Most ethical frameworks work well within a civil society but have a tendency to break down as soon as relationships outside that society are involved. The greatest example is war.
If your enemy is attempting to destroy you, don't you have every right to defend yourself? This is where the idea of competition versus cooperation becomes valuable.
The government and the laws of a country are examples of cooperation. The government combines millions of people together in order to create a playing field where these people can cooperate.
For example all the people in a country generally agree that within the country killing is bad and that stealing is bad. The building of roads and other infrastructure are other obvious examples of cooperating through government.
A slightly less obvious example of rules as a form of cooperation is the stock market. The stock market is often seen as the king of competition. Yet there is cooperation in setting the ground rules for trading, cooperation in disseminating information and following the rules for settlement.
Within this rules based cooperative framework there is competition. There is competition in labour markets, competition between different products, competition while driving and competition when buying a house. Any time a person looks after their own interests above others that is competition, whether or not the competition is economic.
The cooperation and competition dynamic may also be used to examine our relationship with animals and the ecosystem more broadly. Our relationship with cattle and poultry is one of cooperation: we eat the animals (or consume other products from them) and in return we have boosted their population.
Our crops are pollinated by bees which receive nectar in return. On the other hand animals which are a direct danger to humans, such as tigers in India or wolves in Europe, are competing with humans and have been virtually eliminated from those areas. In other senses animals may compete with humans. Humans and animals often compete for land. "Pests" such as mice, cockroaches and flies compete with us for food.
War is the ultimate competition. War is competing for our lives. Very little "ethics" or "cooperation" survives war. War needs its own article but I will give some examples to show why competition versus cooperation is a suitable mental construct to consider the ethics of war.
The Geneva conventions provide a basic level of cooperation during wartime. However the Geneva conventions have on occasion been found to require significant changes to remain relevant - particularly in 1949 after world war 2 and in 1977 with the signing of protocols 1 and 2.
The Geneva conventions protect civilians from deliberate attack (collateral damage is still permissible under the conventions) and treatment of prisoners. Other rules include how to indicate that one party wishes to negotiate a surrender or a truce.
One motivation for soldiers to follow the Geneva conventions is that of self-preservation. For example if one army mistreats, tortures or kills prisoners of war, the other side is likely to either not surrender as easily or mistreat prisoners of war in return.
So cooperation through the Geneva conventions for the basic human necessities are (mostly) adhered to due to self interest. The payback is still there but it only covers the basic necessities, though it does not even cover the most important necessity - life itself.
Friday 18 November 2011
Friday 7 October 2011
Book Reviews - Revolutionary Rd, Iron House and Zero History
Revolutionary Rd
Revolutionary Road explores the emptiness, loneliness and hopelessness of working and suburban life.The Wheelers have the makings of the middle class American dream: a steady job and a nice house in the suburbs. However they have a sense of unease at the situation in which they find themselves - they are trapped. They are aloof from their children, constantly grating against the social façade they present for their tedious workmates and acquaintances.
In order to escape they decide to move to Paris and their lives are renewed. Nothing can be that simple though and the move to Paris precipitates a series of events that lead to the Wheeler's total destruction.
Rating: 4/5
Yates, Richard. Revolutionary Road
ISBN 0-8371-6221-1
Iron House
Michael has a lot at stake. He is on the run from the mob, after he left for a woman. His mentor is dead and his brother is under the care of a senator's wife, who's motivations are unclear.Iron House is an exciting ride confronting change, lies, death and childhood demons.
Rating: 4/5
Hart, John. Iron House
ISBN13 978-0312380342
Zero History
You would think a story that was about industrial espionage against an arms dealer would be anything but boring. Unfortunately Zero History manages it. Gibson spends a huge portion of the book "setting the scene" in the same way that the appalling Sleeping Beauty movie spends the entire movie setting the scene.Add to this a healthy dose of techno babble and motivations that simply do not make any sense. This results in a tiresome book that I could barely manage to read to the end. I did not care about the characters, whatever happened to these characters took altogether too long to happen and I did not care about the stupid jeans they were trying to track down!
Rating: 2/5
Gibson, William. Zero History
0670919527
Monday 5 September 2011
Ethics in a Nihilist World
How can we define the basis for ethics? How do we define what is ethical?
Most of us base our ethics on our intuition. However this frequently falls apart when conflicting ethical questions are posed. Is it acceptable to steal if your family is starving? Is it acceptable to kill if you need to steal food for your family?
For what purpose? Is the purpose of our life to continue life?
Ultimately the continuity of life will fail. After billions upon billions of years the universe will probably end in a heat death. This means that even if life survives for that period of time life will ultimately come to an end.
Furthermore the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not prove that the universe is not deterministic, it states that we cannot measure it. If the universe is deterministic then we do not have free will: all our actions were already determined at the beginning of the universe.
If there is no free will there is no point in trying to act in an ethical manner because we will act ethically if that is our pre-determined path.
Obviously in an evolutionary approach the ethical standards would reflect the closeness of our DNA. Our offspring would receive the most positive treatment - those who carried our own DNA. Our family - mother, father, brothers and sisters - would come next as they share the most DNA. All humans share a great deal of DNA, followed by animals then all remaining life.
We have a large incentive to help all humans. The more humans that are available with different genetic variations for our offspring to mate with, the more likely our offspring are to survive plagues, famines and other adverse events.
Thus keeping the pool of humans as large and diverse as possible is good for the survival of the human race, which is generally good for the survival of the DNA of the individual human.
Even if the DNA of an individual human does not survive in terms of offspring due to ethical treatment of other humans, the majority of DNA will still be shared with a number of humans who do manage to maintain their DNA via their offspring.
This cooperative approach is in conflict with the concept that being unethical will often improve the chance that descendants will maintain as much DNA as possible.
Thus there is a conflict between a cooperative approach and a competitive approach.
Another approach to consider is that by establishing a set of rules humans can achieve a better result for all humans by avoiding the prisoner's dilemma.
This still does not address the issue of free will or the purpose of our life. In an evolutionary model the purpose of life is to sustain life and DNA to the next generation.
We are in an ocean of cause and effect - but we cannot measure the whole ocean. If we can't measure it and we can't control it, there is an argument that determinism doesn't matter.
If our actions are in fact pre-determined then our actions are pre-determined by causes ignorant of ethics, beyond our control and immeasurable. If it is beyond our control and immeasurable that is close to being random.
These forces are agnostic about ethics. So while whether we are ethical is probably deterministic there are so many different random (to us) elements - a chemical reaction here, a nerve trigger there - that the only element that is conscious of ethics are humans.
Life exists - our life exists. What are we going to choose to do with it.
Why should we act ethically then? Because we can.
Every human is the last link in a chain. Human after human after human has kept our species going. We have achieved something. Even if it is just a shot in the dark. Even if it won't last forever. Many people didn't make it - Shakespeare had children but all his descendant lines eventually ended.
The same can be said about life. Humans are just a part of a web of life that surrounds us. Without plants and animals for food we would starve in short order. Every life form has continued the chain of life - one generation after another.
Generations after generations back billions of years to the first fragile life. And we made it. Humans, animals, plants, everything - we all made it. In a pitched battle to survive.
There is so much beauty around us. From nature - in the form of flowers, trees, animals. The chain of life. Intelligence. Millions of people working together to form a society. All the things we have built - houses, cars, electronics. Continuing life through medicine.
Perhaps we should maintain this beauty, through ethics, because we can. As Kennedy said - "...not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
Ethics is hard, not destroying the beauty around us is hard.
Most of us base our ethics on our intuition. However this frequently falls apart when conflicting ethical questions are posed. Is it acceptable to steal if your family is starving? Is it acceptable to kill if you need to steal food for your family?
The Nihilist View
One viewpoint is that life is just a fluke. Humans are just a combination of chemicals working together in cells. Each generation is just tries to struggle through to another generation.For what purpose? Is the purpose of our life to continue life?
Ultimately the continuity of life will fail. After billions upon billions of years the universe will probably end in a heat death. This means that even if life survives for that period of time life will ultimately come to an end.
Furthermore the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not prove that the universe is not deterministic, it states that we cannot measure it. If the universe is deterministic then we do not have free will: all our actions were already determined at the beginning of the universe.
If there is no free will there is no point in trying to act in an ethical manner because we will act ethically if that is our pre-determined path.
The Evolutionary Approach
One approach to ethics would be to take the evolutionary approach. In an evolutionary approach we try to maximise the likelihood that as much of our DNA is around as possible.Obviously in an evolutionary approach the ethical standards would reflect the closeness of our DNA. Our offspring would receive the most positive treatment - those who carried our own DNA. Our family - mother, father, brothers and sisters - would come next as they share the most DNA. All humans share a great deal of DNA, followed by animals then all remaining life.
We have a large incentive to help all humans. The more humans that are available with different genetic variations for our offspring to mate with, the more likely our offspring are to survive plagues, famines and other adverse events.
Thus keeping the pool of humans as large and diverse as possible is good for the survival of the human race, which is generally good for the survival of the DNA of the individual human.
Even if the DNA of an individual human does not survive in terms of offspring due to ethical treatment of other humans, the majority of DNA will still be shared with a number of humans who do manage to maintain their DNA via their offspring.
This cooperative approach is in conflict with the concept that being unethical will often improve the chance that descendants will maintain as much DNA as possible.
Thus there is a conflict between a cooperative approach and a competitive approach.
Another approach to consider is that by establishing a set of rules humans can achieve a better result for all humans by avoiding the prisoner's dilemma.
This still does not address the issue of free will or the purpose of our life. In an evolutionary model the purpose of life is to sustain life and DNA to the next generation.
How Determined is Determinism?
On the other hand... all current evidence points to humanity, and in fact all life, is basically just a rounding error in the context of the universe.We are in an ocean of cause and effect - but we cannot measure the whole ocean. If we can't measure it and we can't control it, there is an argument that determinism doesn't matter.
If our actions are in fact pre-determined then our actions are pre-determined by causes ignorant of ethics, beyond our control and immeasurable. If it is beyond our control and immeasurable that is close to being random.
These forces are agnostic about ethics. So while whether we are ethical is probably deterministic there are so many different random (to us) elements - a chemical reaction here, a nerve trigger there - that the only element that is conscious of ethics are humans.
Existential Ethics
The point is that we are here. As a human I can think, feel, see, hear, touch, smell and taste. I observe other humans that obviously have intelligence. I observe animals that have some level of intelligence. I observe the world around me following consistent rules - gravity, friction, inertia.Life exists - our life exists. What are we going to choose to do with it.
Why should we act ethically then? Because we can.
Every human is the last link in a chain. Human after human after human has kept our species going. We have achieved something. Even if it is just a shot in the dark. Even if it won't last forever. Many people didn't make it - Shakespeare had children but all his descendant lines eventually ended.
The same can be said about life. Humans are just a part of a web of life that surrounds us. Without plants and animals for food we would starve in short order. Every life form has continued the chain of life - one generation after another.
Generations after generations back billions of years to the first fragile life. And we made it. Humans, animals, plants, everything - we all made it. In a pitched battle to survive.
There is so much beauty around us. From nature - in the form of flowers, trees, animals. The chain of life. Intelligence. Millions of people working together to form a society. All the things we have built - houses, cars, electronics. Continuing life through medicine.
Perhaps we should maintain this beauty, through ethics, because we can. As Kennedy said - "...not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
Ethics is hard, not destroying the beauty around us is hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)