Hello there,
hesitatingly I step out from my cozy corner of non-commitment and
anonymity...
One problem I have been considering regularly and particularly of late
naturally came to my mind again after reading Joe’s essay on ethics.
Essentially, Joe’s “rules”,
--------------
(a) All should be permitted to possess all freedoms they care to enjoy so
long as they do not interfere with any of the same freedoms possessed by
others; when these freedoms inevitably come into conflict, such conflicts
should be resolved by equal and proportional compromise.
(b) The universe is to be experienced and understood rather than defaced or
destroyed.
--------------
no matter how justified (which I am not able to judge), are complicated by
the cognitive capacity of how much information one is able to process
regarding the boundaries of personal freedom, given this principle
encompasses personal responsibility (and is not enforced by a government,
for example).
My concern here is not to argue on the level of rather abstract principles
but their concrete implications. The question is, to what extend am I (read:
is one) “supposed” to implicate my ethics on the moral level into my
(ethical) behaviour as not to be accused of hypocrisy? It is a grave problem
indeed, the problem of consistency between ideals and actions.
I strongly believe in the virtue (i. e., I am strongly determined) to act as
if I were responsible for all possible consequences of my actions. I am
aware of the fact that some of my actions may have results which I could not
have possibly anticipated; that is a matter of unhappy coincidence but not
obviously not amendable. Yet some of my actions are probably and predictably
followed by consequences such as effectively harming other people or the
environment (sad enough, by not harming people, those people may in turn do
harm to the environment and/or other people – a true dilemma, but another
matter entirely), which are adverse to deeply held principles of a “higher
order” (like not doing harm etc.).
Where obvious, actions of this kind are naturally to be refrained from;
otherwise it would be stark hypocrisy. Yet the world is complicated. Most
consequences of most anything cannot possibly be anticipated, nor do you get
feedback for all your actions as to learn from your past faults, and this is
the point I mentioned above. It is exemplified by questions such as:
When I buy something – anything – must I not take care not to support a
company incompatible with my principles? If I don’t, is buying these
products not due to apathy and hypocrisy?
When I pay taxes to a country, must I not support all its actions? If I don’
t, is remaining in that country not due to apathy and hypocrisy? If I don’t,
is anything not bend on changing the way the system works via political,
democratic effort, due to apathy and hypocrisy?
And also: To what degree am I supposed to inform myself on how a company
works, what a nation does, what effect my driving a car has on the
environment etc.?
How did you arrange yourself with this – very likely unsolvable – problem?
The difficulty may be an essentially nominal one of where to draw the line
between hypocrisy and consistency. It may be a personal decision, similarly
based on an arbitrary standard of judgement, and mine may be higher or lower
than anybody else’s. But nevertheless, I am sure someone has done some
thinking on the topic – and I am anxious to read about it, if you have the
time to spare.
Jayr
p.s.: Another question, to what degree should I be concerned on what other
people do when unrelated to my personal well-being (admittedly, this is a
topic in itself)? Why should I care for anyone’s freedom if it’s not mine?
And isn’t freedom itself within very arbitrary boundaries – ranging from
pure egocentricity to world-encompassing environmentalism?
<<Ygnailh... ygnaiih... thflthkh'ngha.... Yog-Sothoth... Y'bthnk... h'ehye -
n'grkdl'lh...>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:15 MDT