Philosophy Project Part 6
Constructing a non-anthropocentric value-system, Part 6: Guidelines
So, according to the previous reasoning, in a situation where we can and must make a choice, we should look for the outcome that either creates the most or destroys the least overall diversity/patterns. And we should base that choice not on the properties of entities themselves (because according to the argument there are no "better" or "worse" entities) but on the knock-on effects that the fact of their existence produce for other entities in terms such as creating, sustaining, changing, destroying or being neutral to them.
In short, context is all. Beyond the stated goal of increasing the diversity of existence (or trying to keep it from decreasing), there are no no moral laws, no rules that will always hold true. No action that will always be good, or always bad. Since we're not comparing entities directly to each other, but rather the impact of those entities on the rest of the universe, context will always have to be considered.
I think that could probably be one of the better points of this system, in making it clear right from the start that until we have considered context, all things, all entities have to be treated as having value, and a "right" to exist. Nothing falls outside of consideration, nothing can be disregarded on the grounds that it doesn't satisfy some particular generalised criteria: because it "isn't human", "isn't sentient", "isn't alive", "can't suffer"...
We can't live like that, of course. Being limited, non-omniscient beings (I wonder if that is inherent in the definition of all entities as limited?) we cannot even begin to appreciate every aspect of every moment of existence - obviously. We're going to need to make generalisations anyway, or be resigned to never make any choices at all (which would be impossible.) But the necessity for context means that any such generalisations within this system must to be treated as 'guidelines' only, and never ever as 'laws'. Which seems important. Breaking a law is inherently bad, always. With guidelines, not breaking them when the context calls for it is... just as bad. Possibly worse. Guidelines will allow us to make 'good enough' approximations of right choices in most situations, when we have to make quick decisions based on too little information, but it never really lets us of the hook.
(It's becoming clear that whatever this system is doing, it's not going to make things easier... But then, that was never the point of it.)
This entry was originally posted at http://corvuscornix.dreamwidth.org/44666.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
So, according to the previous reasoning, in a situation where we can and must make a choice, we should look for the outcome that either creates the most or destroys the least overall diversity/patterns. And we should base that choice not on the properties of entities themselves (because according to the argument there are no "better" or "worse" entities) but on the knock-on effects that the fact of their existence produce for other entities in terms such as creating, sustaining, changing, destroying or being neutral to them.
In short, context is all. Beyond the stated goal of increasing the diversity of existence (or trying to keep it from decreasing), there are no no moral laws, no rules that will always hold true. No action that will always be good, or always bad. Since we're not comparing entities directly to each other, but rather the impact of those entities on the rest of the universe, context will always have to be considered.
I think that could probably be one of the better points of this system, in making it clear right from the start that until we have considered context, all things, all entities have to be treated as having value, and a "right" to exist. Nothing falls outside of consideration, nothing can be disregarded on the grounds that it doesn't satisfy some particular generalised criteria: because it "isn't human", "isn't sentient", "isn't alive", "can't suffer"...
We can't live like that, of course. Being limited, non-omniscient beings (I wonder if that is inherent in the definition of all entities as limited?) we cannot even begin to appreciate every aspect of every moment of existence - obviously. We're going to need to make generalisations anyway, or be resigned to never make any choices at all (which would be impossible.) But the necessity for context means that any such generalisations within this system must to be treated as 'guidelines' only, and never ever as 'laws'. Which seems important. Breaking a law is inherently bad, always. With guidelines, not breaking them when the context calls for it is... just as bad. Possibly worse. Guidelines will allow us to make 'good enough' approximations of right choices in most situations, when we have to make quick decisions based on too little information, but it never really lets us of the hook.
(It's becoming clear that whatever this system is doing, it's not going to make things easier... But then, that was never the point of it.)
This entry was originally posted at http://corvuscornix.dreamwidth.org/44666.html. Please comment there using OpenID.