From: jimruttshow8596
Nonrelativistic Ethics is a philosophical framework proposed by thinker, writer, and philosopher Forrest Landry. It is presented as a guide to choice, aiming to define principles that create “good choices” or inform what is practical, worthwhile, or meaningful [04:00:00] [05:35:00].
Placement in Ethical Philosophy
Traditional ethical philosophy is often divided into three main schools:
- Consequentialist Ethics – Evaluates ethics based on results or consequences [02:02:00]. Utilitarianism, which aims for the greatest happiness for the greatest number, is a well-known example [02:09:00].
- Deontological Ethics – Based on reason or a deep universal morality [02:19:00]. Kant’s categorical imperative, which suggests behaving as if everyone else would do the same, is an example [02:29:00].
- Virtue Ethics – An older school, famously propagated by Aristotle, focusing on right behavior from an internal perspective, such as courage, truthfulness, or temperance [02:43:00] [02:50:00].
Forrest Landry’s nonrelativistic ethics cannot be squarely placed into one category but integrates aspects of all three [03:07:00] [08:27:00]. It begins with a values-based orientation (virtue ethics), moves through a foundational perspective (deontological), and includes a “consequentiality” related to integrity (utilitarian aspect) [08:38:00] [08:51:00].
Defining “Non-Relativistic”
The term “non-relativistic” in this context signifies that ethical principles are not dependent on the specific situation or the particular chooser [05:05:00] [05:14:00]. This contrasts with common positions where “what is right to do is gonna depend upon the situation that one is in” [04:34:00]. The core claim is that universal principles for making good choices exist [05:08:00] [07:12:00].
The Concept of “Effective Choice”
A central concept in nonrelativistic ethics is “effective choice” [09:26:00]. An effective choice has two sides:
- Consequence: It has an effect in the world, “making something happen” [10:32:00] [10:35:00].
- Potentiality/Optionality: It must result in the potential for future choices that themselves could be effective [10:38:00] [10:41:00]. This includes preserving and potentially increasing the capacity to create change [10:59:00] [11:03:06]. This idea is very similar to the economic concept of increasing one’s optionality [12:00:00] [12:04:00].
Effective choice is not based on intent or a “soft and gauzy kind of spiritualistic kind of thinking,” but on practical outcomes [09:35:00] [09:41:00]. All choice is inherently uncertain, as one can never know all the consequences of an action due to chaos and complexity [31:18:00] [31:41:00]. Therefore, ethical principles are practical tools rather than deterministic guarantees [32:51:00] [32:56:00].
Ethics vs. Morality
Forrest Landry distinguishes between ethics and morality:
- Ethics: Refers to general principles of choice, connecting to the fundamental relationship between self and reality [13:44:00] [14:48:00]. These principles are universal and guide action across different contexts (e.g., internet, workplace, family, sports) [15:04:00] [16:09:09].
- Moral Codes: Are specific to particular contexts or “games” (e.g., rules of a sports game) [15:15:00] [16:03:00].
Defining “right or wrong” in an absolute sense can “impinge upon the ability to act ethically” because it implies a deterministic universe where choice may not exist [17:02:00] [17:21:00]. For ethics to be relevant, there must be a genuine capacity for choice and personal agency, “an emergence from potentiality into actuality” not fully defined by prior circumstances [17:55:00] [18:23:00] [18:31:00].
Systems of morality defined in “black and white terms” were initially described as “fundamentally antithetical to life and consciousness and are to be avoided” [01:06:18]. However, this stance has softened, recognizing the value of “well-calibrated rule systems,” such as legal codes, in contributing to civilization by reducing cognitive load for humans [01:06:37] [01:08:00]. These systems are understood as “man-made constructs” that can be changed if they no longer serve their purpose [01:10:20] [01:10:25]. The emphasis remains on principles rather than rigid rules, allowing cultures and communities to develop practices specific to their circumstances [01:11:37] [01:12:10].
The Concept of Self
The “self” in Forrest Landry’s work is not limited to humans; it is broad enough to include “aliens living in some other universe” [01:50:00] [01:57:00]. The theory of nonrelativistic ethics would apply to any entity that possesses consciousness and choice, regardless of whether it is an animal, human, or “super and supra human conscious cognition entities” [01:54:00] [01:57:00] [02:00:00].
Crucially, the relationship between self and choice is nuanced: “it’s more correct for us to say that choice has self” [02:11:00] [02:46:00]. The notion of self is an “epi phenomena of the continuance of the common co-occurrence of choice” [02:08:00]. This means that entities without the capacity for choice, like a rock, would not be considered a “self” in this framework [02:36:00] [02:39:00]. The framework aims to be “non-human-centric,” applying equally to various conscious beings and highlighting what differentiates humans from other animals (e.g., future orientation) [02:52:00] [02:55:00].
Integrity, Potentiality, Symmetry, and Continuity
Increasing the effectiveness of choice means “simultaneously preserving the integrity and increasing the potentiality of both life and evolution” [03:30:00] [03:37:00].
- Integrity: Defined as “to act as one together” [03:49:00]. It implies coherency, cooperativeness, and diversity working together to produce a result “greater than the sum of the parts” [03:56:00]. This includes the integrity of the chooser (self), the world, and the communication channel between them [03:57:00].
- Potentiality: Similar to optionality, refers to the future capacity to make choices [12:22:00].
- Symmetry: Maximizing potentiality and integrity involves maximizing the combination of symmetry and continuity in the relationship between the self (subjective) and reality (objective) [03:51:00] [03:54:00]. In communication, symmetry means a faithful correspondence between what is sent and what is received, indicating a high-integrity channel [04:09:00] [04:16:00].
- Continuity: Refers to the “smoothness” of energy transmission through a channel. Abrupt, discontinuous shifts in energy or substance can degrade communication integrity [04:30:00] [04:54:00].
These concepts apply not just to simple data transmission but also to the richness of information and meaningfulness in communication between self and world [04:46:00] [04:53:00].
Value, Meaning, and Purpose
These three concepts are considered archetypal and are distinct but inseparable and non-interchangeable [50:08]. The notion of meaningfulness is seen as the underlying concept, holding value and purpose in a reciprocal relationship [00:52:26] [00:52:56].
Using the analogy of a toaster:
- Purpose: Ascribed from the outside; it is the function someone imposes on an object (e.g., cooking toast, being a paperweight) [00:54:51] [00:55:56].
- Value: Intrinsic to the object itself, perceived from the outside (e.g., the gold composition of a toaster, regardless of its function) [00:56:12] [00:57:00].
- Meaningfulness: Exists in the dynamic of the relationship between the self and the object; it is neither purely internal nor external [00:57:49] [00:57:52]. For instance, cooking toast for a loved one is meaningful due to the romantic context, going beyond the toaster’s function or material [00:58:01] [00:58:10].
Ethical choice requires considering all three dimensions [00:59:04]. Understanding the “meaning of life” or one’s particular life is essential for making good choices [00:59:59].
The “meaning crisis” observed in modern society, where people feel “ungrounded” or “empty,” may be partly attributed to an “over engaged with technology” and virtualization that supplants fundamental biological and social needs for physical contact and community [01:03:06] [01:03:12] [01:03:21].
Ethical Communication Principles
Effective communication, critical for ethical interaction, is best facilitated when each participant “freely honestly and fully grants to the other these three rights” [01:26:39]:
- The right to speak: Allowing others the freedom to express themselves [01:27:26].
- The right to be understood: Ensuring that one’s message is accurately received and interpreted [01:26:45].
- The right to know that one has been understood: Providing feedback to confirm message reception, preventing redundancy and communication breakdown [01:26:48] [01:27:39].
These rights are about facilitating integrity in the communication process, enabling “a larger reason to emerge or a larger connectivity” [01:29:06] [01:29:26]. Suppressing these rights, such as assuming ill intent in communication, is antithetical to productive conversation and ethical action [01:29:55] [01:30:17].
Want, Need, and Desire
These concepts are distinct in their source and resolution:
- Want: Satisfied externally, requiring something from the “outside world” (e.g., a candy bar) [01:36:06] [01:36:12].
- Need: Satisfied internally through an internal process (e.g., energy from food, growth, love) [01:36:28] [01:36:34].
- Desire: Satisfaction occurs on the “boundary between the inside and the outside,” requiring an “interrelational process” (e.g., the shared meaning of a word in a language) [01:37:07] [01:37:17] [01:37:52].
Misidentifying these (e.g., seeking external satisfaction for an internal need) leads to ineffective behavior [01:38:12] [01:38:23].
Implications for Modern Society
Nonrelativistic ethics emphasizes that ethical decisions should not solely rely on abstract intellectual exercises, like “trolley problems,” as real-life choices often involve emotional and practical considerations that cannot be fully predicted [01:39:10] [01:40:05]. It requires engaging “with the practice of feeling as much as with the process of thinking” [01:40:12]. This perspective views virtue ethics as an “embodied truth,” not merely an intellectual one [01:41:04].
The principles of nonrelativistic ethics are increasingly relevant due to technological advancements and newfound powers [01:41:52] [01:41:56]. This heightens the importance of topics like AI Alignment and Ethics and civilization design, as societies must collectively embody these principles to maintain a “right relationship with the natural world and with other people” [01:42:06] [01:42:23] [01:42:51]. The increasing prevalence of neurodivergent traits, such as sociopathy and high-functioning autism, particularly in specialized environments like Silicon Valley, poses both creative opportunities and hazards to societal stability [01:17:40] [01:21:06] [01:21:26] [01:21:32] [01:21:56]. This highlights the need for robust ethical practices and societal structures that can navigate such complexities [01:21:56].
To act in accordance with ethics is an affirmation of the integrity of self and the significance of others [01:12:57]. However, “to require others to be ethical or to label them as being unethical is itself inherently unethical” [01:13:05]. This means one is responsible for their own choices and expressions, but cannot dictate or judge the internal perceptions or knowledge of others, as these are private [01:23:43] [01:23:55]. This framework suggests that “thought crime” should not be considered unethical [01:26:19].