MORAL PRINCIPLES
Contents:
Context:
Context is the finite sum of facts (physical, intellectual, psychological, etc.) in relation to which thought and action can occur. Hence, it defines the possible scale and scope of identification, integration and validation of (1) knowledge, (2) decision-making and (3) action.
The broadest context available:
The broadest context available is that context which offers the widest possible valid integration of our knowledge. In other words, it is the context that relates any consideration we may have to the greatest amount of knowledge held by us. It is important to note that when considering a particular case, the broadest context available includes and does not ignore the particular case. In other words, a narrower context neither contradicts nor is contradicted by a broader context, if properly integrated.
Any goal, to be achieved in reality, depends on a grasp of the essentials pertaining to the object of the goal. To grasp the essentials, to retain them and to use them to make decisions in a context as deep and broad, i.e. far-reaching and wide-ranging as you need — this is the use of principles.
No endeavour can be pursued as effectively as possible within your knowledge without the use of reason first and foremost, so as to know reality not only by what we observe but also by what we integrate through essentials. In other words, every rational endeavour — especially long-range — requires strict adherence to reality based on the grasp of fundamentals to one’s greatest capacity, which means strict adherence to principles.
The pursuit of one’s own life long-range (as defined for a volitional being) is a complex pursuit involving a vast (often unlimited) range of concretes. To pursue it rationally would require no less than the utmost adherence to reality from the fundamentals, i.e. adherence to the fundamental principles pertaining to reality, consciousness and volition. Hence, to guide one’s actions long-range according to the standard of value, i.e. to have a morality, requires strict adherence to fundamental principles.
To have strict principles is not to hold them dogmatically, i.e. without validating and applying them as per a given context. If the context involves your life as a whole, then pursue validated principles as absolutes in every context (since every context is subsumed by the context of your whole life). However, in narrower contexts, strict principles can and must be rationally upheld and applied as per the relevant context.
The application of any principle is conditioned by the context. This is not to say that the principles are subjective or non-absolute, but rather, that they are objective, absolute abstractions whose concrete expression is based on the context.
Since reason is a fundamental value, and since reason is achieved through fallible, volitional thought, it follows that the knowledge and capacity of a person are relevant when judging his actions as moral or immoral (a person can only act according to his own knowledge and capacity, and to expect anything else is irrational, and thus, not morally applicable). It must be noted that we also consider the knowledge of one’s own capacity as relevant, i.e. if you do not know what you are capable of, you lack key knowledge.
Thus, by reason, the level of morality is decided not by the extent of one’s ability but by the extent of one’s volitional use of one’s ability. For example, a ditch-digger is not morally inferior to a scientist (nor vice versa, needless to say), provided that both exercise their respective capacities to their fullest rational judgement within the context of their lives (i.e. according to their moral standards).
Since the purpose of morality is meant to be a guide to volitional action for a volitional consciousness, moral judgement can only be with respect to someone’s volitional, i.e. deliberate use of his mind and body. Thus, involuntary thoughts, feelings or actions — generated perhaps due to subconscious processes, automatic responses or reflexes — have no import on your moral character by themselves; it is only how you deal with them consciously that is morally relevant. Particularly regarding automatic thoughts and feelings, no matter how depraved they seem, it is only how you deal with them — in the short-term and the long-term — that has any moral significance.
Note that to suppress involuntary thoughts and feelings is (in general) a form of evasion (hence irrational), while to consider them is not a betrayal of morality and is often necessary to learn their true nature. For example, a fantasy need not represent actual desire or intent (at least not in a one-to-one correspondence), an ugly feeling about someone need not imply anything about the value you have for them, etc.
Note that I am not saying involuntary thoughts, feelings and actions have no significance at all. In many ways, they may reflect your character, i.e. your internalised values, practised mental and physical habits, efficacy in thought and action, etc., and to that extent, they may serve as a means to your own life, as an indication of good or bad premises, as a product and reward of moral and practical efficacy, as means to experience life as an end in itself, etc. However, they by themselves do not have moral significance, though the way you evaluate them and deal with them consciously does.
To hold and delve into thoughts — no matter their nature — is not necessarily to pursue an immoral purpose or intent. Why? Purpose and intent are defined by a will to act; there is no such thing as an idle purpose or intent. The basis of morality is the standard of value, and the basis of value is purpose. Thus, thought without a purpose or intent is not and should not be under moral judgement in the same way as an action. Hence, the thought’s content as such is not morally relevant.
However, thoughts by themselves are not impotent in our ability to act, especially long-range. Conscious thoughts can serve over time to program the subconscious, leading to the internalisation of the potential to act in some respects. Thus, moral evaluation with respect to thoughts without purpose or intent is only with respect to how you process them, i.e. it is your rationality, self-honesty and value-judgements of the elements involved that are operative in this context.
One’s life and practice of reason form the standard of value that guides morality. For this reason, the practical is the moral and the moral is the practical. To deny this equation is to separate one’s pursuit of life from reality. Hence, by extension, the immoral is the impractical and vice versa.
NOTE: The meaning of “practical” relies on what you want to achieve, i.e. on your purpose.
Morality defines values and the principles required to achieve them, with the standard of value being one’s own life, i.e. one’s own existence as a volitional being. In other words, every moral value is such that it supports one’s own life.
Now, note that moral values and principles are abstract and need to be defined in more specific, concrete terms when expanding or applying them. Conversely, more specific, concrete values or generalisations are integrated under a few abstract values and principles (by its very nature, an abstraction integrates a vast range of instances). Hence, the pursuit of values is integrated hierarchically, with the pursuit of more abstract values expressed as the pursuit of concrete values and the pursuit of concrete values tied to and drawing meaning from the pursuit of more abstract values.
Now, the pursuit of values, from the most abstract to the most concrete, are ultimately tied to the source of values, i.e. the ultimate value that is life. Furthermore, since the pursuit of life as an end in itself gives rise to values as such, no value can be achieved while undermining the pursuit of other relevant values; trying to do so would necessarily undermine the pursuit of life, thus undermining the source of values. Thus, by deliberately rejecting even one value is to deliberately reject the standard of value, i.e. life, thereby destroying the pursuit of values as such. Trying to pursue a value in isolation while undermining (i.e. rejecting, in some form) the pursuit of other relevant values makes what you pursue a non-value by cutting it off from the source of values. Hence, values are integrated not only hierarchically but contextually, i.e. integrated to each other.
Hence, we see that values, from the most abstract to the most concrete, are necessarily integrated hierarchically and contextually. To expand, a more concrete value is only a value in the context of a more abstract value, and a value is only a value in the context of all the requirements of the standard of value.
In summary…
A value is a value only in a certain hierarchy (with the ultimate value as life) and a certain context of facts (which always include the abstract fundamentals of life, cognition and existence). The principles apply accordingly.
Every value is either a concrete goal or an integration of concrete goals. Hence, the pursuit of a value is necessarily the pursuit of concrete values ultimately, i.e. the pursuit of a value is ultimately enacted through concrete goals. For example, on the most basic level, the value for life is pursued through the pursuit of food, water and shelter.
Morality defines values and the principles required to achieve them, with the standard of value being one’s own life. Hence, morality must be defined not in terms of the avoidance of negatives, i.e. the avoidance of anti-values, but in terms of the achievement of positives, i.e. the achievement of values. This is not to say that negatives are permissible; on the contrary, a negative serves to undermine one or more values and thus serves to undermine the whole integrated system of values. But even to undermine values, you must have them in the first place, which is why morality must be defined in terms of the achievement of values.
Not avoiding the bad undermines the pursuit of values, and the partial pursuit of the good ignores or rejects some values, thereby also undermining the pursuit of values. Hence, it is not merely the avoidance of the bad or the partial pursuit of the good but rather the full pursuit of the good that is moral. In other words, you are not moral for (1) merely not committing an act of evil, or (2) pursuing a value or values in a way that does not pursue the greatest achievement of your integrated system of values to the best of your knowledge or capacity. To emphasise the second point, to pursue your values partially with respect to your knowledge and capacity is immoral (though less immoral than pursuing evil). By extension, not pursuing a value within your knowledge and capacity is immoral.
To understand why, consider: the partial pursuit of values is the partial pursuit of life, in effect. In other words, part of the time, you place either something else or nothing in particular as the highest value and the standard of value. Now, life is continuous, and time, energy and focus are finite, which means devaluing it for even a moment serves to undermine it as a whole. Hence, in partially pursuing values and thus life as a policy, you act to devalue your life, thereby abandoning reason and reality on some level.
It must also be noted that the achievement of a value is not moral in isolation, i.e. you must evaluate an action by what has been gained not merely in a specific context but in the full context of your integrated system of values.
Translating the above in terms of experienced concretes:
First, some definitions…
Happiness:
If values are defined with one’s life as the standard, and if happiness is the psychological affirmation of life as an end in itself, then happiness is the state of the non-contradictory achievement of one’s values.
Suffering:
With the same definition of values, if suffering is the psychological response to the undermining of one’s life, suffering is the state of the frustration of one’s values.
Back to the discussion…
If one’s morality is the practical framework to pursue one’s value for one’s life in the broadest context available, then one’s pursuit of life is defined by one’s pursuit of happiness and not one’s avoidance of suffering. For more on the pursuit of happiness, see: The Pursuit of Happiness from Philosophy in Practice.
This section also aims to counter over-deliberation and indecisiveness.
First, some definitions…
Constraint:
A fact or set of facts that limits the set of ways to achieve a result. Through such limits, constraints help define the set of ways to achieve a result.
Requirement:
A condition or set of conditions that enable the achievement of a certain result.
Back to the discussion…
Life in reality is the standard of value, and reason is the means to know reality. Hence, from the very basis, the pursuit of knowledge is bounded by the constraints set by one’s values in reality. Such constraints are those of the time, effort and resources that can be spent to achieve the values to the maximum extent possible in reality. Of course, we must also remember the point we established regarding the achievement of values, namely that values exist in an integrated system. Corollaries of this point are:
One’s own life is not an eternal fact and must be sustained through the time-bound achievement of values. Furthermore, we do not possess an infinite capacity to pursue our values and must pursue them using the finite (often limited) time, energy and resources available to us. These constraints are also constraints placed on the degree of our identification of facts and our integration of knowledge, i.e. the degree of our application of reason. Our considerations cannot go on indefinitely, and at some point, we must use the limited knowledge we have acquired to make a choice in order to gain and/or keep a value lest we lose it or other values.
The above constraints with respect to seeking knowledge:
Reason being one of my fundamental values, I can only act based on what I know. If I act on limited knowledge, I acknowledge that and do not claim knowledge that I do not have. Relevance of any piece of knowledge is the measure of its value with respect to your purpose. In a given context, it would often not be in your best interests or even in your capacity to keep deliberating over what knowledge does or does not relate to your purpose beyond a certain point, especially with regards to your time, effort and resource constraints. Note that exploration has its own value, but you must understand (in essentials) whether its value applies in the context you find yourself in, and if so, to what extent (for more on rational exploration, see: Exploration in Truth-Seeking from Epistemology). For more on the rational application of reason, see: Rationality in Practice from Epistemology.
On top of the points made previously, we know that values must be pursued as an integrated system, and thus, the constraints on our considerations and actions are placed not by the pursuit of a single value but an integrated system of values, insofar as we can consider them. To emphasise the last point, we must understand that since we have a finite capacity to think and act, we also have a finite capacity to consider our integrated system of values. Hence, we may not be able to consider and act with the broadest context hypothetically, i.e, if the constraints were not placed upon us, but we must nevertheless think and act to the best of our capacity for our own sake. For this reason, principles are vital as they enable us to consider the broader, overarching moral and cognitive context using few enough mental and physical resources.
Note that while the pursuit of values does place constraints on our considerations and actions, such pursuits are the necessary results of applying our reason in order to live. Furthermore, the pursuit of values primarily presents us with requirements for success, and constraints are part of what determines the requirements in the given context.
Whatever was said about deliberation and consideration before action applies to any purpose, most of all to the ultimate purpose of one’s life: one’s own conscious, self-motivated existence.
A moral principle is not a concrete-bound rule but an induction of a vast range of more specific generalisations, with its scope being your life as a whole. In other words, it is both a description and a prescription of the right action in the broadest context available to you, which is your life.
The principles given below are, in essence, derivations of the key metaphysical, epistemological and ethical principles applied to the context of living a human life. Hence, you may often find that the same basic principle is used but in different perspectives, each on its own forming a principle for life.
To see my attempts at deriving more specific ethical principles, check: Specific Moral Principles. However, note that every principle discussed in this document is only making explicit what is implicit and/or present throughout my work in philosophy. It is essentially drawing from my various discussions in epistemology, ethics and philosophy in practice, and presenting them in a consolidated form, possibly with a few new insights. This should not be surprising, since philosophy is an integrated whole, both intellectually and practically.