From: jimruttshow8596
Forrest Landry’s “non-relativistic ethics” framework focuses on the concept of effective choice, defined not merely by outcomes but also by the preservation and increase of the capacity for future choices [00:05:05] [00:10:30]. This approach integrates aspects of virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialism [03:25:27].
Non-Relativistic Ethics and Effective Choice
Landry’s ethics is “non-relativistic” because it posits universal principles that apply to choice itself, independent of specific situations or choosers [00:05:05]. This contrasts with relativistic ethics, where “what is right to do is gonna depend upon the situation that one is in” [00:04:34].
While his framework starts with a values-based orientation (like virtue ethics), it moves to a foundational perspective (deontological) and considers outcomes (consequentialist) in terms of “integrity” [03:38:01].
The core of effective choice involves creating change and preserving the capacity to create change, or even increasing that capacity [00:10:56]. This emphasis on “capacity building” is akin to the economic concept of “optionality,” which is generally considered beneficial [00:11:10] [00:12:00].
Ethics vs. Morality
Landry distinguishes “ethics” from “morality”:
- Ethics: Focuses on general principles of choice that apply universally, regardless of the “world” or context one is in [00:14:44] [00:16:11].
- Moral Codes: Refer to specific rules or codes particular to a “game” or a “world” (e.g., rules of a sport, workplace conduct, family settings) [00:15:15] [00:16:05].
Historically, the tendency to define right or wrong in absolute terms can impede the ability to act ethically by removing the possibility of choice [01:06:41] [00:17:24]. However, Landry later softened this stance, recognizing the value of “well-calibrated rule systems” like legal codes for enabling civilization processes and reducing cognitive load [01:07:07] [01:08:00]. These are human constructs, not immutable metaphysical truths [01:09:34].
Self and Choice
The concept of “self” in Landry’s work is not limited to human-type selves but extends to any subjective entity capable of choice [01:59:59]. This theory would apply to “aliens living in some other universe” [01:59:59]. Instead of “self has choice,” it’s “choice has self,” implying that the self is an epiphenomenon of the continuous co-occurrence of choice [02:18:22]. This perspective suggests that an entity lacking capacity for choice (like a rock, in the context of integrated information theory) would not be considered a “self” [02:34:01].
Principles of Effective Choice
Integrity, Potentiality, Life, and Evolution
To increase the effectiveness of choice, one must simultaneously preserve integrity and increase the potentiality of both life and evolution [00:34:20].
- Integrity: Defined as “to act as one together” [00:36:49]. It signifies coherency, cooperativeness, and diversity combining to produce results greater than the sum of their parts [00:37:06]. Ethics, as a set of practices, arises from this concept of integrity [00:37:46].
Symmetry and Continuity
Maximizing potentiality and integrity involves maximizing the combination of symmetry and continuity in the relationship between self (subjective) and reality (objective) [00:39:17]. This can be understood through the metaphor of a communication channel:
- Symmetry: Refers to the correspondence between what is at one end of the channel (subjective) and the other (objective) [00:41:09]. A lack of symmetry indicates degradation in the integrity of the communication channel [00:41:26].
- Continuity: Relates to the smoothness of energy transmission through the channel, avoiding abrupt shifts that could disrupt communication or harm the medium [00:42:58] [00:44:09].
While these concepts are abstract, they become richer when considering the “contents” of self and world, such as a person’s evolving understanding of botany [00:46:51].
Value, Meaning, and Purpose
These three concepts are distinct, inseparable, and non-interchangeable, forming a “triple aspect” [00:50:51]. Meaningfulness is considered the underlying concept, with value and purpose existing in a reciprocal relationship within its context [00:51:26].
- Purpose: Ascribed from the outside, like a toaster’s function [00:55:49].
- Value: Intrinsic worth, inherent to the item itself, not dependent on external ascription [00:56:15].
- Meaningfulness: The relationship between self and reality; it’s neither purely internal nor external, residing in the dynamic of interaction [00:57:52]. For example, making toast for a loved one adds a romantic, narrative meaning beyond its mere function or intrinsic worth [00:58:01].
Understanding the meaning of one’s life is crucial for making good choices [00:52:59].
Want, Need, and Desire
These also relate to where satisfaction occurs:
- Want: Satisfied externally (e.g., buying a candy bar) [01:36:06].
- Need: Satisfied internally (e.g., body metabolizing food for energy and growth) [01:36:28].
- Desire: Satisfied on the “boundary between the inside and the outside,” requiring relationship (e.g., the shared understanding of a word in a language) [01:37:17].
Identifying these correctly is essential for effective action [01:38:39].
Challenges to Effective Choice
- Uncertainty and Incomplete Information: All choices involve uncertainty, and one can never know all consequences, partly due to chaos and complexity and fundamental non-determinism in the universe (e.g., quantum mechanics) [00:32:10] [00:31:20].
- Over-reliance on Abstraction: Academic “trolley problems” and other hypotheticals are often misleading because real-life choices are embodied, requiring “the practice of feeling as much as with the process of thinking” [01:40:12] [01:39:29].
- Communication Failures: Effective communication is best facilitated when participants grant each other the right to speak, the right to be understood, and the right to know one has been understood [01:26:39]. This is a “protocol” for high-integrity communication, enabling error correction and the emergence of a “larger reason” [01:28:00]. Suppressing these rights (e.g., through assuming malice or stupidity, typical of “conflict theory” rather than “mistake theory”) makes ethical communication impossible [01:30:17] [01:30:35].
- Sociopathic Tendencies: Highly integrated sociopaths, while perhaps effective at exploiting niches, can be destructive to community integrity [01:15:52] [01:16:17]. However, from an evolutionary perspective, neurodiversity, including traits like sociopathy (exploitative) and autism (creative), might be necessary for a species to endure and thrive in varied circumstances [01:17:07] [01:17:40]. The increasing prevalence of these traits in modern society is a “major hazard” to civilization, highlighting the need for civilization structures resistant to “game A” (sociopathic) processes [01:33:04] [01:19:31] [01:21:04].
Practical Importance
The increased capacities brought by technology make the relevance of ethical thinking and feeling more crucial than ever [01:42:44]. Applying these principles to individual lives, communities, and nations is essential for navigating existential risks and designing a sustainable civilization [01:42:06].