ETHICAL SYSTEMS

SELECTIVE ETHICS

The goal is to have a comprehensive body of theories to choose
from.

1ST SET:

MODEL 1: Descriptor Theory

This is a basic model of language-building, inventiveness, and
world-concept building. So far as I know, it underlies the current
model of anthropology. It takes place through an association
between the primitive concept of self, such as how you feel when
you get out of bed, or how you feel when you go to a rest-stop,
and actions fueled by primitive desires like thirst and vengeance.
When the actions that take place through descriptor theory are
formalized into people, objects, organizations, and superstitions,
then we get things like science and religion, knowledge and
symbolism.

Critique:


MODEL 2: Functional-Purpose Theory (Teleology)

The principle of cause and effect is under-written by theories of
purpose which may be more eternal. Whether the cause is natural
or supernatural, the purpose or function of a thing is the simple
explanation of what the thing means for us in our practical or
meaningful existence. This is the primary theory that leads up to
Newton’s invention of the most rudimentary laws of physics.

Critique:


MODEL 3: Basic Realization Theory (Transcendentalism)

This is a theory originating with early Indian cosmologists that
experience as we find it is very basic, but higher forms of
existence and purpose are possible. Therefore, the life that we
have as we know it is a rather basic form of existence, and the
difference between our existence and the higher existence is
explained by the existence of illusions. For, if higher potential is
possible in the imagination, there is no reason that it would not
ultimately be the case. But, since it cannot be observed in this
world, it is clear that there is something (illusion) separating the
many worlds.

Critique:


MODEL 4: Psychology (Ideal Materialism)

In this model, which embraces a beginning point in aesthetics,
human purpose, and the rationalization of experience, the
phenomena of experience (at least as we know them) are a result
of actions in the mind. If there is something wrong with
experience, then there is something wrong with us. Matter, if it is
imperfect, is still blameless, and there is nothing to stop us from
idealizing the materials we find before us. If there is something
wrong with idealizing, then this does not place a limit on human
happiness, but rather changes the character of the appropriate
experience. The result might be something either psychic or
scientific, and the duality between them is essentially a practical
one.

Critique:


2ND SET:

MODEL 5: Conceptualism

Conceptualists reject the inherent descriptiveness of the world in
favor of a deference to design principles. Designs may be good,
or at least appear good, but that does not mean that the world
itself has been perfectly designed. However, it may be that
designs can contribute to a good world. And it may be practical
concerns which prevent the world from appearing as if it were
obviously perfectly constructed.

Critique:


MODEL 6: Cosmology

Finding an alliance between Basic Realization and
Conceptualism, Coherent Cosmologists believe that if we are not
in the right cosmos, then it is something wrong with us. In any
case, the cosmos was designed a certain way, and the differences
between one universe and another still reflect the unified vision of
God or nature. If there is something wrong with the cosmos, then
that is something interesting to study, and how we study the
cosmos and what it means reflects in the understanding of the
most meaningful purposes for humanity. What we understand
about the world influences who we are, and the limit (or
limitlessness) of our potential.

Critique:


MODEL 7: Mathematical Science

Studying the most objective properties of the world yields the
best understanding of nature, and reflects the deepest possible
understanding of the intelligence found in the universe. This is the
understanding of science. Mere theories, and endless unfounded
variations do nothing to describe the world as it should be
understood, or at least how it could be accurately represented.

Critique: The scientific view rejects the emotional view, and thus
rejects a large part of the faculties of perception.



MODEL 8: Coherent Knowledge

Citing a problem with math’s ability to relate with every type of
thing, such as organics, human knowledge, the supernatural, and
the linguistic, theories advanced by myself advocate the use of
specialized knowledge applications to convey the linguistic
version of the truths of nature. The application allows radical
correspondence between language, nature, science, and religion
concepts, by using a bounded Cartesian Coordinate System
relating all properties between extremes, but excluding zero.

Critique: Critics of coherency are likely to cite its imperfection,
its ‘inadequacy’ or non-empirical-ness, or its lack of scientific
rigor.



3RD SET:

MODEL 9: Irrational Romanticism

Romantics say that rational claims are not the limit of known
experience. Effectively, rational concepts place a limit on what
can be known, and thus, they do not convey the ‘secrets’ of how
life really works. Understanding life requires moving beyond all
rational concepts, to discover the poetic, artistic, or in some other
way ‘mad’ concept of whatever happens to concern us. Madness
is not only a concept of the meaning of nature, but a concept of
the meaning of numbers. It has a capacity to explain anything
which is beyond reason. And it has properties that work for the
exceptional reason.

Critique: If irrationality has some legitimacy, doesn’t rationality
have even more legitimacy? By the time we formalize an
irrational system, haven’t we got a rational system out of it?
Perhaps irrationality is only a matter of definition, whereas
rationality involves substantial concepts which can be seen
without requiring our emotions…


MODEL 10: Justice

Treating madmen like normal people has its limitations. If a large
population is mad, the result is chaos. If no justice is instilled,
civilization is corrupt, and collapses. Therefore, with or without
any concept of how nature or civilization work, there must be
some form of justice instilled to prevent utter chaos.

Critique: Elites argue that justice is not supposed to be evenly
distributed.


MODEL 11: Solipsism

Radical solipsists argue that experience is one thing, whether it is
rational or irrational, or some other thing. What defines
experience is something apart from---although chained to----our
faculty of knowledge. We should abandon the idea that these
things  mean anything to those beyond us. Instead, what is
meaningful is what is meaningful for us individually.

Critique: Functionality seems to depend on accepting the reality
of other human beings. Otherwise, there is no alternative to
Utopia, which has not been seen as a functional society (it means
‘No Place’).


MODEL 12: Spiritualism

Rejecting every type of negativity, spiritualists find purpose in
the world’s activities through the connection to the supernatural.

Critique: Some believe that the views developed by religion are
not literally true.


4TH SET:


MODEL 13: Humanism

Humanism adopts a more literal view than religion, in which
practical human motivations should guide all inquiries, logic, and
forms of understanding. Although it seems to gamble on human
development for its primary motivation, it could be argued that
human development concerns everything humans are concerned
with, and in this way it is a very broad concern.

Critique: Humanism may ultimately be too generic and un-
creative to effect real change.


MODEL 14: Theology

The study of divinity has potential to teach what other disciplines
could not teach. It seems, on the surface at least, to concern
things which are of more fundamental importance than human
reality.

Critique: Theologians are people who are not concerned with the
practical implications of their work, but only the cloistered,
spiritualized variations of arguments made by key figures who are
frequently long dead. In this sense, theology does not concern a
living tradition, but only tautologies.


MODEL 15: Socialism and Technocracy

Rejecting theology as impractical, socialists and technocrats
focus on the practical implications of society, human problems,
and sometimes, where possible, human significance. It doesn’t
make much difference whether humans are defined as animals,
gods, humans, or post-human. What matters is how society
functions, and the realizable goals and ideal conditions of social
functioning.  Such a system would widely accept the personal
merits of people who are alive, and sometimes undergo shifts to
re-envision old systems that seem out-dated. If the system works
well, then the strategic shifts occur without much damage.
However, this is not a Utopia, and small amounts of damage may
allow the society to remain responsive to larger crises.

Critique: Some argue that a disillusioned society is not really
functional, and that we may as well turn back to some form of
religion.


MODEL 16: Post-Humanism

The natural development of practical humanism, post-humanism
involves a society in which people become in a practical sense
more-than-human. This can have a wide range of implications, but
it is suspected that in some ways, barring a major crisis, post-
human society will be more functional, entertaining, and
intelligent than previously, in ways that are hard for previous
generations to imagine.

Critique: Post-humanism is still potentially not understanding of
the state of nature, and its own influence on the outcome of
universal development.


5TH SET:

MODEL 17: Metaphysics

It is argued by metaphysicians that understanding our place in
nature involves a significant degree of comprehension, and it
goes well beyond any common understanding of religion or
science. Such a view is not only practical, but also knowledgeable,
and not only knowledgeable, but functional, and not only
functional, but meaningful. Not everyone knows how to acquire
such a system, but the beginning point is a process of self-
examination.

Critique: Many argue that practical existence is always more
important, and it is usually simply sensual pleasure which leads to
fulfillment.



MODEL 18: Hedonism

Hedonists argue that pleasure is all that is necessary for the good
life. Frequently, disillusioned people will turn to entertainment as
a priority, to defend them from the difficulties of life.
Entertainment is an oasis, which at least appears to have a
priority of serving human interest and defending the
righteousness of the human.

Critique: Pleasure sometimes leads to bad consequences.
Entertainment is still subject to human ugliness, stupidity, and
death.



MODEL 19: Epicureanism and Aestheticism and the Immortal
Quest

Epicureans reject some pleasures as un-sustainable or
dangerous, and advocate the life of a secluded hermit over social
indulgences. Similarly, Aesthetes favor some pleasures over
others, believing the high-minded life is preferable to the ‘lower
life’ of pigs and slobs. Raising a critique of all of the bad things in
life, it is sometimes concluded that the one good thing is to pursue
immortality.

Critique: It is said that Epicureans and artists are hypocrites or
nihilists, and some indulgence would usually lead to more.
Pleasure is the only answer to pleasure, in other words. It is
argued that immortality is not achievable, and not everyone is
good enough.


MODEL 20: Asceticism and Enlightenment

Abandoning pleasure---or at least pleasure as others understand
it---- altogether might lead to a better life. At least, it might lead
to a life without the greatest harms, like Hell or venereal disease,
or God’s anger. Sometimes advanced ascetics see asceticism as
an alternate path to transcendence, which accepts human death,
but sees another path to great spiritual accomplishment.

Critique: It is argued that asceticism is unsustainable and un-
enjoyable. It looks good from the outside, but it actually is
miserable. As soon as someone could enjoy the ascetic life, they
could have a lot of fun doing something else. If enlightened
people aren’t immortal, where does that leave the rest of us? So,
maybe they’re doing something wrong…



6TH SET:


MODEL 21: Fascination (Child’s Mind)

Some, including some scientists, and also Buddhists, have
advocated some amount of returning to child’s mind, or the
fascination and imagination of the early experiences of youth.
This would serve the purpose of avoiding disillusionment,
depression, and over-thinking that might result from continually
developing adult thoughts, or becoming obsessed with advanced
ideas.

Critique:


MODEL 22: Resourcefulness / Evolution

Some have argued that flimsy answers like child’s mind don’t do
enough for experience. They argue some sort of resource
adaptation is required, or some form of evolution into a new
frame of mind, or a new practical ability to handle problems.

Critique: How to do this? It might not be easy, so it might be a
bad idea.



MODEL 23: Genius

Rejecting many other ideas as run-of-the-mill, some see genius as
the ultimate evolution currently available. In this view, the mind
trumps or over-performs any other attempt to be spiritual or
scientific. What can be done well by following rules can be done
even better just by thinking about it. In this view, the ultimate
hedonism, the ultimate religion, the ultimate science, is for the
moment all about the experience and understanding of the mind /
or human cognition.

Critique: Not everyone can be a genius even if they choose to be,
someone might say. And if they are a genius, that doesn’t mean
they don’t have flaws. Just because someone is a genius doesn’t
mean they’re perfect. And, there are many people who aren’t
geniuses. And it’s supposedly impossible to perform better than
anyone. So, it can’t be about competition.


MODEL 24: Radical Acceptance of Passivity

Noticing the failures of many traditions, some spiritual teachers
have argued for radical acceptance of the passive condition of
life. Accepting life allows you to do anything you are capable of. It
is also a way to psychologically adapt, and it has none of the
drawbacks of something that is a mere theory.

Critique: Many have found this adaptation hard to implement.
And some have criticized it for being morally permissive.



            
BACK TO SYSTEMS