Jamiline Marie C.

Lebrilla 2007-40741 Ethics for Human Survival Human beings are obsessed with the idea of right and wrong, good and evil. And throughout history, they have created standards by which to judge themselves and their actions. These standards can be ones own feelings, the norms of a society, its traditions, religion, or the laws of a state. For many, these can be taken as their own moral standard, a set of rules by which societies

proscribe. However, two societies with different beliefs or moral standards cant both be right. This is why certain religions like the Muslims and the Christians have created an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-powerful being called

Allah for the former, and God for the latter, to be arbiters of good and evil, right and wrong, with absolute authority. However, I believe that in the era we live in, we are gradually moving away from this idea or belief in an

absolute authority, and if you take it away, what you are left with, are societies with their subjective beliefs Samuel Huntington claimed that after the Cold War,

wars would no longer be between state versus state, but culture versus culture. Conflicting traditions, norms, and

morals would result in cultural clashes. This is already happening now in our time. In Sudan alone, where they have Christians, religions incredibly Muslims, and those each practicing other, War was Sudanese are

rubbing high.

elbows Even

with the

tensions not

Cold

purely

political, or a grab for power, it was also moral, as the morals of liberal states in NATO, where incredibly

different from the morals of communist states within the Warsaw Pact. What can we assume from this, except that a world where there is not one objective moral standard is doomed to chaos? The current existence of moral standards is nothing but a plushy blanket. It has no real leg to stand on. Chaos, however, is the reason why morals are

necessary. A moral standard institutes certain rules which everyone understands, and know they must live by. Such an understanding makes for a more peaceful society and

increases the survival of the humanity. However, what is necessary in this day and age, are morals which set the standard for the whole planet. As long as such a standard is nonexistent, chaos, or warring, is the default scenario on Earth.

Concept of Man Man is inherently self-interested. His actions are

guided by what he assumes will give him the highest selfsatisfaction. Goals can range from small to large, with feelings ranging from a small sense of pleasure, to an ever flowing ecstasy of triumph. He may weigh possible actions from short-term, to long-term benefit; however, what it

still boils down to is self-satisfaction. Man is also an irrational being. Though he has a

brain, and the ability to think logically and reasonably, emotions inevitably get in the way of rational thinking and lead him to commit foolish mistakes. Therefore, man is

predisposed to be stupid. Because, what else would you call it if a man already knows the right action to do, but is inclined to do the opposite? From this, we can see that man is a foolish being. This is why, of all sins, the greatest sin of a man is to allow his irrationality to take control of him. Man must always try to be rational. Sometimes, this means trying to appear irrational on the surface, in order to adhere to the irrationality because Religion he of a society. keep Galileo his Galilei was to killed

could

not

rationality organized

himself. of

is

also

the

most

industry

irrationality in the world.

Ethics It is hard, however, to always know what a rational or irrational action is. I submit then, that the only rational standard is racial survival. This is the prime function of any society. All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. There is no other

universal morality possible. Attempts to create a perfect society on any foundation other than women and children first is automatically genocidal. Against this standard, survival of the, rational decisions must be made. I believe in right and wrong, but not good and evil. History has shown that the separation between these two concepts is as muddied as a sinkhole. There is never just black and white, but only grey. from birth, I have been However, I do know that influenced to

subconsciously

subscribe to a certain worldview, with all its attendant biases and irrationalities. Therefore, there is one moral standard in one society, which supersedes another, though they all agree that survival is the end goal. In trying to dispense all other surplus beliefs, I submit hurting survival. that one must always make in sure the one to act, without of at

anyone When

unnecessarily, I say

achievement must look

unnecessary,

necessary hurts. First, you think of it at the level of

individual risk to your person, if the other is not hurt necessarily. Next, you must think of it at the level of family, then of a of of larger group such as a tribe or a

community, Despite

then

your state, then of the human race. the is human how race humans being think the of endpoint, matters

survival

realistically,

this

pertaining to them. Again, self-interest rules, despite the fact that individually, mans chances for survival

dwindles. This is why collective security between states is necessary. Are the pains towards individuals or groups necessary? If a man enjoys hurting anyone unnecessarily, then it is action without purpose and is irrational. In actions against others, whether it be preventive or preemptive defense does not matter. A man is required to choose an action of guaranteed If to you produce see that the highest is

percentage

success.

defeat

inevitable, then you must run. It is better to be a live coward than a dead hero. With regard to Man in its entirety as the human race, they are morally required to act in ways which improve the human whole, race, must or be heighten done. to its chances for survival as a be in

Even this

human

experimentation If

can

justified

according

concept.

improvement

human evolution heightens survival, then it must be done.

Ideal State The government is not required to do good, only that it must refrain from doing evil. Any policy can be seen as evil or good from any standpoint. A state must only ensure that it refrains from doing evil as much as possible. My ideal state would be one which encompasses the entire planet, and one wherein all people subscribe to only one set of rules, norms, traditions, or morals. This

ensures that a conflict of understanding would not happen. In the current status-quo, an organization which has international membership would be the United Nations. In my ideal state, the UN would be the world government, with the Prime (topmost leader), voted on by council members. These council members are heads of the various sectors in which Earth has now been divided by. These council members, in turn, are chosen, not by the vote of the citizens, but through a system of tests who are composed of several

hundred levels, each level becoming more difficult than the one before it. Each test is tailor fitted for the purpose of administration. This would ensure that sector leaders are actually due experts to in administration, amounts of and not mere as is

winners

overabundant

charisma,

possible in a voting system.

In turn, the underlings below these sector leaders are chosen, according to the tests they have passed. Positions within this world state are chosen purely by merit. And by the time they reach sector leader position, they would have had more than enough practical application. As long as they perform well, they cannot be replaced. This ensures that people in government positions will think of more long-term policies. And since they are no longer dependent upon the votes of the citizenry, they will not spend their time and money on projects that cater to these prospective voters. However, since the politicians are no longer dependent upon votation, into in in a they may not take is the choices through to of the

citizens citizens

account. certain that

Which sector

why,

votation, depose a

are

allowed

politician

sector as long as the majority have

voted against him. In enamored order with to ensure that citizens do not become to sector, and start constructing an

their

otherness mindset, which can result in sector to sector conflict, or war, citizens are required to migrate to

another sector every six years. In this way, there will emerge a mindset of themselves as global citizenry,

instead of citizens of just one state.

Conclusion I realize that my ethics is no clearer than any other, nor does it is become what any makes more it justifiable. appropriate as However, an its

ambiguity

ethical

standard. If there were one ethical standard in the world that becomes completely unambiguous, it wouldnt be an

ethical standard, it would be a mandate handed down from God and written tighter than a contract. It would be a law, not a moral value. However, I believe that my morals clear up the issues which other thinkers or groups normally inject into their moral standards. If we go back to the very essence of the issue, which is survival, and discard inessentials, then it makes for a clearer by purpose religion, for human actions. and others Moral only

standards

taught

society,

confuse the lines between rational and irrational actions. It is due to these screwed-up morals that such issues as slavery, genocide, and religious wars occur. I have grown to understand that I must never underestimate the extent of human foolishness, as by certain standards, this human

foolishness can be justified. Both sides of a war never think theyre in the wrong. These add-ons and other superfluous issues of these moral standards only increase the bouts of human

irrationality in the world. They make people forget and become self-destructive. This is because these morals teach people to have a screwed-up set of priorities. If their self-interest is controlled by irrational morals, then the human race is doomed to be constantly in conflict.