Foreword
Chances are
excellent that you already have a system of morality that works for
you. This exercise isn’t intended to pry you away from a system you
find satisfactory and indoctrinate you into another. It’s simply to
demonstrate the practical usefulness of methodical reason, not only in
science and math, but as applied to common questions we all face, of
which human behavior is in some ways both the most universal and the most challenging. If logic can
be applied effectively to something as complexly human as morality, we
should be able to apply it—along with relevant knowledge—to any issue that stands to benefit
from organized thinking, from homemaking to medicine, from game playing
to criminology, from household plumbing to rocket science.
This exercise is intended to demonstrate the usefulness of logical
thinking about issues of everyday importance to virtually everyone.
Why ethics? Think about it: We’d be hard pressed to propose a topic of more universal and
fundamental concern than morality and ethics, which are key to living in
harmony with others of our species. As with any real-life experience,
in this exercise there's no instruction manual, no prepared checklist,
no flow chart, no formal evaluation, no answer sheet. You’re presented with an idea, and until you've read
and analyzed it, you have no
idea whether it's rational or irrational, true or false, beneficial or
harmful. You’re on your own as to how you evaluate it, apply it,
adapt it, or reject it. Use whatever logical tools you find useful to
perform your analysis. Take notes if you like, but also take care
not to distort ideas or
take them out of context. Examine evidence, rate the credibility
of
assumptions, critique the logical progression of connected ideas, and judge the
clarity and relevance of premises to the various points in question.
The
description and explanation of the ethic's structure, function, and
purpose span
several pages; but don't let that discourage you. For, unlike
many such works, it's written in a conversational style. Jargon is
avoided; non-standard terms are defined in plain language; and the
argument is organized in an orderly sequence. So, it shouldn’t be too
difficult to follow the progression of ideas, and to observe whether it
consistently exhibits good critical thinking or has troublesome
lapses of logic. Reading carefully, you should be able to identify
and analyze the various relationships in the text in terms of the basic
AND, OR, IF, IFF, and NOT structures discussed in the symbolic logic
lesson, as well as the structure of interconnected terms studied
in the lesson on categorical logic. You can trace the various
threads of reasoning from initial premises to their conclusions, and
then observe how the individual threads combine to form the fabric of
the ethic. If there are flaws in the reasoning, you should be able to
identify them as specific fallacies, or at least as errors of one of the
four general types we've studied.
But before
we begin, please take note of the following points:
First, the ethic is a serious endeavor in itself. It
is not an idle exercise in abstract reasoning, but rather a practical
approach to dealing with moral issues in the real world. Most of
the material here is copied directly from my paper "Developing a
Rational Ethic" (written 2011, revised 2013). Even readers
with little grasp of logic will likely find in the ethic interesting and
helpful ideas that can be put to practical use in day-to-day
decision-making, with or without critical analysis.
Second, however, a comprehensive understanding of
rational ethics requires an ability to think rationally—which
is to say, logically—which in turn is to say, clearly, coherently,
consistently, and corresponding to available evidence (in contrast to
merely conforming to the far weaker standards of existing opinion, belief, or tradition). Thus, to obtain
maximum benefit from this work, to be able to evaluate it intelligently,
one must have a working acquaintance with basic principles of logic: how
to use it correctly and consistently, how to identify fallacious ideas, and how to distinguish logic from rhetoric
and other less rigorous forms of thinking.
Third, understand that, as the author of this ethic, I make no claim that the reasoning
in this exercise is air-tight. It is, after all, a work in
progress, and will likely remain so for some time. While most of the
reasoning conforms to good logical practice, the astute reader might
find some instances in which the train of thought isn’t tightly
coherent, some assumptions aren’t robustly supported, and perhaps
some confusing points that could be interpreted in different ways.
However, simply disagreeing with the ideas presented isn’t enough to
count as proficiency in clear thinking. To be credible as a
critic, you must able to identify any
reasoning errors you encounter, and should be able to specify each
error at least as to which of the four general categories of fallacies
it represents. If you can do that, then you’re to be congratulated on
your mastery of critical reading skills! And if, further, you can
explain what impact any errors have on the conclusions of the work as a
whole, you can lay claim to analytical ability as well.
Fourth, I do not intend to imply that rational ethics are
categorically superior to traditional morality. I do, however,
point out what I consider the practical advantages and disadvantages of
each, and encourage you to develop your own conclusions, based on a fair
reading of the material and compared to whatever system of morality with
which you’re
already familiar. You might discover some helpful ideas you could adopt and
adapt. Or you might discover that you’re already using some of the
concepts described here, to supplement a traditional moral code in the
modern era. But even if you disagree entirely with rational ethics,
you’ll at least have observed the sort of reasoning that goes into such
a system, and thus acquire an appreciation for the useful potential of
methodical reasoning, not just in mathematics and science, but as
applied to everyday practical concerns of ordinary people.
►Next:
What Ethics Is & Why We Need It