(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.
