Theoretical Ethics.

“Ethics is a logistical problem, Michelle. We may be reacting thru a moral or emotional justification but when it comes down to it — i mean come on. Do you actually love everyone? Actually love all humanity? Ethics in our modern day is a default of not being able to remove whom you disagree with. Diplomacy is the rationale after we realize that extermination is just not logistically feasible.

For example: The lumping of terrorism into ‘all Muslims’ is a reaction — it is a kind of Fruedian slip, a revealing of a suppressed desire that floods over view. Its not that really i might want All Muslims removed. It is that i cant remove the jihadist terrorists. I simply cant destroy them all. Let alone sort out who they might be. They are like heads of a hydra; i would have to destroy the whole animal at once, and this is just plain impossible. 

Simply speaking, people will always react to create the social dissonance we expect in order to justify what we consider some emotional morality that we generalize as ethics…”

        – Young Lee. At the First Talk Concerning Theoretical Value.  

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

2 thoughts on “Theoretical Ethics.”

  1. I don’t think ethics is essentially a logistical problem. I think ethics is essentially about what we ought to do. What Young Lee has said here sounds more like an evaluation of what people tend to do. Maybe it is insightful and accurate, but if it is, I can’t tell how this line of thought leads toward answers to an essential ethical question: What ought we do?

    “Love all humanity” sounds like a very good, anchoring thought for ethics. There are sound reasons to love all humanity, and it is a proposition that can help lead us toward answers to the question, What ought we do?

    We do fall short in loving one another, but I don’t know how relevant that fact is to ethics.


    1. Their conversation went off all sorts of ways. It I think I can speak to what Mr lee was saying.

      He is speaking of now, presently, but that of course there are those who see emotions and oughts as stemming from a source to a ‘center’ of a person. He is not addressing this type. In fact the ‘Talk’ was a meeting of certain four people that claim toward ‘leaving’ or ‘having left’ real determinations.

      I suppose that’s what makes the leaving difficult.

      But they talk as if it’s already occurred, that certain questions no longer need addressing for they have already been answered, the roots of such questioned already been answered and the answers agreed upon.

      I think the point he is making ( this is just a small excerpt) is that there would be no need for ‘loving your enemy’ if one could remove the enemy. So the problem is that one simply cannot do this, not because is ethically wrong, but that it becomes ethically wrong because there is no way to remove the enemy entirely, that to enact a removal merely makes the enemy more antagonistic and thereby threatens the person who would otherwise have removed them. So in the long run to remove the enemy, or attempt to remove them, only results in either a destruction of oneself, or a situation of mutual hatred. If oneself is destroyed the the enemy, then whatever ethics was Informing the enemy to its incorrect, wrong, or evil, no longer exists and so becomes a moot point. In the case of a stalemate of mutual hatred then the one must come to terms with the enemy, must figure out how to live constructively with this enemy, and do this most efficiently, with little more wasted effort. Hence ethics is a logistical problem.

      I’d say that this remark can stem the evidence of ww2. Hitler is understood to have philosophical justification at least in the reason how he came about, what in philosophical history allowed for that Socialist Nationalist situation.

      The point is is that he failed. But it is not seen as a failure because of some morality, some goodness prevailed. It was not that we loved The Nazis to death. It was that it could not be entirely destroyed. Still we have racism and all sorts of evil.

      Hence, ethics (goodness; the way moral people proceed in the world, the way our capitalist western government type shakes activity) is a response, a conditioned response, to not being able to remove the problem.

      I tend to like this. Because, if I could remove people that I had a problem with, I would not have to get along with them, and I would not have to love my enemy. I would be happy loving my Nieghbor because I indeed felt a comradely to them, disagreement would be a constructive measure, instead of an ‘ethical’ imperative.

      But it seems to me pretty hypothetical and hard to actualize.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s