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.
