Ethics can be boiled down to a theory of
ownership. A code of ethics can hold one of two positions: either human beings
possess self-ownership, or they do not. If they do not, only two options
remain: either human beings must own an equally distributed piece of everyone
else, or human beings arbitrarily own one another depending on relativity.
Because ethics has been defined as a universally applicable code of conduct, an ethic that surrounds itself by
relativity cannot be a useful or verifiable ethic. A proposal that states that
Bob owns Mike cannot be proven to be more valid than that of Mike owns Bob. It
is not universally applicable as it claims that a human being not only owns
himself but also has 200% ownership over himself and another person, while
simultaneously holding that a human being cannot own anything.
The other option holds that every individual owns a piece of every other
individual. This, similarly, cannot be held to the universal standard, as each
person would be required to get permission to do anything from everyone else in
the world in order to be a “good” society, including using one’s mouth to
breath and communicate said permission. The ethic necessarily self-collapses.
Another option could possibly be slipped
in: that no person “owns” anything. However, this proposition also necessarily
collapses, seeing as if no one owns anything, no one has the right to control
anything, including one’s self to communicate said ideas. Like the other
propositions, this cannot stand as an ethical structure.
The only remaining option is that of self-ownership. A rational code of ethics
necessarily holds that each person owns him or herself, dismissing the ethical
possibility of slavery. Furthermore, the theory implicates that claiming
ownership of another person is unethical, ruling out the possibility of murder,
rape, or physical assault as being “good.”
Because people own themselves, it logically follows that they own their actions, and
the effects of said actions. The same process as before could be applied to
prove the proposal, by demonstrating that the alternatives, which must either
incline that (1) everyone owns a piece of everyone else’s actions and effects,
or (2) people arbitrarily own one another’s actions and effects, necessarily
fail as rational ethics. This leaves the only logical conclusion being that
people own their actions and the effects of said actions.
This leads to two basic conclusions: people must be responsible for violating the ownership of one another, and
people own resources that they have created.
If Bob kills Mike, Bob has violated all of Mike’s ownership, and is therefore responsible for said murder (unless Mike
was trying to kill Bob to begin with; in which case, Bob would be exercising
whatever necessary in order to secure his self-ownership). However, if the
ethical standard cannot be applied to one party, it cannot be applied to the
other. If Mike were a worm, he would have no capacity to be responsible for
anything; thus, Bob cannot logically be responsible for the “murder” of killing
Mike if Mike cannot be responsible for killing Bob. The principle of
universality concludes that the responsibility of depriving one’s ownership is
one that applies to the human species, but not to incompetent species.
The second conclusion drawn from the ownership of one’s actions and effects is the ownership of property. Because
using natural resources is necessary for survival, an ethical standard must
hold that people have a right to use said resources, and in a universally
applicable way. Since everyone owning an equal piece of everything would
require the permission to use any resources from everyone else in the world,
including the air required to breath in order to communicate said permission,
an ethic which proposes such cannot logically stand. Similarly, an ethical
standard that holds that certain people hold arbitrary claims to certain
resources cannot be verified as a valid ethic. The result is the same as the
extension of self-ownership: that people own the effects of their actions,
including that of natural resources. For example, if one creates a fishing rod
out of an untouched tree branch, it can be said that he/she owns the fishing
rod.
Because people own their property, it logically follows that they can choose to transfer said ownership to that of
another person if they so please. If they desire to transfer ownership conditionally,
this can easily be arranged, establishing the legitimacy of trade. However, if
one were to simply take the property of another, this could not stand as an
ethical action, for this person’s claim to the property is no more valid than
the next guy’s, destroying the entire purpose of ethics. Thus, while trade is
ethical and beneficial, theft cannot be ethically upheld.
Neatly, this ownership theory falls into the “screaming chimp” ethic: that murder, slavery, rape, physical assault, and
theft are “wrongs.” These traits are so well ingrained in human nature that
they do not reside in the analytical part of the brain but the instinctual.
People have a basic understanding that pushing a fat man to stop a train is a
deprivation of his ownership rights.
Unfortunately, such ethical principles fall under Kohlberg’s post-conventional stage of moral development, which many
people do not practice. Instead, people often typically carry out the
conventional stage of moral development, which is to follow whatever the
authority dictates. As demonstrated in the Milgram Experiment, half of
participants were willing to murder a person from electric shocks because they were
told to do so by a seemingly legitimate authority (Brown).
Ethical codes of conduct can be useful to guide people’s behavior, but such ethical principles must be taught and
practiced in order to be of practical use. Too often, ethical principles are
thrown out in the name of authority or other arbitrary criteria. In order to
achieve an ethical society, we must not forget our moral and instinctual
principles. As time has gone by, society has become increasingly ethical, and I
can only hope that such a trend will continue.
Brown, Derren. "Milgram Experiment." YouTube. YouTube, 15 July 2007. Web. 6. Jul. 2014. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)