Home

My view of morality is pragmatic: I believe that the simplest and most productive definitions of morals should be based on making as many people as possible happy.

Thus, that which is unambiguously right produces pleasure, comfort, and satisfaction in oneself or in others without infringing on the happiness of parties to which the action was not directed. In this regard, an unexpected favor, aid given in a time of need, forgiveness toward one who has wronged another, warm words to show caring or sympathy, friendly conversations, a dance with another or alone, or making love (between consenting adults) are unambiguously right.

Of course, the examples that I have listed are either personal or shared by only a few; whenever an action involves many parties, it becomes more difficult to judge whether it is ``right''. It is not always possible to make everyone happy, and one sometimes has to sacrifice some of the happiness of one party in favor of the needs and concerns of another. I believe, for instance, that is necessary and proper to demand that industrialize nations (especially the United States) reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by burning fossil fuels. Unfortunately, doing so will necessarily force some people, such as coal miners, to look for other jobs. Still, the loss that the minority suffers is far less severe than that which many will suffer if the climate were to warm even a few degrees. Moreover, it is nearly always possible to minimize the suffering of the few when a proper decision is made. One could re-train the coal miners for other jobs, for example.

That which is undesirable is something which reduces the happiness of others in the process of benefitting a few. A clique is undesirable when it limits the access of those outside of the clique to priveleges that they would otherwise be able to enjoy, such as friendship or or conversation or the monkey-bars. On a larger scale, corporations often seem to enjoy the special favors of many politicians, and are thus able to secure exemptions from laws or special benefits and ``incentives'' that run contrary to poorer constituents that have far less influence with the polititions.

I would also call something wrong when it is does violence to one's self. Self-hatred should never be encouraged in a person; it is important to help people find what is worthy within themselves, provide people with anything they may need to be truly self-confident. Curiosity, empathy, and understanding must be nurtured in each individual. Moreover, I believe that aceticism and attempts to dominate one's natural urges do injustice to what one is as a human--- it takes someone free and lively and capable and turns them into a self-righteous and proud island of passionlessness and disinterest.

Something is unambiguously ``wrong'' when its sole purpose is to oppress or injure another party, whether or not the perpetrator of the wrong receives any benefit from the action. Cold-blooded murder, robbery, extortion, and rape are wrong because they harm or even ruin the victim of the crime. On matters like these, it is easy to see the immorality of the action, and every society has created laws to deter people from and deal with people for committing such crimes.

Clearly, I have not appealed to any divine authority in my definition of morality. I do not feel that this is necessary, because each person has his or her own sense of what is right for them, and can understand that which brings hapiness to others. In judging right and wrong, what we are as a product of nature must be taken into account. Nature itself passes no moral judgement. While we as humans have somehow obtained the capability of controlling nature, and of freeing ourselves from our basest urges, we must limit ourselves to preventing one party from obliterating another's happiness, and not obliterate those things which make us happy and balanced humans in the process.

We can and should go beyond nature and prevent the weak from being oppressed by the powerful. There can be no excuse for letting the ill or disabled die from neglect or malice, simply because they are ``weak'' or ``inferior.''

We also have a responsibility to care for the environment, and even for the well-being of other species, becuase we can see the destruction we are capable of inflicting, and we have some knowledge of our dependance on the balance of nature, and the joy which we receive from it.

I see no good reason for imposing an arbitrary system of reward or punishment, a ``Heaven'' or a ``Hell'', in order to ensure morality. When someone is ``right'', I believe that the happiness they receive and impart is in itself reward for the action.

When someone is wrong, I believe that it is because they have either lost sight of the hapiness of others, decided to put their own happiness above that of others, or simply gone insane. I do not believe that any wrong deserves vindictive punishment. Certainly, if it is possible to repay the victim of the crime, this should be done; however, the emphasis of justice should be to bring the one who has committed the wrong to see how the crime has injured those around him, and in that manner to ensure that that person will not repeat his crime. I do not believe a person should be ``locked up'' as an example for others to fear, much less to prove that some politician is ``tough on crime''. I believe that we must avoid our natural tendency to ``pay back'' our enemies; it is an ugly and counter-productive aspect of human nature.

In the end, I hope to make the good of all my goal, and lay aside the spite and vengefulness and violence that has so long plagued the application of morals.

Myself

Research

Reasons

Photographs

Links