Okay. From the beginning.
One must start somewhere. I begin with cogito ergo sum, as it seems the very beginning of both epistemological and ontological metaphysical frameworks. Let me know if you disagree.
Based on the notion, then, that I exist, I contemplate whether others do. This seems to be an insurmountable problem. Solipsism is not disprovable. Solipsism, however, is irresponsible when its alternative is no less disprovable. Thus, I operate under the assumption that others (the rest of you) are out there as well.
(skipping procession from "others" to "you" and simple existence to some kind of empirical validity, which is mostly based on the same process as moving away from solipsism simply reoriented)
If we're all out there somewhere, and this world exists, it becomes clear that we have two options: interact, or not. If you choose "not", you're removed from a discussion of ethics, and of no concern to me.
Interaction has two options: interaction for benefit, or interaction for reasons that do not take benefit into account. Interaction for reasons other than benefit are A) pointless or B) ultimately self-defeating. Let's assume a desire to interact for benefit.
(we've been EXTREMELY simplified in the explication thus far, and will continue to be so: try to avoid looking for reasons to disagree based on the fact I haven't gone into greater depth)
Interacting for benefit requires some rules of conduct to maintain higher rates of success in producing benefit. Such rules of conduct — stating what is "right" or "wrong" in systems of interaction for purposes of maximizing benefit — would be called a system of ethics. Thus, an ethical system is needed. More to the point, it must be a system that is not self-contradictory, and it must be something that can be universally applied so as not to invalidate itself by inconstant and arbitrary application.
Benefit for any individual can only be had if that individual can define its own standard of benefit. That being the case, self-determination is the first internal goal of a valid ethical system.
Self-determination being an important goal of a valid ethical system, one must realize that the principle of self-determination requires a restriction on individual behavior, in that no individual can act to interfere with the right of self-determination of another individual. By extension, no individual can act by proxy to interfere with another individual's right, either.
Thus, coercion and uninvited violence are right out.
From what I've said thus far, we arrive at the necessary initial premise of a valid ethical system: The initiation of force is wrong.
I tend to think that a reasonably intelligent individual with some grasp of logic can fill in the rest from there, proceeding from that premise to a libertarian system. If you have some other system we'd arrive at from there logically, it'll certainly boggle my mind, but I'd be interested to hear/read it.
In reply to Re^15: Musing on Monastery Content
by apotheon
in thread Musing on Monastery Content
by Old_Gray_Bear
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |