THE NATURE OF MORALITY
Contents:
If you care to exist at all, you must act toward your own life in some way and pursue the values that support it. Morality is the study of these values and the principles by to which to pursue them. As a volitional being who needs to live long-range in order to survive as a volitional being, morality is key to understanding how to effectively pursue your values and thereby sustain your life to the fullest.
Throughout human history, many moral systems have arisen. Most have been either deontological (i.e. duty-based), subjective (i.e. emotion or instinct-based) or consequence-based (e.g. consequentialism, utilitarianism, pragmatic ethics, etc.). Very few have been objective, which is the kind of morality I hold to be true. The question I ask here is: what is the core nature of morality as I hold it, and how does it differ from other kinds of morality?
An objective morality is one that holds one’s own life — life as a volitional being — as the ultimate value, and hence, as the standard of value. It recognises that morality is the science of exercising one’s volition from a fundamental level (i.e. in the broadest context, i.e. the context of one’s life as a whole), and thus, it recognises that (1) morality only applies to acts and results of volition and (2) the application of volition — and thus morality — is contextual even as morality itself is absolute; such is the case for any abstract truth about reality, such as any law of science. The analogy of moral principles to scientific principles is apt, in my view; both are abstractions that integrate an unlimited class of concretes, both are truths from reality and of reality, and both serve as tools for human cognition and action, i.e. tools for humans to grasp the nature of reality in a certain context, the choices present in it and the aptness of the choices within the context. Scientific principles are not impositions or burdens placed upon action and potential but the means to facilitate action and realise potential. So is the case with moral principles. To put it more concretely, morality is the fundamental means to pursue happiness and success in life (practically, in the long range) and not a restriction or limitation on your pursuit of life and happiness.
Let us now contrast this view with a few others. A deontological, duty-based ethics does in fact impose restrictions or limitations on your pursuits as its primary focus; it outlines what you must or must not do regardless of context or consequence. While such duties can at times be reframed more rationally within certain contexts, an ethical philosophy that regards duties as absolutes in and of themselves rejects rationality as an absolute, and thus, rejects the idea of practicality as integrated with morality. Indeed, many duty-based ethics hold irrational, impractical principles as duties that cannot be questioned, not just because of possible silencing but also epistemologically, i.e. they do not hold up to rational scrutiny, and thus, do not use reason to justify themselves to begin with, hence often citing supernatural, extra-sensory or other-worldly sources. Examples of such philosophies are prominent: many religious philosophies including Christian philosophy, Islamic philosophy and Karma Yoga (a prominent Hindu ethical philosophy), as well as secular philosophies such as Kant, Plato and much of Stoicism.
Let us also contrast the objective view of morality with the subjective kind. A subjective ethics, while not imposing any restrictions or limitations at its core, does not provide a valid, i.e. reality-oriented means to pursue life and happiness. In other words, while a deontological, duty-based ethics separates morality from practical action, a subjective, emotion or instinct-based ethics separates morality from practical thought; both separate morality from reality. Examples of subjective philosophies are also quite prominent: ancient Greek Sophism, modern Scepticism, Hedonism, Charvaka (an ancient Indian school of thought) and Existentialism (at least some schools of it).
Finally, let us contrast the objective view of morality with most consequence-based approaches to ethics. Note that I am not addressing a particular philosophical system but a set of ideas that can be present in consequence-based systems. Firstly, since morality is the science of exercising volition, and since any such exercise is done within a certain context, the only way to evaluate an action as moral or not is in the context in which the action was taken. If an action causes much harm that was not intended and could not be known at the time of taking it, it cannot be considered immoral; hence, observed consequences cannot be the primary consideration for moral evaluation (although learning from the consequences is morally relevant). Secondly, the basis of morality is objectively the individual and the individual alone, not society or any collective. This is not to say that everyone must act as isolated, disconnected entities, but rather that the moral worth of any action or result is based on the individual, his life and his adherence to reality insofar as he can grasp it. Thus, any form of “greater good” that demands that individuals sacrifice their judgement, values and lives to it is — to put it bluntly — evil. A collective as such — no matter how large, be it a family, a tribe or even the whole of the human race — has neither a moral claim nor moral precedence over the lives of individuals. Note that within reason, one or more individuals can justifiably fight or even kill for their own lives and, in the process, may even cause their own deaths or collateral harm and/or deaths that would not be on them morally if they act in rational pursuit of their lives and values. However, no individual or a collective of individuals (no matter how large or important), can demand sacrifices for themselves, i.e. sacrifices for the “public”, “society”, “humanity”, etc. Thirdly, an objective morality integrates and never sacrifices the broader context of one’s life in the pursuit of goals. The goodness of action is not based on the expediency of the moment, nor is it based on the consequences in a narrow, exclusive and conditional context. A value is never a value in isolation but only in integration with every other value that supports one’s life as a volitional being, and the pursuit of values in isolation based on an isolated set of consequences is irrational and immoral. Hence, the ends do not justify the means as such; the end or goal that is life is what forms the basis for all of morality, but no other end can justify actions in and of itself without integrating them to the standard of value that is life. To summarise the three points made, an objective morality does not look at consequences in and of themselves as a means for moral evaluation, does not regard aggregate or collective consequences in and of themselves as moral justification for any action, and does not consider ends in and of themselves but only in the context of the standard of value that is life. Note that an objective morality is deeply concerned with the consequences of actions; for example, it demands that you project potential consequences rationally, to the best of your knowledge, and that you learn from the consequences that you observe. But it does not concern itself with consequences in the ways described in the three points discussed above. Examples of consequence-based philosophies are also prominent: consequentialism, utilitarianism (a species of consequentialism) and pragmatic ethics in general.
I reject both the deontological and the subjective views on morality as well as the consequence-based views that I am aware of; morality is neither “beyond you” nor “up to you” but a means to integrate yourself and your goals with reality and act within it. Morality is objective, absolute and contextual, not a set of rigid rules (although rules can be derived from it in certain contexts) but an abstract basis of truth that informs your actions within the context of your life as a whole. It neither restricts your actions and potential, nor is it arbitrary, nor is it apart from you and your life; it is an objective means to facilitate your own pursuit of life and happiness.
SIDE NOTE: To say both “life and happiness” together is redundant, since both imply each other if properly defined, but I say both together for emphasis.
To elaborate on the last point before the side note, morality can and must never be primarily an imposition but a facilitation (impositions and restrictions may be derived in certain contexts, but they are not primary to morality). As an analogy, consider building a bridge. To build a bridge requires adherence to the laws of physical forces and the knowledge of material sciences, but these do not “impose” themselves on you as commandments to be followed under the pain of punishment, but rather, they give you the ability to properly achieve your goal of building the bridge. Such is how morality is and must be at its core. Now, note that morality can be difficult to practise, just as science can be, but like science, the difficulty is not inherent in morality as such but in reality; reality is complex, and sometimes, to deal with it effectively and thereby make your life easier or even possible in the process can and does take effort (cognitive and physical), sometimes a great or even excruciating effort. But there is a fundamental difference between struggle and suffering; struggle involves an effort toward something non-automatic and worth pursuing, whereas suffering involves the frustration of your pursuits or the destruction of your values. Thus, morality can involve struggle (although it is not the primary aspect of it), but it never can nor does involve suffering. Note that this is not to say that a moral person cannot suffer; he, as anyone else, can and most probably will suffer in life in some form, and — being a moral person — the suffering would not be his moral fault. My point is that morality does not involve suffering or even the acceptance of it but the pursuit to overcome it if and when you do face it. In other words, suffering is a state a moral person never can nor will accept as a given or as the norm.
To conclude on an aesthetic note…
My image of a perfectly moral person is neither that of a stoic, rigid individual, nor that of a self-abnegating saint, nor yet that of a self-sacrificing martyr, all in the face of suffering in a tragic or malevolent universe. Rather, my image of a perfectly moral person is that of a vibrant, capable and flourishing individual in the face of meaning in a benevolent universe (benevolent not as in “the universe feels kindly toward you” but as in “the universe is logical, knowable and you can and will — barring accidents — achieve life and happiness in it if you act with reason”). My view is that moral perfection makes one neither stoic and rigid, nor immersed in chastity and self-denial, nor impractical and miserable in one’s idealism; in my view, all these are forms of moral corruption. Rather, my view is that moral perfection makes one happy, able and inclined to experience true enjoyment and light-heartedness along with the greatest depth and breadth of experience and expression, confident in and absolutely true to one’s life-affirming, practical convictions (not faith-based beliefs but convictions). I only accept those aspects of other philosophies that align with my view of moral perfection, such as uncompromising morals, moral self-discipline, individuality and strength in the face of adversity; however, even these aspects are not primary but secondary to my moral ideal, being consequences of morality and neither the basis nor the source of it.
What is an “ought”? It is a requirement for one’s success or one’s avoidance of failure in pursuit of some goal. Hence, an “ought” is derived from (1) the facts of reality and (2) the choice of one’s goals. The objective source of all goals and the standard of value is life, so either we choose to live and have values to sustain our existence or we abandon our existence to other forces (e.g. other people, our own whims, wild nature, etc.). The “ought” only comes from a choice, but the choice here is based on a fact of reality; you can choose otherwise, of course, but by its nature, that other choice is anti-reality and irrational. That is the bridge between “is” and “ought”; an “ought” is conditional on our choice, but the choice itself can be either arbitrary or based on reality, i.e. based on what “is”.
As for an “egoist” following his subjective whims as long as he can get away with it, it is true that one could do that, and certainly, many have lived like that. But to dismiss one’s efficacy in life as a whole (which is what true moral principles help realise) is, in essence, anti-life and anti-reality. You can live like that, but you are making yourself helpless to deal with reality in the long run, because true principles are not rules but the recognition of truth (especially in a broader context), which means disregarding them is disregarding reality. Maybe someone can do whatever heinous acts he wants and live without being found out or even without guilt or remorse, but the price of immorality is not primarily social or even psychological; rather, the price is primarily the destruction (sometimes irreversible) of his own potential to live to his fullest both in the present and the long-range. And, “life lived to the fullest” is not about a subjective feeling; both life and the self are things in reality with a certain nature and a certain set of objective conditions for successful existence. To concretise such statements and see them in action, it would help to observe how people’s values affect their efficacy in life and their pursuit of happiness. I aim to do that, so I am on the lookout for data.
NOTE 1: It is not valid to say “you ought to choose life”. You either choose life (and thus affirm reality) or you do not. I do not say that you have to choose life, only that if you do indeed choose it, there are objective values and principles that are necessary to succeed in pursuing it. I sneak no “ought”, I only acknowledge reality. Furthermore, acting while disregarding reality as a whole, i.e. in a broader context (beyond the range of the moment) leads to helplessness and (in general) failure in the broader context; you may be lucky and be alright, but it’s still reckless and irrational. Of course, no one can defy reality, but one can ignore the long-range or big-picture effects of one’s actions on one’s own life. Lastly, to re-emphasise, you may be able to get away with things without social or even psychological consequences, but that is not the point of morality. You may “get away” with unprincipled, immoral or evil behaviour, but the point is that such behaviour destroys your potential for life and its flourishing in the broader context (i.e. life as a whole, lived long-range), no matter if you are caught or not or if you feel guilty or not.
NOTE 2: I would argue that a truly moral person who, through the pursuit of his own life, has achieved moral and practical integrity, will not be psychologically unaffected by his own violation of his morals, due to the internalisation of his values (which is vital to the sustainable, consistent pursuit of values). If someone is psychologically unaffected by one’s own immorality, that is the opposite of a life-affirming sign, because it points to a deficiency in one’s integrity, and hence, one’s capacity to pursue life as a whole.
Morality is not drawn from the fear of bad consequences but from the pursuit of life and happiness; the fear of bad consequences, if any, is only a derivation and not the basis of morality. Morality does not say primarily, “You should not cheat, steal, murder, etc.” but rather, “If you want to live well, do this.” As a derivative necessity, yes, do not do immoral or evil things, but this is a derivation and not the core. The “constraints” are a part of the requirements for success in your pursuit of life and happiness — you can ignore them if you do not care to be successful in your pursuit. Again, it boils down to the fundamental choice of whether to pursue life (i.e. life as a volitional being) or not; it is your choice and only yours to make. Long story short, you can choose your goal, but you cannot choose the facts and principles needed to achieve that goal, because if your goal is a goal in reality, then its requirements for success are objective and hence absolute (albeit contextual, as any truth). Morality arises from the choice to pursue one’s own life as a volitional being, which means life lived long-range, valuing both the actual and the potential of one’s existence. If you choose this goal — which is the only pro-reality goal you can choose — there are objective and absolute values, virtues and principles you must uphold to succeed. If you do so, you are an egoist in the true sense, since it is your self and your life — as they are in fact, i.e, objectively — that are your highest values. If you are not concerned with your objective interests, then you are concerned — fundamentally — with something apart from your own self and existence, which is not selfish.
Let us expand on the key concepts used. To understand “self-interest”, we must understand “self” and “interest”. What is the self? At its core, the self is the fact and faculty of awareness and the apparatus it rests upon. For a being with volition, such as a human, the self also includes one’s faculty of volition, which is an extension of awareness (self-awareness in particular). So, when I talk about my self, I am talking about that which concerns my existence as a volitional being. What about “interest”? An interest, in essence, is either a state one acts to reach (i.e. the achievement of a value or the avoidance of an anti-value) or something one focuses on as a potential value or anti-value (note that I define “value” as that which one acts to gain and/or keep). Hence, “interest” presupposes “value”. I shall not go into the proof here (for the proof, see: The Standard of Value), but it is only life, i.e. the self-generated action of a being to sustain itself, that gives rise to value, its own life being both the highest value and the standard of value. What “life” means depends on the kind of living being you are, because the kind of being you are defines the nature of your self. Given what “self” means to a volitional being such as a human, “life”, i.e. the objective standard of value, means one’s own conscious, volitional (i.e. self-motivated) existence.
Hence, to have self-interest, you must hold your own life as your highest value and your standard of value. To separate “self-interest” from “self-preservation” is a contradiction; what “interest” does a self-destructive path serve the “self”? When used in such a way, the word “interest” loses its meaning and becomes the same concept as “whim”. Whim-worship is not self-interested precisely because it is not in line with one’s volitional self-preservation, i.e. precisely because it is anti-reason and thus anti-reality. As for virtue in the context of self-interest, let me ask: why care about being more virtuous? If virtue should be beyond our self and our self-interest, why must we be interested in it at all? My answer is: there is no separation between “self-interest” and “virtue” because being virtuous (i.e. acting according to the principles that support your pursuit of values) is the only way to value yourself, i.e. your existence; being virtuous is in your self-interest by reason. A non-virtuous self-interested person is a contradiction; if he is non-virtuous, he is only a whim-worshipper with no regard for himself in any meaningful sense.
Many people choose to take their feelings as a given and try to rationalise them rather than base their views on reason; in other words, many people choose to be irrational. But feelings are an effect of one’s premises, an important effect but an effect nonetheless. We may form new premises by trying to rationalise our feelings, but the fact remains that there had to be some premises that caused the feelings to begin with. Very often, these premises are implicit, i.e. unstated and taken for granted, formed perhaps in our infancy or unconsciously later in life. Yet, with the ability to focus our awareness on the evidence (both internal and external), we can grasp them, validate them or invalidate them. If you doubt it, consider the fact that when people change their core beliefs about something — not because they felt like it but because they could not or chose not to evade reality — then their feelings toward it also change; think of a racist learning to let go of his prejudice, or a religious man overcoming his dogma. Feelings (i.e. emotions, I am not talking about physical sensations here) do not “come first” — logically — before some sort of knowledge and/or beliefs. Hence, reason can and should come before feelings if we want to deal with reality.
You can only say that the ideas of “self-destruction” and “value” are subjective if you think the nature of the self is subjective, and of course, I reject this claim. Regardless of what people think or what alleged “values” they hold, the reality of the self is what it is. To concretise my point using an example, the junkie wasting away in his addiction is as unselfish as the fanatic serving “the greater good” out of some social or mystical duty; they are both unselfish precisely because they both ignore the reality of what their “self” is and what sustains their “self” and makes it flourish (based on its nature, as identified objectively). In essence, following one’s feelings as a primary is as unselfish as following any “duties” as a primary, because both evade the facts that give rise to and sustain the self. Feel free to follow your feelings as a primary if you so choose, but the fact is that reality — including the reality of your existence along with what makes it possible and worth sustaining — is objective, knowable and the only basis for true selfishness. Yes, you can choose to degrade or even destroy your existence under any alleged “values”, or alternatively, you can choose to ignore objectivity and decide on a whim what is or is not a value, but then you have no grounds to call yourself selfish or egoistic because it is precisely your self that you are violating or neglecting.
Self-interest or self-preservation does not mean always thinking about your well-being in some narrow sense of the word (e.g. safety, comfort, etc.); in my writing on the meaning of self-preservation (see: “Self-preservation for a volitional being” from The Nature of Life), I explained my view on self-interest and what it means to value one’s own life as a volitional being. There, you can see that a constant concern for one’s own well-being is not what I mean (I also give justification for my position). I also want to stress that selfishness — properly defined — is not primarily about gratifying oneself but primarily about pursuing one’s own life as a volitional being (in terms of both the actual and the potential) with reason, purpose and self-esteem.
I do not jump from a subjective morality to an objective morality using self-interest. Rather, I identify the objective source and standard of value as life. Then, I derive the logical moral view from this standard as rational self-interest. Hence, self-interest is the consequence of an objective morality, not its source. Virtue, then, is necessarily self-interested, and virtuousness is profoundly selfish in the best possible way.
There are good and bad principles, even disastrous principles or frameworks (e.g. utilitarianism, natalism, anti-natalism, mysticism, etc.). That does not mean principles or principled behaviour as such are dangerous. Whether they are dangerous or not depends on their basis in approaching reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology) and action (ethics). Furthermore, the context in which ideas are formed or statements are made is vital. You can misappropriate almost anything if you take it out of its intended context, but this does not mean the original idea or statement is bad or dangerous. Lastly, it is vital to distinguish dogmatic principles (accepted on faith or by default) from rational principles (accepted through a process of reason, with one’s knowledge of reality as their only basis); the danger comes or is allowed to fester with dogma, whereas reason is the means to overcome danger.