Tubegraph

Philosophical schools of ethics

6 min read

From: jimruttshow8596

The Jim Rutt Show frequently discusses resources and insights related to philosophy and ethics, with full transcripts and links to referenced materials available on their website [00:00:11]([00:00:11]. Forrest Landry, a thinker, writer, and philosopher, has been a recurring guest, often exploring topics like his imminent metaphysics [00:00:52]([00:00:52]. One key area of discussion has been his concept of non-relativistic ethics [00:01:29]([00:01:29].

Forrest Landry’s Non-relativistic Ethics

Forrest Landry’s approach to non-relativistic ethics distinguishes itself by asserting the existence of universal principles that are not contingent on specific situations or individual choosers [00:05:05]([00:05:05]. This means what is “right to do” doesn’t change based on environment [00:04:34]([00:04:34].

Landry’s non-relativistic ethics integrates aspects of three major historical schools of philosophical thought concerning ethics [00:03:07]([00:03:07], [00:04:22]([00:04:22]:

Historical Schools of Ethical Philosophy

  • Consequentialist School
    • This school evaluates ethics based on the result or consequences of an action [00:02:02]([00:02:02].
    • Utilitarianism is a well-known example, measuring the “greatest happiness for the greatest numbers” [00:02:06]([00:02:06].
  • Deontological School
    • Based on reason or a deep, universal morality [00:02:18]([00:02:18].
    • Kant’s categorical imperative, which suggests behaving as if everyone else would do the same, is an example [00:02:26]([00:02:26].
  • Virtue Ethics
    • An older school, famously propagated by Aristotle, focusing on right behavior from an internal perspective (e.g., courage, truthfulness, temperance) [00:02:41]([00:02:41]. It is currently experiencing a comeback [00:02:47]([00:02:47].

Landry’s framework begins with a values-based orientation akin to virtue ethics [00:06:23]([00:06:23], then moves into a foundational (deontological) perspective of universal principles for good choices [00:07:11]([00:07:11]. It also considers consequentiality, but from an “integrity point of view” rather than pure purpose [00:07:47]([00:07:47].

Key Concepts in Landry’s Ethics

Effective Choice

At the core of Landry’s ethics is the concept of “effective choice” [00:09:26]([00:09:26]. An effective choice accomplishes two things:

  1. It has a consequence, making something happen in the world [01:0:32]([01:0:32].
  2. It preserves or increases the potential for future choices [01:0:38]([01:0:38]. This focus on capacity building and potentiality is similar to the economic concept of “optionality” [01:11:10]([01:11:10]. All choices are uncertain, and one can never know all consequences, implying that ethics must account for incomplete information and the limits of prediction due to chaos and complexity [01:13:51]([01:13:51].

Ethics vs. Morality

Landry distinguishes between ethics and morality to highlight the general principles of choice [01:13:35]([01:13:35]:

  • Ethics: Focuses on universal principles of choice, applicable across different “worlds” or domains of action (e.g., online, workplace, family) [01:15:04]([01:15:04]. It pertains to what lives in the self as a guide for effective choice, independent of specific situations [01:16:11]([01:16:11].
  • Morality: Refers to specific rules or codes particular to a “game” or world (e.g., rules of a sport) [01:16:04]([01:16:04]. Landry notes that systems of morality defined in black-and-white terms can be problematic if they are too rigid and fail to adapt to changing circumstances [01:19:57]([01:19:57]. While once stating that black-and-white moralities are “antithetical to life,” he has softened this stance, recognizing the value of well-calibrated rule systems like legal codes for reducing cognitive load and building good habits [01:17:07]([01:17:07], [01:18:00]([01:18:00].

Integrity

Integrity is a primary concept in Landry’s framework, meaning “to act as one together” (from integras) [01:36:44]([01:36:44]. It involves coherency, cooperativeness, and diversity combining efforts to produce results greater than the sum of their parts [01:37:06]([01:37:06]. Ethics, as a set of practices, comes from understanding integrity in terms of:

  • The chooser’s integrity [01:37:51]([01:37:51].
  • The world’s integrity as affected by choices [01:37:54]([01:37:54].
  • The capacity-building of the “channel of connection” between self and reality [01:37:57]([01:37:57].

Symmetry and Continuity

To maximize potentiality and integrity in the relationship between the subjective self and objective reality, one must maximize “the combination of symmetry and continuity” [01:39:17]([01:39:17].

  • Symmetry: Refers to the correspondence between what is at one end of a communication channel (subjective) and what is at the other (objective) [01:41:07]([01:41:07]. Degradation occurs if there’s an absence of correspondence [01:41:26]([01:41:26].
  • Continuity: Relates to the smoothness of the energy transmission through the channel, avoiding abrupt shifts in intensity that could break communication [01:42:58]([01:42:58].

These two concepts have a conjugate relationship; perfect smoothness might mean no signal, but no signal means no symmetry either, implying that both are necessary but not perfectly achievable [01:44:45]([01:44:45].

Value, Meaning, and Purpose

These three concepts form a triple aspect that are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable [01:50:51]([01:50:51]. Landry uses the metaphor of a toaster to illustrate them [01:54:40]([01:54:40]:

  • Purpose: Ascribed from the outside by an external agent (e.g., a toaster’s purpose is to cook toast, or be a paperweight) [01:55:01]([01:55:01].
  • Value: Intrinsic worth, perceived from the inside (e.g., the value of the toaster’s raw materials like iron and copper, or if it were made of solid gold) [01:56:11]([01:56:11].
  • Meaning: Relates to the relationship or dynamic between the inside and outside, not solely internal or external (e.g., using a toaster to make breakfast in bed for a loved one adds a romantic, relational meaning) [01:57:52]([01:57:52].

Meaningfulness is the underlying concept, grounding both value and purpose [01:51:26]([01:51:26].

Self, Perception, and Expression

Landry’s concept of self is not limited to humans; it applies to any conscious entity or “beingness” [01:19:46]([01:19:46], including aliens in other universes [01:19:55]([01:19:55]. He posits that “choice has self” rather than the conventional “self has choice,” viewing self as an epiphenomenon of continuous choice [01:21:46]([01:21:46], [01:22:06]([01:22:06].

The relationship between self and world involves two directions of flow:

Ethical responsibility lies solely with one’s choices and expressions, not perceptions or knowing [01:24:45]([01:24:45]. This means thought crime should not be considered unethical [01:26:19]([01:26:19].

Want, Need, and Desire

Landry distinguishes between three concepts of human drives:

  • Want: Satisfied externally, requiring engagement with the outside world (e.g., a candy bar) [01:36:04]([01:36:04].
  • Need: Satisfied internally through an internal process (e.g., the body’s need for energy and growth from food) [01:36:28]([01:36:28].
  • Desire: Satisfaction occurs on the boundary, in relationship between internal and external (e.g., shared meaning in language) [01:37:10]([01:37:10].

Recognizing these distinctions helps in making effective choices and avoiding ineffective behaviors [01:38:10]([01:38:10].

Ethical Communication Principles

Good communication, essential for ethical interaction, is facilitated when each participant grants the other three rights [01:26:39]([01:26:39]:

  1. The right to speak [01:26:45]([01:26:45].
  2. The right to be understood [01:26:46]([01:26:46].
  3. The right to know that one has been understood [01:26:47]([01:26:47].

These rights establish a protocol for “good communication” that enables error correction and trust in the communicative process [01:28:00]([01:28:00]. This approach encourages cooperative engagement (mistake theory) rather than competitive interaction (conflict theory) [01:30:35]([01:30:35].

Challenges and Future Outlook

Landry cautions against relying solely on abstract intellectual considerations, such as “trolley problems,” for ethical reasoning [01:39:11]([01:39:11]. True ethical practice requires engaging with both thought and feeling to make high-quality choices [01:40:15]([01:40:15].

With increasing technological capabilities, the relevance of ethical thinking and feeling has grown exponentially [01:41:52]([01:41:52]. Principles of ethics guide individuals and communities to be in “right relationship” with the natural world and each other [01:42:23]([01:42:23], becoming crucial for civilization design and global survival [01:42:06]([01:42:06], [01:43:02]([01:43:02].

Graph View

Backlinks