From: jimruttshow8596
Forrest Landry, a recurring guest on the Jim Rutt Show, presents his concept of non-relativistic ethics, which aims to provide universal principles for effective choice, applicable across various situations and even to non-human entities [05:03:00]. His framework integrates aspects of consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethics, focusing on increasing integrity and potentiality in self, the world, and their relationship [03:07:00].
Distinguishing Ethics from Morality
Landry clarifies the distinction between “ethics” and “morality” to set the scope of his discussion [13:35:00]:
- Ethics: Refers to general principles of choice that guide actions, independent of specific contexts or individuals [15:05:00]. It’s about what lives within the “self” that can participate across many different “worlds” or domains of action [16:11:00].
- Morality: Refers to specific “codes” or “rules” that are particular to a certain “game” or “world,” like rules in a sports game, workplace, or family setting [15:17:00].
Landry initially states that systems of morality defined in black-and-white terms are fundamentally antithetical to life and consciousness and should be avoided [01:06:18]. However, he later softens this stance, acknowledging the value of well-calibrated rule systems, like legal codes, in reducing cognitive load and fostering societal coherence, while emphasizing that these are human-made constructs that can and should evolve [01:06:35].
The Concept of Effective Choice
Central to Landry’s non-relativistic ethics is the idea of “effective choice” [09:26:00]. An effective choice has two key aspects:
- Consequence: It creates an effect in the world, making something happen [10:30:00].
- Potentiality: It results in the potential for future choices, preserving or even increasing the capacity to create change [10:38:00]. This concept is akin to “optionality” in economics [12:00:00].
Effective choices are rooted in the pursuit of integrity and the increase of potentiality across “life and evolution” [34:33:00]. This means maximizing the combination of symmetry and continuity in the relationship between the self (subjective) and reality (objective) [39:17:00].
- Integrity: Means “to act as one together,” implying coherency, cooperativeness, and a combination of diverse aspects that produce a result greater than the sum of its parts [36:44:00].
- Symmetry: Refers to the correspondence between what is at one end of a communication channel (subjective intent) and what is at the other (objective outcome), ensuring faithful representation [41:07:00].
- Continuity: Refers to the smoothness and consistent energy transmission within the channel, avoiding abrupt shifts that can degrade communication [42:11:00].
Self, Perception, and Expression
Landry’s concept of “self” is not human-centric; it applies to any subjective being with agency, including potential aliens or artificial intelligences [19:46:00]. Crucially, he posits that “choice has self,” rather than “self has choice,” suggesting choice is more fundamental than the notion of self [21:46:46].
In the context of ethics, a key distinction is made between perception and expression [01:23:01]:
- Perception: The flow of information from the world to the self; it is always private [01:23:56].
- Expression: The flow of information from the self to the world; it is always public [01:23:59].
According to Landry’s framework, one can only be responsible for the totality of their choices and expressions, not for their perceptions or internal knowing [01:23:43]. This means “thought crime” should not be considered unethical [01:26:19]. Judging another person’s ethics is inherently unethical, as one cannot know their subjective processes or the full context of their choices [01:13:00].
Communication Principles
For ethical communication, Landry proposes three essential “rights” that participants must freely grant to each other [01:26:57]:
- The right to speak: Allowing others the freedom to express themselves [01:27:26].
- The right to be understood: Aiming for clarity and accurate reception of messages [01:27:39].
- The right to know that one has been understood: Providing feedback to confirm message reception and comprehension, enabling error correction [01:27:47].
When these principles are upheld, communication becomes possible and allows for the emergence of “larger reason” or connectivity that transcends individual minds [01:29:22]. This aligns with “mistake theory” in conflict resolution, where participants cooperatively seek to understand and correct errors, rather than dominate or control [01:30:32]. This contrasts sharply with current challenges of modern communication and truth verification where assumptions of ill intent often prevail [01:30:07].
Want, Need, and Desire in Relationships
Landry distinguishes between three aspects of human motivation and satisfaction:
- Want: Satisfied externally, like wanting a candy bar (requires external acquisition) [01:36:06].
- Need: Satisfied internally, like needing food (requires internal processing like digestion for energy and growth) [01:36:28].
- Desire: Satisfied on the boundary between internal and external, in relationship (e.g., the shared understanding of a word or mutual romantic feeling) [01:37:07].
Understanding these distinctions is crucial for effective personal choices, as seeking external satisfaction for an internal need, or vice-versa, leads to ineffectiveness [01:38:12].
Practical Implications for Humanity’s Future
Landry criticizes academic approaches to ethics, such as “trolley problems,” for being overly abstract and disconnected from the real-time, embodied choices people make under uncertainty [01:39:11]. He emphasizes that making good choices requires engaging with both feeling and thinking [01:40:12].
The role of ethics in societal and technological evolution is becoming increasingly vital. With new technological powers, the ethics practices and the future trajectory of humanity depends on individuals and communities making increasingly better choices [01:41:52]. The principles of ethics guide how humanity can achieve a “right relationship” with the natural world and other people, not just as individuals but as entire nations and the whole planet [01:42:17].