Solo Furthering Education (Part 2)

[Kaizer Dragos]

Winter, 12, 515

With a basic study of logic out of the way, Kaizer decided to turn his attention elsewhere within the realm of philosophy, in this instance it would be ethics. Closing one book he placed it on a small pile on the table in front of him and took another. Opening the second book he was eager to continue learning. This stated that ethics was concerned primarily with the best way to live, then, came to the question of if this question could be answered. The main branches of ethics were listed as being meta-ethics, descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics covered the nature of ethical thought concerning the origin of words such as good and bad, along with other comparative words and established ethical systems. There was also the question regarding the existence of absolute ethical truths and how they could be identified as such.

Normative ethics was interesting as it was described as being the question of how a sentient being should should act and the proper course of action. There was also a notation about how this was where the majority of ethical theory was generated. Descriptive ethics was an interesting read for Kaizer as spoke about a form of research in which a person tried to uncover the attitudes of individuals or groups of people. This would also involve the decision making process in regards to morality, right and wrong, and what is considered virtuous. For Kaizer it was easy to see how this could turn into a quagmire of personal beliefs as no two people held identical values. More than once he and Heinrik had debated over things like this while expressing their personal beliefs on the matter.

Applied ethics was the examination of a series of issues, public or private, from a moral point of relevance, that was a matter of moral judgment. This was how many sentient beings tried to identify the correct and proper course of moral action within their lives. This was a very sticky topic and Kaizer well knew that. When it came to personal beliefs one could have twelve people in the same room and end up with thirteen opinions on a single subject. People were also known to fiercely guard their personal beliefs and more than one argument had arisen from what started out as a debate, that however was the domain of less refined people in his opinion.

Personally I find ethics to be a very tricky topic because it is not something that can be as easily identified as something like mathematics. By their very nature ethics are something that is very personal to the individual who is expressing them, and most often shaped by life experiences. While not always the case, I've noticed that people exposed to abuse most of their lives tend to be abusive and selfish, while those raised with love and care are often more considerate of the people around them.
.
.

[Kaizer Dragos]

This also brought about consider thought on Kaizer's part about the nature of his own personal ethics system. He began to contemplate its nature and the very moral fiber that it involved. As child he was always raised to be considerate of others and to think before acted, as there were always consequences. On a personal level he always tried to avoid doing something that would have a negative effect on someone else. Taking actions that hurt other people was also something that Kaizer didn't enjoy because his parents vested him with a conscience. In the simplest form it was a matter of how he would feel if the situation was reversed.

The next topic in the book was rather ironic as it was called consequentialism. This was a line of reasoning that described how the consequences of one's actions were the ultimate basis by which to determine if an action was right or wrong. From this point of view a person's act, or lack thereof, would produce a positive outcome. It also noted that that one extreme variant of this ideology was that the ends justified the means. It was also a way of saying that if the outcome was important enough, any action taken to achieve that said goal could be considered right. That in itself was something that Kaizer vehemently disagreed with and decided to write something down on the matter.

In regards to morals and ethics the idea that the ends justify the means is a very dangerous way of thinking and something that I rarely agree with. The reason for this is that by trying to say the ends justify the means, a person could reasonably argue the most vicious and barbaric acts as being the proper course of action. While this could be justified in the most extreme situations, I have also witnessed more than a few people try to use this as an argument to escape personal responsibility for actions. Many try to use a rational argument to justify something they well knew was wrong in the first place.

I have also read there are two contrasting philosophies in this regard known as consequentialism and a deontology. In deontology it states that rules and moral duty are central, ascertaining the rightness or wrongness of action from the character of the behavior itself rather than the outcome. Personally I see both of these points of view as only half correct. In consequentialism it states that the outcome is more important than the action, I believe this to be wrong especially when others lose their lives as a result. From this point of view one could rationalize taking a village of people stricken by illness, burning it to the ground, and killing everyone, as a means to stop the spread rather than trying to cure it. Thus one could argue the action of slaughter was right because it prevented others from becoming ill.

Deontology states that rules and moral duty are central, determining the morality of an act through character and behavior. Does this mean to say that a person with a good heart and best intentions should be excused from responsibility, or said to have done the right thing, if their actions result in numerous, unnecessary deaths? I say no. I hold both to be true in that to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action, one must not only judge the moral character of the decision, but also the outcome as well.
.
.

[Kaizer Dragos]

Upon further reading I have discovered another rather interesting continuation of the ideas of consequentialism known as state consequentialism. This speaks on the matter of the moral worth of an action based on social order, material wealth, and population growth. In instance of material wealth it refers to people having the necessities of life rather than extravagant goods. I find this interesting because in many ways it works in concert with consequentialism and deontology. One must always be mindful of not only the reasons behind an action (deontology), but also the result (consequentialism), and how it affects society overall (state consequentialism).

With a healthy amount of reading and personal opinion written on this topic, Kaizer decided to move on. The next subject was Utilitarianism, which stated that the best moral action was one that maximized utility. That seemed to make sense to Kaizer at first, until he read further on the basis of the subject. It also stated that actions bringing about the most happiness with least suffering, for the most people, were morally correct. That in itself was something that Kaizer disagreed with and could already see many inherent problems. Again hand took to quill and he began to write.

The basis of Utilitarianism which states that an act is moral based on the most happiness and least suffering is, simply put, wrong. This leaves far too many areas undefined and thereby allows for egregious abuses of sentient beings. Would it be morally right to make two beings fight to the death as a form of entertainment for hundred of others, no it wouldn't. I don't care how someone tries to rationalize something like this, I'll never agree with it. Sentient life should always be respected and valued. This same line of thought could also be used to rationalize slavery, in that the suffering of a few could benefit many. Again slavery is something I'll never agree with, all sentient beings have a right to freedom and self-determination, barring imprisonment for criminal acts naturally. There are so many ways that the individual rights of a sentient being could be abused, in the pursuit of happiness, that I find this philosophical lined of thought flawed by its very nature.

The next topic that Kaizer read over was something known as virtue ethics and one of three approaches to normative ethics. This was the consideration of one's character and the virtues that someone personified for the determining ethical behavior. This contrasted the views to giving examples of all three. Where a consequentialist might argue that lying is never acceptable because of the consequences, while allowing for minor white lies based on the outcome. Deontologists might argue that lying is never acceptable regardless of any perceived beneficial outcome. The virtue ethicist would instead consider the reason behind telling a lie, or decision not to, and how it reflected on one's character and moral behavior. Because of this lying would be taken on a case by case basis rather than an inflexible point of view.
.
.

[Kaizer Dragos]

Personally I find virtue ethics to be a rather interesting study because of the subjective nature behind it. In virtue ethics one considers character and moral behavior behind a lie to determine if it's acceptable or not, rather than inflexibly arguing for or against it. While some might object to this based on moral ground, I don't know of anyone who has never told a single lie their entire lives. While some might do so for malicious purposes, such as a con-artist, there is such a thing as a benevolent lie. As an example as my mother Valea began to put on weight and became rather robust in her later years. Whenever she asked if some sort of garment made her look fat, my father never said yes.

Instead of telling my mother she looked fat, he would always use some variation how she was beautiful as ever and that he was lucky to have her. This was done to spare mother's feelings and I believe it was appreciated. I well know mother was aware of her weight and rarely happy about it. One could also argue that a lie used to save a person's life is also ethical. While the basis of the lie and the situation would have to be taken in account, in general I agree with this. Others might disagree saying, what if the person saved is a murderer who later goes on to kill an innocent family because he was spared.

That would fall into the category of people being unable to tell the future, therefore I consider that argument irrelevant. It could also be said the person who saves the life of the murderer is not responsible for their actions, therefore no burden could be placed on them after the fact. In an instance such as this I believe the actions and intentions of the person lying to save the a life should be the focus for justification.

On a personal note I also believe that one cannot simply adhere to a strict set of rules in life. The reason for this being that even the most extensive set of rules can't possibly account for every possible situation or scenario, it's simply impossible to do so. Because of this a set of rules or a person who cannot adapt to changing situations will inevitably break.

This again caused Kaizer to lapse into deep thought over the nature of morality and ethics. More than once throughout the course of his life, he was forced to adapt to a situation or circumstance that had not been foreseen. It was impossible to establish a single set of rules and expect them to be the ultimate deciding factor in life. Anyone who followed that line of thought would no doubt be victim to a rude awakening eventually. For Kaizer he always tried to adhere to his own personal code of conduct and ethics as much as possible, but was quite capable of adapting to changing situations. In the end he felt justified by trying to take the course of action that caused the least suffering and resulted in the greatest benefit for everyone involved.
.
.

[Kaizer Dragos]

I think another important aspect of philosophy listed in this book, which should be used with any discipline, is philosophical skepticism. Knowledge does require justification otherwise it is, to me at least, nothing more than a personal belief with no basis in fact. From everything that I read in the book it appears to be a three step process. The first question is the nature of something, the second is how we should be disposed to something, when giving an answer to the first. The third is what will be the outcome of those who adopt the disposition recommended by the second question.

This also involves something for which I am quite fond of, arguing a subject from both sides. I find this to be interesting because by doing so it allows one to consider both the pros and cons of something, that might otherwise be overlooked. A good debate involves consideration of a subject from both sides and allows a very careful review of the subject matter. In regards to law it is my own personal opinion that this is a very important part of the process to help understand if a law should or shouldn't be enacted. One must always weigh the positive against the negative, and consider if something is worth it or not in the end.

It also states that a person should consider their sense experiences and beliefs as neither true nor false. Because of this people ought not put their trust in them, be without beliefs, and remain steadfast in their approach to life. This is something that I tend to disagree with. Not only is it nearly impossible for a person to maintain a point of view without a belief of some sort, most seem to almost need them by nature. The sentient mind often looks for something to believe in, either through experience or knowledge. It is through this system of beliefs that people form the basis for how they view the world. This will in turn, with a group of people, often lead to a system of values and beliefs.

It would appear that some within the field of skeptical philosophy believe that it is not possible to truly experience things like causation, external world, ultimate purpose of the universe or life, justice, divinity, soul, and so on, and as a result these things need not be believed in. Again this is something that I personally disagree with. It's one thing to be skeptical, but another altogether to question everything to the point of stating that nothing need be believed in. The book further states that some people who are ignorant of such things seem able to get along just fine without them.

I would counter with the argument that lack of belief or knowledge of something does not negate its existence, just the belief that it exists. As with anything in life there's nothing wrong with questioning something, but one needs to draw a line between reason and excess. In my own personal experience just about everything in life needs to be taken in moderation. After a short review he also made a mental note to stay on topic in the future.

Part 3
.
.