Rational Ethics vs. Authoritarian Ethics

How is motivation to do good acquired? How can decisions as to what is right be legitimated? Is fear of punishment necessary? Can ethics be a source of joy? Can it be the primary source of joy?
Post Reply
wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Rational Ethics vs. Authoritarian Ethics

Post by wvanfleet »

I believe that we have always had a naturally occurring ethics, that I call "authoritarian ethics," that is a part of our basic animal nature. It's ultimate ethical principle, in contrast to the REUEP, is that we should obey X, namely, whoever or whatever is most powerful. Thus, we are primarily concerned about what X wants and how X will react, X being parent, leader, peer group, king, deity, etc.

I believe that we also have "rational ethics," which has as its ultimate ethical principle the REUEP, but this is very undeveloped and weak. It is a new development, based upon our capability for intensive empathy, made possible by our capability for language, but still very undeveloped. This capacity for empathy, combined with our newly developed ability to use the rules of logic and the rules of evidence (giving us science and technology), now is allowing us to have empathy for our species, for people all over the globe. Still, however, this empathy is quite weak, and we still have the ability to remain unconcerned about people not close to us.

I think that what will make the difference, that is, what will allow us to develop a much stronger ethical motivation to go along with the REUEP will be our increasing use of the rational-ethical model of child rearing (as opposed to the naturally occurring authoritarian model, based strongly upon obedience reinforced by punishment).

Bill Van Fleet
Humanian

Post Reply