(no subject)
Nov. 5th, 2003 10:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaCrossposting to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
philosophy
The thesis that I'm moving towards with regard to the evolution of ethics is this:
1. The moral or ethical code of any given soceity is largely based on, or at least never contradicts, current economic needs and realities.
2. A self-organizing principle of ethical evolution has guided the development of human morality over the millenia. That principle is simply this: ethical systems which are more self-consistent will tend to become prominent over less self-consistent ethical systems whenever they arise. This is true even when people act purely out of self-interest.
3. Exceptions to rule 2 are usually due to natural, political, or economic catastrophe.
4. Ethical evolution, like economic progress, has often been prodded by technological progress.
The logic behind rule 2 is the observation that efficiency tends to win out over inefficiency. Even though people may find that it is in their own immediate personal interest to commit an unethical act, I suggest that in the long run, and in the aggregate, unethical acts do not pay off. When a society is faced with a contest between two ethical systems, the one which is the most self-consistent will come to dominate because its adherents will, in the long run, do better.
"Self-consistency" is here measured in a way reminiscent of Kant's categorical imperative, which could be summarized as follows: "act only in such a way that you could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of your action to become a universal law." The basis of this is the observation that when people act unethically, they are acting in such a way that would lead to universal detriment if everyone acted that way.
philosophyThe thesis that I'm moving towards with regard to the evolution of ethics is this:
1. The moral or ethical code of any given soceity is largely based on, or at least never contradicts, current economic needs and realities.
2. A self-organizing principle of ethical evolution has guided the development of human morality over the millenia. That principle is simply this: ethical systems which are more self-consistent will tend to become prominent over less self-consistent ethical systems whenever they arise. This is true even when people act purely out of self-interest.
3. Exceptions to rule 2 are usually due to natural, political, or economic catastrophe.
4. Ethical evolution, like economic progress, has often been prodded by technological progress.
The logic behind rule 2 is the observation that efficiency tends to win out over inefficiency. Even though people may find that it is in their own immediate personal interest to commit an unethical act, I suggest that in the long run, and in the aggregate, unethical acts do not pay off. When a society is faced with a contest between two ethical systems, the one which is the most self-consistent will come to dominate because its adherents will, in the long run, do better.
"Self-consistency" is here measured in a way reminiscent of Kant's categorical imperative, which could be summarized as follows: "act only in such a way that you could want the maxim (the motivating principle) of your action to become a universal law." The basis of this is the observation that when people act unethically, they are acting in such a way that would lead to universal detriment if everyone acted that way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-05 08:25 am (UTC)I am not sure about 2. I don't think consistency is shown in most world ethical systems. But I may not completely understand what you're saying here. In fact, I am certain I don't understand what you are saying here. Which includes #3 by extension.
#4 - I agree. New technology tends to first be antagonistic to existing ethical structures, as they serve as part of a society's stability. Eventually they must transform to include the new technology in their ethical system's regulations, or band together to cast out the new technology. But casting out the new technology never really sticks, especially if a neighboring tribe/nation whose ethical system does not preclude the use of such technology adopts the new technology and shows prosperity or wartime superiority as a result of using the new technology.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-05 08:33 am (UTC)2. What I'm saying is that in general, over time, ethics have become "more ethical," because people (again in general) realize that it is in everyone's interest for people's behavior to make sense. This process has been very hit-and-miss, and so any moral system can be shown to have inconsistencies. Basically my thought is that over time, moral systems tend to have less inconsistencies.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-05 08:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-05 08:53 am (UTC)Not necessarily. While the implications of ethical principles might require more elaboration, I don't think that the governing ethical principles themselves become more elaborate.
Also, I feel I'd better clarify something now, before I get taken to task for it. I am not saying that technological societies are more ethical. I am just stating tendencies, and the tendency is for technological progress to force a society to examine its ethics.
Certainly one could present examples of societies or civilizations in history that had highly refined ethical systems, despite having less technological development than their neighbors. In general though I'm not sure this has been the rule.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-05 09:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 02:31 am (UTC)