My Moral Philosophy, Part I

My Moral Philosophy

Some of you may have wondered how an atheist, or in my case, a quasi-atheist, differentiates right from wrong.

One major principle of my theory is “universality clause” of the rules. If the rule applies to me, then it also applies to you. I can’t pick and choose what rules apply to whom, or honor exemptions unless I am willing to offer the same exemption to ANY person with the same situation. Therefore, in order to not be judged for my religion, political views, style, sexuality, etc., I must also not judge you for any of these, because by expecting this treatment I am indicating that I think others in comparable situations DESERVE these rights. Notice I mentioned comparable- disabled, people causing harm to others, children, and other special situations deserve special consideration. We’ll cover that later. This universality clause can be seen later on in the blog.

My first criteria is just by a very basic observation that hurting people hurts. Circular? Not the way I see it: Physically hurting others and causing them to suffer results in emotional pain for me. It hurts to hurt. It takes some strong agitation before I will ever become physically or emotionally violent towards another person, and by strong agitation I mean hitting me first (really hard-this has only happened once in my life, and it was over after one hit :) or hurting someone in my family with no reason to do so. I’m not an instigator, but I don’t like to leave problems unaddressed, either. Causing unnecessary suffering to others or posing a threat to do so is unacceptable in my moral code, because I would not want anyone to do these things toward me. I think there is no logic in expending the energy to cause someone else any type of suffering without some VERY serious benefit. I don’t want to get hurt; therefore my line of thinking is that people like me do not DESERVE to get hurt. Because of the universality clause, I should extend this same, deserved right to anyone like me- any rule-abiding person.

My second criteria comes from my “Perfect World” that I sometimes think about. My idea is that in a perfect world, people would pledge into a society, just like choosing a Greek or other organization. People would have the opportunity to scope out different systems, and determine which set of rules/customs work best for them. The candidate would then take a loyalty oath to that society, and would therefore be bound by the terms of that society(specifically his individual oath). For example, if I pledged Amish, then I must comply with the Amish rules. If I pledged Eskimo, I would be bound by those rules as well. The society may wish to impose some extra stipulation on me for joining, but the choice to commit to this stipulation would be entirely my decision. If I broke a rule of that society, the majority of the rule-followers could easily kick me out. Each person would be governed by his or her pledged society, and the bad seeds would naturally get weeded out. Murderer Rapist from Society A would soon be ostracized from that society, and any benefits this person had previously enjoyed would be cut off. The person may be able to sneak into another society, but soon would be ostracized from it as well. Back to deserving- if I deserve to receive community membership by paying taxes and following rules, then I think others in comparable situations deserve the same. If you don’t pay taxes and follow the rules and you’re in a comparable situation with me, then you don’t deserve membership.

Cooperation poses an advantage of more benefits, stronger community, and protection from outsiders who aren’t bound by the terms of the societal contract. Eventually, the bad would be ostracized from all societies, form a small MurdererRapist society, and kill each other. The MurderRapist victims that agreed to form a MurderRapist society were aware of the stipulations of the group, and all of the Cooperative societies would have no problem with the sudden disappearance of evildoers. As you may have already realized, some societies by chance will have more appealing resources or more to offer. These coveted societies can in turn request more commitment or sacrifice from the individual in order to take part in the organization, because they are in demand. I know that I would much rather make a larger sacrifice to be a part of an ideal society or group. I’ve realized such a tradeoff in the real world (we all have in one way or another). For example, I’ve been willing to put in more work to reap more money, sacrifice my time and youth in return for an education, and trained extra hard to be part of a winning team. Just because I value excellence does not mean others should value the same things I do, and this idea gives others the right to form a “mediocre” society and join it.
Universality Clause- If I deserve the right to choose my society, then so does anyone else in a similar situation, so I should honor your wish to join mediocrity

Instead of being governed by politics, domination of other societies, and other agendas, my Perfect World would be governed by the fact that societal members knew what they were agreeing to when taking the societal oath. The phrase “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”, would be of great importance. One who cannot handle the pressure of the society can leave at anytime, and try to find a better society. Any person who is not willing to contribute at least enough to be accepted by a “productive slacker’ level society will not succeed. Any person alone will have serious disadvantages compared to those living in society. If our superslacker dude is too lazy to be accepted by those who give the minimal effort into working with others, he will probably be too lazy to support himself without the aid of a society. Instead of having others sit at home for no reason without trying to get a job while a portion of the society works to support them, the society could instead kick them out. Likewise, a society could also choose to support someone at their own discretion. One example of this would be a disabled or elderly person. If this person has contributed in some way or another, others will be more likely to accept him or her. You cannot reap more than you sow in my “perfect world”.
Universality Clause- I think I deserve the right to vote others out of my society if they don’t comply with the rules, therefore, others deserve the right to vote me out of society if I do not comply with the rules.

Up Next: My Moral Philosophy, Part II

Have a good day, and happy blogging!

LQ