Ethics

So halfway through my grand theory of ethics, I realized something and couldn't write any more: it's impossible to impose a universal ethical principle on every human being. Let's look into it.

My starting point is Kant's "Categorical Imperative." It states "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This means that before you take any action, whatever it may be, you are implying that you give permission for everyone else in the world to take that same action in the same circumstances. For instance, I'm walking down the street and I think someone looks at me funny. I want to make the choice to punch him in the face. First I have to consider if I would be willing to let him punch me in the face if he though I was looking at him funny, regardless of whether or not I was. So I decide not to punch him in the face.

This seems simple enough. It's really just the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule seems to imply an "eye for an eye" relationship between two individuals, whereas the categorical imperative applies more the everyone. But when I thought about it, I found some ways to get around it. The first is to take an action and then make sure that no one else can be in the same circumstances. This is easy when one is in a position of power, such as the government of the United States. For example, in the 60s the US government staged a successful coup in Guatemala against it's democratically elected president and installed their own US-friendly dictator, all to benefit the United Fruit Company. Given the US's position of power, it's virtually impossible for any other nation to carry out a similar action against the United States, not only because they are weaker militarily than us, but because the US is strong, is protected by the UN and international law, and because other nations don't hold significant, if any, interests in the US.

Another, more individual example of this is murder or any other crime significant enough to warrant life in jail, or any other action that would remove an individual from society, such as suicide. Given the categorical imperative, an individual in jail can justify his actions by saying that even if everyone else takes his murder and its circumstances as universal law, it doesn't matter to him because he will never be in a position to be murdered given those circumstances because he is removed from society. Suicide is similar, because it might not matter to a person who commits suicide whether or not others will consider suicide justifiable by his circumstances since he will be gone from the world anyway.

Given these loopholes alone, it's obvious that the categorical imperative isn't sufficient. After a lecture on Feminism last week and a meditation on happiness a few days ago, I came up with a new theory: do what makes you happy, as long as it doesn't stop others from doing what makes them happy. But this alone doesn't give provisions for punishment if someone does stop someone else from doing what makes them happy. So I can combine it with the categorical imperative to make this: Do what makes you happy, as long as it doesn't stop others from doing what makes them happy, and act according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

This looks good, but there are still some major problems. Some, or perhaps many, people don't know what makes them happy. Maybe they've lost the ability to categorize their feelings, or maybe they've realized there is no categories of feelings (depending on whether or not emotions really are separate or not, but that's in the realm of metaphysics and/or psychology). Another problem is the same problem with the categorical imperative: some people just don't care about other people, and will do what they want or can, regardless of the consequences or because they know they can evade the consequences. There are a thousand and one other reasons why neither of these theories will work, and so I've reached my final theory:

There cannot be a universal ethical law that can be applied equally to everyone and will be obeyed by everyone. It can't come from outside the world, because since we can't experience what's outside the world, and only experience what's in it, we are forced to live in the world and act as if what's outside holds no sway. And it obviously can't come from us, because everyone is different, everyone has different wants, needs, desires, emotions, feelings, and circumstances. So how do we live ethically? The simple answer: we cannot live ethically as a nation, as a society, or as a global community. But we can live ethically on a local and personal level. We can act given my combined theory with the people we know and meet, and try to spread this idea of ethics as best we can, but we also have to accept that there will be "evil" in the world, there will be people who will hurt other people, who will take advantage and put you down. But that is part of the human condition that we cannot escape. But maybe if we get as many people as we can to live by this principle, then maybe the problem of evil won't seem so formidable.