets whatsoever about doing so. In fact, I believe lying is the ethical choice in this scenario, while telling the truth is unethical. This is because the welfare of people is the highest ethics. Life overrides other considerations, especially abstract musings by philosophers sitting around their metaphorical ivory towers. 

Does this mean I think it’s always okay to lie? Of course not. Absolutes to the other extreme are such as wrong. In relationships, generally, honesty is the best policy. However, not always. Especially when it causes more harm than good. 

So, dear surfers of the interwebs, what do you think? Do you think honesty is absolute, or is it situational? Let me know your thoughts. You can leave a comment below. I’m on Facebook and Twitter. You can also email me at fratert@ftenebris.com.

Decency Ethics

“When the norm is decency, other virtues can thrive: integrity, honesty, compassion, kindness, and trust.” - Raja Krishnamoorthi, US House of Representatives

Most people don’t sit around dwelling on the various schools of ethics. That is unless you’re a philosophy nut like me. However, I think that we owe it to ourselves and society to ponder ethics and how to make ethical decisions.

I’ve always liked situational ethics. It’s practical. The right tool for the right job. However, the problem with situational ethics is that it lacks a guide to help us determine the right tool.

In his book A Decent Life: Morality for the Rest of Us, the philosopher Todd May proposes a framework for ethical behavior. His proposal fills in the gap needed to make situational ethics work. He calls this framework “decency ethics.”

According to May, the goal should be to live a “decent life.” A decent life acknowledges and acts upon the fact that all of us have lives we’re trying to live. I have my life, and you have yours. It strikes a balance between the needs of others and oneself.

I highly recommend A Decent Life: Morality for the Rest of Us by Todd May. You can also learn more about decency ethics and the others schools of thought in my book, The Philosophy of Dark Paganism.