Despite the importance of ethics to society, identifying the nature of this phenomena and agreeing to a precise definition remains a problem.  A great deal of this difficulty comes from the apparently contradictory views on what ethics is, amongst good people.  Although some of this problem results from the common problem of people failing to ensure that their ethical beliefs are well founded and complete, a great deal of this disagreement occurs do to the confusion of ethics with the experience of pleasure and do to the phenomena of sympathy.  However, before we examine these issues, there is, finally, enough evidence available to come to a precise definition of ethics.

According to competitive ethical theory (see the document entitled competition), ethics is a quality that gives its possessor the ultimate in competitive ability.  Ethics achieves this by creating an environment in which, by an individual acting to support other good people regardless of whether those people have anything to give in return or not, they gain the willingness of such people to support them regardless of their ability to return that support.  Now, this theory of ethics may be good at explaining the success of, and social drive towards ethics, but it also produces a problem in that it creates a strong good/evil division, a division in which only good can be supported since only good can be trusted to return that support.  Since evil would readily take advantage of an advantageous situation, taking advantage of others when those others are at their weakest and hence most defenceless, it becomes the enemy of competitive ethics, and so the temptation for good people to take the view that evil should be destroyed is strong, as doing so would eliminate such a threat. 

The problem with this solution is that evil, as a diametrically opposed force to good, does not exist.  Rather, goodness comes out of an understanding of the strength and importance of good, but there is no opposite to understanding, an individual either has knowledge or lacks knowledge.  Therefore, an individual is either good or non-ethical, but not good or evil.  Evil, rather, is generated when a non-ethical individual, lacking an understanding of the strength and importance of good behaviour, acts instead out of selfishness, arrogance or fanaticism towards a non-good objective.  Since such an individual is striving towards a non-good objective they will sometimes benefit good, but other times they will cause detriment or harm to good.  Further, since the objectives of non-ethical people are towards a non-good world, towards creating a world without consideration for ensuring its ethical integrity, they stand in the way of the objectives of good people.  So, despite the overall neutral effects of non-ethical people, since the activities of non-ethicals interfere with the objectives of good, and since non-ethical people would frequently harm good individuals if they were to get their way, good cannot accept the control and power of those who are ethically deficient.

Now, since all people start off without knowledge, all people start off non-ethical, some people eventually learning good and others failing to learn, and so continuing on the path of shortsightedness.  Therefore, since children and most, if not all, animal life is non-ethical, either not having had the time to develop goodness or not being capable of understanding good, the idea that those who would do evil should be destroyed (non-ethicals, given sufficient opportunity and motive, do evil) leads to the conclusion that children and animal life should be eliminated.  Of course, this is a ridiculous solution; it would lead to the eventual extinction of good as well.  Furthermore, since all good people start out non-ethical, a good person is not so distinctly different then a non-ethical person that they can warrant a completely different treatment.  Rather, since a non-ethical individual may one day turn to good they have to be treated in accordance with this possibility.  And so, non-ethicals have to be treated well, and yet if they were given free reign they would destroy good.  As such, competitive ethics demands that good must accept the presence of non-ethicals, and the good treatment of such individuals, and yet, good must also protect its interests.  So, competitive ethics tells us that the destruction of non-ethicals is not the proper solution to evil, that rather good must strive to control those who are ethically challenged. 

However, good must also take into account practicality.  Non-ethicals cannot always be controlled, particularly in a world where good is not dominant and united, the situation society is currently in.  If non-ethicals cannot be controlled good must still protect the interests of good and as such may be forced to destroy such non-ethicals.  It is this situation, good being faced with so much evil perpetrated by non-ethical people who are beyond goods control that generates the vengeful ethical attitude, the view that evil must be destroyed so that good can reign.  However, as society’s understanding of ethics grows, the power of good in society also grows, (contrary to some people’s pessimism, a serious look at history shows that the understanding of ethics and the power of good has been on a relatively steady rise up to this day) and so eventually society will gain the unity and numbers of good such that good will develop the power necessary to gain control of societies non-ethical elements.  As this control increases, the need for good to destroy non-ethicals in order to protect the interests of good will decrease. 

Now, the possession of power is not the only difference in treatment between good and the non-ethical that competitive ethics demands.  Rather, a second issue is brought up by the ever-increasing problem of dwindling resources.  For instance, when a good person considers having a child, they recognize that having a child has an effect on society.  As such, to a good person having a child is seen as a responsibility, and only if it is determined that having a child is in the ultimate interests of good will a good individual choose to have that child.  A non-good person, on the other hand, chooses to have, or not have, a child because it is what they want, and use the concept that having children is a right as an excuse to get their way without concerning themselves with the consequences of their action on others.  Now, there are many factors involved in determining whether having a particular child is good, but one of these factors is the problem of over population.  Good people, by taking this factor into consideration when choosing to reproduce act to ensure that the population is small enough that the resources available are sufficient to satisfy the needs and desires of the people, to ensure that people have everything necessary to achieve happiness and contentment.  Non-good, on the other hand, in no way contributes to such a situation, being very much willing to allow the population to grow to the point where people’s interests would have to be sacrificed.  Now, according to competitive ethics a good person cannot allow the interests of another good person to be sacrificed.  Firstly, good must serve the success of good, and allowing good people to grow weak in the face of the evil activities of non-good would not satisfy this; good must not be sacrificed over non-good since this would weaken the power of good.  Secondly, though, competitive ethics is a system by which the individual gains strength by supporting those who would support them, even when at their weakest.  Therefore, in order to be good, and hence be supported by good, an individual must support good people.  Since good people take into consideration over population when choosing to reproduce so as to prevent the need for other’s interests and happiness being sacrificed, it therefore becomes the responsibility of good, it becomes necessary for such good people to earn their classification as good, to act to ensure that such people’s happiness and contentment are not sacrificed.  Therefore, although good must strive to create a would in which no one’s happiness has to be sacrificed, if a choice between sacrificing the interests of a good or a non-good individual becomes necessary, if there isn’t sufficient resources to satisfy everyone, then good must always choose to sacrifice non-good.  Of course, in a world where good has control over non-good this choice would not have to be made, but since good is not in control within our society this becomes a serious issue.  Now, although competitive ethics demands good be given everything necessary to satisfy its interests, since good people have a responsibility to strive towards the happiness and contentment of all people, non-ethical as well as good, wastefulness is not a trait of good.  Although a good individual would have to be given everything they need and desire, since such an individual must act out of an interest to ensure other’s needs and desires are satisfied, they would have to, within reason, act to limit the resources they use in order to achieve that happiness and contentment.

Now, although competitive ethical theory presents the most advantageous strategy towards social and individual success, it tells us nothing about what we should be using that success for.  Competitive ethics allows good people to gain dominance over the non-ethical, however to work, such people must not attempt to gain advantage over each other, and so competitive ethics cannot be used for mindless spreading of an individual’s genes within a population.  Rather, if competitive ethics is to have any use it must serve a purpose beyond survival of the fittest.  This is where spiritual ethics steps in (see the document entitled Logic based Psi).  Psi theory tells us that consciousness, the spiritual part of us that sees the world, cares and otherwise makes our minds more than just an autonomic response, is a force who’s purpose is satisfied through the promotion of pleasure and prevention of displeasure.  Since it is our consciousness that gives us our sense of greater spiritual purpose in life, the creation of pleasure and prevention of displeasure is a greater purpose towards which competitive ethics could be applied.  Beyond this, psi theory tells us that our personal consciousness is in no way different than that of other people, or that of animals either, and so no one possesses a greater, more deserving soul than anyone else.  Rather, on a spiritual level all people are equal; it is only their personalities and personal development, qualities held within the material structure of the brain, that make one person different from another.  Since no one chooses to be evil, animals lack the ability to understand good and people do evil as a result of poor ethical education, mental deficiencies or a lack of time or opportunity to develop ethics, no one can be blamed for their ethical deficits.  And so, psi theory tells us that the purpose of good is to strive to create happiness and pleasure for all, regardless of whether those individuals are good or not.  However, since the evil activities of non-ethical people would act to prevent this purpose from being fulfilled, the purpose of good must also be to ensure that good has power and dominance.  This gives us a final definition of ethics.

Good – quality of striving to create pleasure and happiness and to eliminate displeasure and misery directly, but also indirectly through the unconditional support of good

            Now, this definition of goodness has two basic components, the spiritual component of acting towards creating a world of pleasure and happiness and the competitive component of supporting good, and hence, through increasing the strength of good, indirectly serving the spiritual component.  One detail of the first component of this definition, however, is that it says that it is the striving to create pleasure and happiness, not the actual successful completion of such an action, that makes an individual good.  That this is the case is obvious, goodness is a mental property and as such is in no way determined by the random circumstances that dictate the success or failure of an action.  However, it is important to note this distinction as society typically acts as though it is the success or failure of an action that determines the quality of the person.  People are typically paid, not for the genuine, honest attempt at providing a service, but rather for successful completion.  Likewise, an individual who is prevented from committing a murder is only charged with attempted murder, with a lesser punishment, when the intention, regardless of whether they were successful or not, was no different.  Although it is obvious that it is the intent to good, not the success of good, that makes an individual good, these ethical misconducts by society, rewarding or punishing people differently based on their success or failure, shows that society has a tendency towards ignoring this fact.

            Now, although it is the case that the intent to good makes an individual good, the old saying, ‘the road to hell is paved on good intentions’, holds weight.  Although good intentions may make an individual good, they do not make an individual wise.  Wisdom is the knowledge of what actions ultimately produce desired, successful results.  Without wisdom an individual may try to do good but, in the long run, may end up doing more harm.  In order to exercise wisdom, an individual must possess humility.  If an individual has no other piece of wisdom, possessing the humility necessary to recognize their lack of wisdom would allow them to seek out the advice of wise people, and thereby prevent them from making ethical errors.  In general, humility is the quality within an individual of not allowing anything to corrupt their perception of the truth.  A non-humble individual who feels a need to be great could delude themselves into believing they are wise when they are not, but a humble individual could only satisfy such a need by striving to be wiser.  Likewise, a wise, humble individual is forced to accept, and hence to act upon, their superior wisdom.  As a result, humility ensures that wise people exercise their wisdom, as well as ensuring the unwise do not enact their poor decisions. 

An individual’s acceptance of the truth of their wisdom is only part of humility; humility applies to all truths.  A historic example is the resistance to, and acceptance of, evolutionary theory.  The suggestion of evolution is that the purpose of life is competition and reproduction, a suggestion that people are very much aware of, being as economics and business are dominated by the phenomena of competition and growth.  The fear that evolution produces is that these qualities, that people have had to put up with in the public world, may also dominate within their personal lives.  However, people generally do not desire these qualities, they are typically a source of pain and displeasure in life, and so a non-humble individual may allow their need to live a more meaningful and pleasant life than competition would allow to stand in the way of their acceptance of the truth of evolution.  A humble individual, on the other hand, accepts the validity of evolution; however, this does not mean that they accept the purpose of life as being competition and reproduction.  An individual sensitive to the spiritual nature of the universe (psi) feels a force pushing them towards a greater purpose.  So, the humble individual accepts the evidence for evolution, but they also accept the evidence within themselves that evolution is not the purpose of life.  The strength of humility comes through, by accepting evolution as existing without misinterpreting it as the purpose of life, evolution can be used as a tool to satisfy the true purpose of life.  This does not mean that such people fight against evolution; a population that acts in such a way would grow weak and feeble.  Rather, they act by distinguishing between constructive and destructive competition, using competition only when it drives people to become the best they can be, and applying controlled reproduction, reproducing only when it would benefit society.  This example shows the true strength of humility, the reason why humility is, in fact, one of the great virtues.  By completely accepting the truths of the world, recognizing that one of those truths is the existence of a spiritual nature of the universe and hence the validity of purpose and spiritual ethics such a nature would demand, an individual gains the ability to use those truths (science) as a tool towards serving such a purpose and ethics.  The reason humility is so lacking among people is that, in the absence of a successful scientific theory of spirituality, people fear that science may ultimately explain away the reality of their spiritual experience, a fear that is exasperated by pseudo-intellectuals who spread the idea amongst a generally philosophically ignorant public that science has already done so. 

Now, there are two common errors frequently made that lead to erroneous ethical beliefs, and hence to poor wisdom.  The first is the error of mixing up good and evil with pleasure and displeasure.  Because spirituality strives to create pleasures and suppress displeasures, spiritual ethics and pleasure/displeasure are closely related.  In the same way our spiritual nature acts to motivate us to be good, it also motivates us to seek pleasures and avoid displeasures, so the spiritual sensation of pursuing both goodness and pleasure are the same.  However, whereas ethical behaviours are universal, applying to all people, pleasures and displeasures are often individual, motivating an individual to pursue things that they, and perhaps only they, need.  Since people are more similar than different from each other, most pleasures and displeasures are the same between people, however since there are many personality types, and different personality types will make people suited to different lifestyles, there will be a large number of pleasures and displeasures that are different between people. 

Homosexuality is an example of one particularly common and distinct lifestyle variation.  To some personalities this lifestyle is ideal, to others it is seen as repulsive.  Although some people call homosexuality immoral, it has, in fact, no ethical status.  Rather (according to psi theory) people with this view are individuals who are meant to have no personal involvement with homosexuality, spirituality simply using displeasure as a means to tell them to keep this lifestyle out of their perceptions as much as possible.  Since spirituality is concerned with the pleasure of all people, it would be unethical to suppress any lifestyle exercised by a good individual.  However, it is also the responsibility of good people to ensure that lifestyles that induce displeasure in others are kept out of the perceptions of those others as much as possible and reasonable.  For example, one response that appears amongst people who find homosexuality unpleasant is that people should keep their sexualities in the bedroom.  This represents a somewhat ethically valid complaint that many homosexuals are not behaving in an ethical fashion, that their public displays of homosexual awareness are, in fact, acts of inconsideration for others.  Of course homosexuality, and other lifestyles, cannot be removed from the public scene.  Issues concerning these lifestyles, particularly intolerance, have to be dealt with by society, people need to be able to find others with their lifestyle, and they need sufficient exposure to the various lifestyles to come to understand their own needs. 

Besides the problem of inconsiderate exposure of an individual’s lifestyle to others, there are also those who stick their noses into other people’s personal affairs.  A historical example is of priests who, throughout much of history, have demanded that people lead their personal lives in accordance with a set of church doctrines, most of which demanded people do nothing out of the ordinary or generally disapproved of.  In this way, churches suppressed any lifestyle that would be uncomfortable to the vast majority of people.  However, when others act by invading an individual’s privacy, as is the case with this example, they cause, and therefore are responsible for, any displeasure they experience as a result, and hence it is their behaviour, not that of those they disapprove of, that is unethical.

The second ethical error is the frequent problem of confusing sympathetic pleasure/displeasure with ethics.  Through sympathy the brain experiences its best interpretation of what another experiences within a situation (see the document entitled neurobiology for a detailed explanation).  This is valuable in that it produces an instinctual awareness that other humans (and similar creatures) are feeling creatures as well.  By this indirect experience of other’s experiences, we automatically treat them the same way we treat ourselves, striving to ensure others experience pleasure and not displeasure.  However, there are three problems that sympathy can produce. 

One is the problem previously mentioned about mixing pleasure/displeasure with ethics.  For example, a person may make the mistake of sympathizing with a criminal.  When people oppose this criminal’s actions, causing them pain, the sympathizing person would also experience this pain, and if they make the mistake of mix up pain with evil they may label the inflictors of this pain as evil.  However, the displeasure this person experiences sympathetically would, in fact, be spirituality telling them that they should not be experiencing this pain, not that the individual they are sympathizing with should not be experiencing pain.  When an individual sympathizes with another’s pain they have to make an ethical judgment as to whether that other should be experiencing pain or not.  If they should not, then it will be the case that the spiritual force is telling the person to prevent the other’s pain, if they should, then it would be that the person is being told to stop experiencing this pain, to stop looking at the other, and thereby to stop sympathizing with them. 

The second problem with sympathy is that people sympathize through their own brains.  Even through sympathy induces similar experiences within people to that which those being sympathize with experience, differences in people’s personalities can result in that experience being good for one while the other interprets it as being unpleasant.  This may motivate an individual to try to stop someone from experiencing something that is good, or even vital to them because they feel it as abusive or self-destructive, however, it may only be to this individual that it is abusive.  Likewise, such an individual may fail to see when something is hurting another, even if they are the cause, because to them that experience would be good. 

The third problem with sympathy involves the very nature of pleasure/displeasure.  According to psi theory, pleasure coincides with behaviours that serve good while displeasure coincides with negative behaviours.  However, a behaviour that serves good in one person may serve ill when expressed by another.  For example, producing self-destructive behaviours within a criminal may bring them to an early death, thereby reducing the negative effects of their actions.  Now, assuming the individual is self-destructive do to their criminality, as opposed to a suicidal need to prevent degeneration of their own personality, this individual would experience pleasure by inducing pain within themselves, or by accepting pain from others since, by doing so, they would serve spirituality’s purpose by destroying themselves.  A good individual, on the other hand, may sympathize with this person, but because degeneration of this good individual’s personality would be unacceptable to the spiritual force they would see the pain as displeasant.  As a result, the criminal may be experiencing pleasure, while the good person sympathetically experiences displeasure from the criminal’s punishment.  Such a good person may respond to this displeasure by trying to stop the punishment, rather then recognizing that the displeasure they feel may, in fact, reflect spirituality’s interest in their not experiencing such a punishment.  That by not looking at, and thereby not sympathizing with the criminal they would satisfy the interests of good, and, as a result, experience no displeasure. 

Now, experiencing pleasure from pain does not necessarily indicate an individual is a criminal; pain doesn’t always act to degrade an individual’s personality, and further, gaining pleasure from degrading their own personality would only indicate that the individual’s personality is out of place in the world, which, although typically the case with the criminal, could occur with good as well.  Further, a criminal may not experience pleasure by degrading their own personality.  This would indicate that the spiritual force has some good use for this individual, that the individual will end up serving an important good despite themselves. 

            Now, understanding humility, sympathy and the difference between goodness and pleasure helps an individual develop their ability to exercise their good intent in a way that truly leads to good.  However, the other half of ethics, and hence of wisdom, is the support of good, to produce good by benefiting the producers of good.  In order for good to be supportive of good it must show a special behaviour towards such good, good must respect good.  However, respect is a more specific phenomenon than this.  Respect is a show of recognition of another’s value, and since the only valid quality that makes one person superior to another is ethics, the only true form of respect is ethical respect; respect applied to any other situation is illegitimate.  Therefore it is valid to define respect as a show of recognition of another’s good nature and, as a result, a willingness to support them if the opportunity arises. 

Respect – possession of behaviour of striving to benefit goodness in others

Disrespect – possession of behaviour of disregarding goodness in others

Although benefit usually coincides with stimulation, benefit is, in fact, that which serves to make an individual more capable of expressing their ethical nature, which does not always coincide with satisfying psychological needs, the purpose of stimulus.  For example, pain could induce discipline, and thereby benefit the individual even though it reduces the individual’s stimulation, and consequentially, increases their psychological need. 

Now, whereas desire involves the pursuit of personal benefit and love, the benefiting of those who are involved in an individual’s life personally, respect involves the action of benefiting people in general, regardless of whether they are part of that individual’s life or not.  Respect, contrary to love and desire, is beyond personal feelings and tastes, a respectable individual is respectable whether they are liked or not, and as such an individual is only respectful if they show respect towards a person entirely based on their determination of the individual’s goodness, regardless of their personal feelings towards that individual, regardless of whether they like or dislike them.

Respectful – showing respect towards anyone recognized as being respectable and withholding this respect from anyone who is identified as not being respectable

Respectable – being good and therefore deserving of respect

Respectfulness is not just about showing respect towards respectable people; part of respectfulness is the recognition of the goodness of others.  So, shows of apparent respect towards undeserving people acts to reveal that an individual is not acting out of a recognition of other peoples ethical drives, that they are not acting out of true respect.  Rather, since non-ethical beings (people, animals) have no ethical value, are not respectable, respectfulness demands the individual treat such beings differently in accordance with this ethical deficit.

Disrespect, on the other hand, is the failure to act with consideration for an individual’s respectability, acting without consideration for their worthiness of respect.  In the same way non-ethicals are sometimes beneficial, and other times detrimental, disrespectful individuals sometimes support, other times detriment good people.

Disrespectful – failing to show respect towards anyone recognized as being respectable or failing to withhold this respect from anyone who is identified as not being respectable

            Now, since respectfulness is a significant component of ethics, being able to identify disrespectful behaviour is important to identifying good, and hence to identify those who are deserving of respect.  However, the nature of discipline presents a severe problem with such identification.  An ill-intentioned, undisciplined individual will typically give away their unethical intentions, however a disciplined individual fears people’s reaction to their actions, and therefore, would not commit a crime unless they knew they could get away with it.  This fear causes such ill-intentioned individuals to behave in a way that satisfies those they fear.  If such a feared person demands respect, the ill-intentioned individual will act as though they respect them.  An example of the danger of discipline is that of the child who tells her parents she distrusts a particular adult.  Whenever the parents look at the adult, this individual acts respectfully towards the child, so the parents are unable to understand why their child is so distrustful.  However, this person fears the parents, not the child, so they always treat the child the way the parents demand their child be treated whenever there is the slightest chance the parents might see.  As soon as such a person is certain no one will see, and since they do not fear the child, they feel no inhibitions towards showing the child their disrespect.  It is not the case that such a child is expressing an intuitive sense; rather, if the parents saw what their child saw they would know exactly what that person’s intentions are.  An undisciplined, ill-intentioned individual would not fear the parent’s reaction, and therefore would be spotted as a danger immediately.  Discipline in the hands of the ill-intentioned, therefore, can be dangerous since it makes these people hard to spot, and as a result, difficult to catch.  However, this does not mean that discipline is a bad thing.  A well-intentioned, undisciplined individual may do things without realizing or appreciating the effect their actions have on others.  This situation sometimes appears in the form of childish, petty criminal behaviours perpetrated by youths.  In these situations the youth only thinks about the experience of doing something illegal and risky, and since they only focus on their own reaction to the situation it seems to them that the act is only a good thing, a cheap, harmless thrill.  A disciplined individual, on the other hand, is always concerned with, and aware of, the anger and pain others feel, and therefore, if they are well-intentioned, strive to avoid, out of concern for the well being of others, inducing these feeling.  Therefore, discipline is neither good nor bad; rather, it gives non-ethical people the power to get away with evil acts, and good, the power to exercise their goodness to the greatest extent. 

Home