Philosophy Project Part 2
Constructing a non-anthropocentric value-system, Part 2: The Choice
All value-systems are subjective in some sense. Once you start to pick your way backwards along the chain of questions motivating why you should act in one way and not in another, sooner or later you're going to hit that final brick wall of a subjective assumption that can't be justified any further (at least not without becoming circular) by that particular system.
For example, the question Why is killing wrong? could be answered by one system with "Because it (often) causes suffering." But it might then be unable to further justify the follow-up question, "Why is suffering wrong?" as the fact that suffering is a bad thing is the founding principle of this particular system, and as such a subjective judgement.
So subjective bias is inescapable, in that sense. A value system must somewhere rest on a choice, a judgement saying that this state is better than this one. However, at what point that choice is made still matters in terms of how inclusive the system becomes.
The system in the example above is limited in the sense that it can only be used in relation to one specific part of existence: beings that are capable of suffering, i.e. entities with a certain degree and type of sentience. It can't tell us anything about how we should act in relation to non-sentient entities (Plants? Works of art? Stories? Mountains?) unless these are a cause (or remedy ) for suffering. If I want a system capable of dealing with everything, then that is clearly not good enough, I need a founding principle that is much more fundamental, pushed back as far as possible along that chain of "Why?"-questions.
So. The most fundamental statement about existence that I can imagine goes something like this:
"Stuff exists."
While it is possible to argue over the form and nature of existence I think that one statement is quite uncontroversial: that something exists. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to note the fact, or argue about it.
Therefore, if I want to have a value-system that can deal with everything that exists, regardless of what form that existence might take, then this seems like the place where I should make that first choice, ask the first and only value-based question that is possible to ask regarding that fact-
"Is the fact that stuff exists good or bad?"
Now, while I know what my feeling is about this (Good! It is good that stuff exists!) I can't think of any good objective reasons as to why 'something' should be better than 'nothing', and not the other way around. There are a number of subjective reasons, many of which are probably circular and going back to the fact that I happen to be a representative of things that exist. But essentially I can't see that there would be anything to stop someone from taking the opposite, nihilistic view and building an equally logical (if rather more controversial) system of values based on that. I don't; but there you have it: in the end, the whole thing rests on a subjective choice.
You could argue that the fact of existence is neutral, neither good or bad - given that only stuff that exists can have any value at all. The next step would then be to say that "good" or "bad" is only possible in the subjective experience of existence. That is of course true, but in terms of creating a value-system for all things, that means we have yet again put an unnecessary limit in force: subjectivity. One step back down.
So, the way I see it, that question remains the place where I will have to make a stand: the one subjective decision that my Ethic of All Things will have to rest on. My founding principle, and it turns out to be this: “Existence is preferable to non-existence."
In short: Stuff exists. And that's nice.
This entry was originally posted at http://corvuscornix.dreamwidth.org/43289.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
All value-systems are subjective in some sense. Once you start to pick your way backwards along the chain of questions motivating why you should act in one way and not in another, sooner or later you're going to hit that final brick wall of a subjective assumption that can't be justified any further (at least not without becoming circular) by that particular system.
For example, the question Why is killing wrong? could be answered by one system with "Because it (often) causes suffering." But it might then be unable to further justify the follow-up question, "Why is suffering wrong?" as the fact that suffering is a bad thing is the founding principle of this particular system, and as such a subjective judgement.
So subjective bias is inescapable, in that sense. A value system must somewhere rest on a choice, a judgement saying that this state is better than this one. However, at what point that choice is made still matters in terms of how inclusive the system becomes.
The system in the example above is limited in the sense that it can only be used in relation to one specific part of existence: beings that are capable of suffering, i.e. entities with a certain degree and type of sentience. It can't tell us anything about how we should act in relation to non-sentient entities (Plants? Works of art? Stories? Mountains?) unless these are a cause (or remedy ) for suffering. If I want a system capable of dealing with everything, then that is clearly not good enough, I need a founding principle that is much more fundamental, pushed back as far as possible along that chain of "Why?"-questions.
So. The most fundamental statement about existence that I can imagine goes something like this:
"Stuff exists."
While it is possible to argue over the form and nature of existence I think that one statement is quite uncontroversial: that something exists. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to note the fact, or argue about it.
Therefore, if I want to have a value-system that can deal with everything that exists, regardless of what form that existence might take, then this seems like the place where I should make that first choice, ask the first and only value-based question that is possible to ask regarding that fact-
"Is the fact that stuff exists good or bad?"
Now, while I know what my feeling is about this (Good! It is good that stuff exists!) I can't think of any good objective reasons as to why 'something' should be better than 'nothing', and not the other way around. There are a number of subjective reasons, many of which are probably circular and going back to the fact that I happen to be a representative of things that exist. But essentially I can't see that there would be anything to stop someone from taking the opposite, nihilistic view and building an equally logical (if rather more controversial) system of values based on that. I don't; but there you have it: in the end, the whole thing rests on a subjective choice.
You could argue that the fact of existence is neutral, neither good or bad - given that only stuff that exists can have any value at all. The next step would then be to say that "good" or "bad" is only possible in the subjective experience of existence. That is of course true, but in terms of creating a value-system for all things, that means we have yet again put an unnecessary limit in force: subjectivity. One step back down.
So, the way I see it, that question remains the place where I will have to make a stand: the one subjective decision that my Ethic of All Things will have to rest on. My founding principle, and it turns out to be this: “Existence is preferable to non-existence."
In short: Stuff exists. And that's nice.
This entry was originally posted at http://corvuscornix.dreamwidth.org/43289.html. Please comment there using OpenID.