This video shows the lack of thought well-meaning people give to important social issues. As you watch these interviews, done at an anti-abortion rally, you will see the confusion, lack of thinking the issue through, and even abdication of responsibility for any consequences of this fervent belief.

THE PURPOSE OF ETHICS

    To live is to make choices. Most of us believe that lying, cheating and stealing are wrong and we base many of our choices according to these values. But why are these actions considered to be wrong? Why are codes of ethics devised?

    We choose a course of action so that a desired result will be achieved in a given situation. Then we justify what we did. We are geniuses at justifying actions that we know at some deep level to be wrong. Rather than strain the brain thinking through the consequences ahead of time, we dive right in full speed ahead to get what we want. Our species is very opportunistic.

    When the consequences of our deeds catch up with us, we take a course of action so that we can shirk responsibility, and then we justify the abdication. This moral confusion continues on and on, the line of reasoning circling back on itself, re-crossing previous trains of thought, like a kitten playing with a ball of yarn. Or a Congress formulating a national social policy. Then we console ourself with ridiculous aphorisms like “the law of unintended consequences.” As if the fact that good intentions negate the predictability of how things turned out.

    Somewhere our line of reasoning must make a full stop where not every action or decision is for the sake of something else. A final objective goal must be derived which will act as a standard to which all lesser goals must conform, a principle by which to judge all other values and actions. Ideally, such an ultimate standard would be universal.

INTRODUCTION TO NEO-ETHICS: DEFINITIONS

   In order to simplify ethics from what has been an ivory-tower study into a common tool for resolving daily problems, we must not inject more vagueness into what is already a murky area. The terms that are used from now on must be clearly defined with a view to universal application.

 Morals and Ethics: Morals are akin to mores, which are folkways. The word stems from the plural of the Latin word mos, meaning a way of carrying oneself, a custom as determined by usage, but not by law. The derivation of the word ethics is from the Greek ethos, meaning character, which is linked to ethimo, meaning custom. Thus moralistic ethics have been established by customary usage and are not necessarily based upon objective reasoning, like not eating meat on Fridays.

 Neo-Ethics (Universal Objective Ethics): Neo-Ethics is objectively rational. Neo-Ethics is not a list of moral platitudes; it is established on the laws of nature in consideration of optimum survival (def. follows). Neo-Ethics is the study of basing actions, codes of behavior, and choices upon the continued existence of man the individual, of Mankind, and of the symbiotes of Mankind. Neo-Ethics is the ultimate study of survival, even subsuming and resolving conflicts between economics and ecology. Neo-ethics is built upon a foundation of the survival-based tenets of moralistic ethics, such as proscriptions against murder, theft, lying, etc.; it can state why these actions are wrong in terms of optimum survival, and is absolutely not formulated in terms of good/bad, right/wrong, sinful/not a sin.

 Survival: In the context of Neo-Ethics, survival is not a self-centered, hoarding-of-food-and-guns subject; it is the study of Man as a socialized organism with a conscience who sees the survival of other people and other life forms as enhancing personal survival over the long term.

 Spheres of Survival: A rational person understands that he or she does not survive only as an individual. The Neo-Ethicist knows that one’s personal survival is dependent upon the survival of others in other spheres and that it is thus very sane to promote this survival. A few examples of spheres of survival are: individuals, families, social groups, tribes, political parties, nations, continents, ethnic groups, religions, Mankind, other individual species and the biosphere as a whole, of which Mankind is a part. An individual’s survival can be peeled like an onion, sphere by sphere, to the core of individuality. The reader can undoubtedly list many spheres of survival in his or her own life. As an exercise, such self-discovery will enhance social sanity; active promotion of survival of self and others in these spheres will lead to increased survival potential and enrichment of the quality of life. Ultimately, we will discover new spheres of survival when we encounter other life forms in space exploration. We must be ready to behave ethically as we interact with them.

 Optimum Survival: This is the maximum survival of the most spheres (as defined above) that it is possible to bring about over the long term. To determine this, the objective effects of courses of action must be plotted over a significant period of time as they affect the survival of each sphere touched. A significant period of time is defined as the amount of time needed for a course of action to mature to its observable result. The Native Americans recommend seven generations. In contrast, corporate planning is focused on the next quarter-year!

 Neo-Ethical Problem Solving: The goal is to attain optimum survival. If every sphere of survival gains over the long run (no one sphere takes home all the goodies) then you have done a superb job of Neo-Ethical problem solving. You will not attain optimum survival by head-counting. This is not survival of the many versus survival of the few; nor is it the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And this procedure is definitely not an adversarial, this-versus-that formulation. It is time to grow up and stop believing that you lose if you don’t win it all.

NO MAN (OR CULTURE) IS AN ISLAND ANYMORE

    Immanuel Kant stated that human insight is strictly limited; he did not, however, feel that this state was regrettable. If we knew more, he said, we would then not base our actions upon duty and would thus lose the opportunity to manifest good will, upon which Kant established ethical behavior. Kant’s influence on ethical thought in the West was profound. However, such non-objective values as good will no longer will serve a multi-ethnic global community into a future that will demand increasing socio-economic and ecological cooperation.

    Why is it so important to evolve a system of universal ethics that can be argued rationally and objectively? Simply because we do not live, as we did for millenia, in societies isolated from one another by vast distances and the months and years it took to traverse them. The past century, particularly the last decade, has transformed Mankind into a pluralistic, interdependent global society. If we are to move forward from the current Babel and create any kind of evolved civilization, we must find some way to devise harmony from dissonance without imposing any one group’s morals on another (an unethical act because it destroys culture and autonomy) and without losing any of our marvelous diversity. Harmony means that a rich chorus of notes is being consciously sung at compatible wavelengths. It does not mean every voice is singing the same note.

    A survey of the Ibo, the Kalahari Bushmen, the Aleut, Chinese rice farmers, and Colombian coffee growers, not to mention the more developed cultures, will show that these disparate peoples all have in common things like wanting to be allowed to do honorable work; valuing those who are loyal, keep promises and are responsible citizens; and for the children to have a better life than the parents -- in other words, survival goals and values that enhance survival. The key to ethical harmony, and the only thing that all living organisms have in common, is the will to live. It is not possible to get any more basic than that in objective terms.

    You have something in common with a paramecium: the drive to survive. And when we encounter other life forms from other planets, with cultures and physiologies vastly different from ours, we will have at least that much in common with them and can form beneficial relationships building upon this mutual need.

    Basing an objective universal ethical code upon survival according to the definitions given above is the only method of ensuring the continued evolution of the subject of ethics as a useful tool that can be used by any sphere of survival in interaction with any other sphere. Neo-Ethics will be just as useful to a corporation when dealing with an irate customer as it will be to that corporation when deciding what to do regarding an endangered species; to a Congress deciding how to handle the country’s affairs in the world market as it will be in formulating a housing policy; and to NASA when it encounters creatures living on the chosen site of its new Mars base.

CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES USING NEO-ETHICS

    Morals are rules governing behavior, but morals are often based on arbitraries. They are many times just “good” behaviors stemming from nothing objective, rather on habit or on some authority, i.e., “that is the way we have always done it,” “our religious teaching says so,” “my parents said so.” Morals have high emotional values attached to them and are seen by people as the way to be a good person; therefore, most people will fight for this rightness even though they have not thought it through unemotionally. Whenever you see an issue that has degenerated into a shouting match, you are seeing debate actually muddied by morality and not yet clarified by Neo-Ethical thought.
    Some simple examples of clarifying issues will follow here. Many issues are much more complex and require specialized, even scientific, expertise to unravel, such as bioengineering, ecology, chemistry, oil drilling, etc. However, even in specialty issues, the Neo-Ethical basics remain fundamental to resolution.

    • The taste some Oriental immigrants have for dog flesh fueled the outrage that resulted in a new California law. Is there really any difference between killing a dog for food and killing a chicken or steer for food? To object to the killing for food of a species of animal that you have emotional attachments to is an arbitrary. This is a moral issue, not a Neo-Ethical one. The Neo-Ethical issue is whether human survival depends upon killing and eating any animal (resulting in its non-survival). A dead animal cut into filets and chops in your freezer is a dead animal, regardless of whether one person considers it a gourmet nosh or another his best friend. However, it is much easier for the non-dog-eating majority to push through a law against the eating of pets than it is for them to confront whether or not they should be having any animal killed for food.

    • We will all soon be choking on poisonous fumes and turning blue from lack of oxygen because we have been very unethical in our actions regarding trees. This is an excellent example of how Neo-Ethical thought encompasses the survival of other life forms and points out, inarguably, how our survival is interdependent with them. At issue here is the survival of loggers and farmers in undeveloped countries and our own Northwest who seek a better life at the expense of the trees which supply oxygen for humanity. However, if we are going to take away their current livelihood so that we can continue to breathe, then part of our Neo-Ethical solution must include some form of survival cushion (“safety net”) for those who must change their method of making a living: their long-term survival and economic independence must also be considered in the resolution. The destruction of trees is particularly heinous because there are substitutes for trees in the making of paper and building of homes. Hemp can be used for paper; our Constitution was written on hemp paper! Homes can be made from steel salvaged from the over-abundance of junked cars. There is no excuse, at least in the United States, for the mass destruction of trees.

    • The confusion of moral arbitraries with Neo-Ethical imperatives can even lead to official corruption. During the Victorian Era, German Christian missionaries went into the Fiji Islands and became involved in a conspiracy with traders to create a market for cloth goods. That the natives went about virtually naked inflamed the moral sensibilities of the missionaries who, being the Colonial law and government, surely felt righteous in decreeing that the natives would have to wear European garb, which at that time consisted of yards and yards of cloth. The natives were thus rectified according to Victorian morality, and coincidentally had to buy their cloth from German traders, who made generous contributions to the missionaries. Unfortunately, the imposition of Victorian morality upon the Fijians left the door open for corruption. If Mankind only allowed objectively logical laws that promoted the survival of all parties involved over the long term, no law could possibly have been passed banning near-nudity in a tropical paradise. Unethical parasites can hide behind an emblem of moral righteousness and legality while enriching themselves at the expense of a less sophisticated culture. Many individuals today have a vague sense that this kind of conduct is not right, but could not argue why it is not ethical. Basing ethical conduct upon optimum survival is very workable and becomes easier with practice.

THE EFFECT OF MORAL CONFUSION UPON THE FUTURE

    A prime example of the moral confusion described in the first paragraph, our current “War on Drugs” is nothing more than a war on logic and a war on the respect that future generations should have for the law and the value of true ethical behavior. The inconsistencies that are immediately apparent, the conflicts of principles, and the rampant hypocrisy of authority figures will not only doom this “war” to failure, but will create such cynical contempt for ethics and the law among a whole upcoming generation that it may take decades to reverse the consequences.

         • Cocaine is illegal and bad for you, but alcohol is not? A federal judge, when challenged on a talk show about this inconsistency, shrugged his shoulders and answered that “the people” chose to make alcohol legal and other drugs illegal. What kind of answer is that? The judge totally avoided the issue and abdicated responsibility. How could the judge have answered? He could have acknowledged the correctness of that observation, that, yes, it is hypocritical and that more thought and debate is needed to clarify the issue so that the law can be made to reflect objective logic and scientifically-derived conclusions.

    • Your dad won’t let you go to a party and smoke a joint, but he goes to a party and gets drunk.

    • Drug dealers go to prison; bartenders do not.

    • There are those who call for military intervention in any foreign country that cultivates and exports deadly, addictive drugs to the United States. Yet, we export a deadly, addictive drug: tobacco. What do you think these same militant Americans would do if Taiwan or Turkey were to attack South Carolina tobacco farmers, spraying their crop with herbicide?

    • Alcohol was illegal, but we realized we could not legislate this type of behavior, that enforcing Prohibition actually created devastating social problems, so we made alcohol legal again despite the drug’s obvious harm to health and social behavior. Here we go repeating this cycle with cocaine and other illegal drugs as if no lesson were learned. If stupidity is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result, then what have we to say about the current creation of gangsters and the violence associated with the smuggling of illegal substances?

    Other morally-based laws that make no sense objectively are so-called blue laws. Such laws could be considered curiosa except for the cultural degradation that they cause. The effect on our children is simply devastating.

    If I were a child, I would be disgusted with adults and the government; I would be very frightened of a future steeped in arbitraries, illogic and chaos; and I would be confused from the lack of guidance -- eventually coming to believe that no one can really know right from wrong, that there are no basic ethical principles. Naturally, it is a very short step from such thinking to criminal and destructive behaviors. The question becomes not one of right and wrong (which they believe no one can know anyway) but whether or not you can get away with it. Others, equally confused but not prone to outright criminality, take their cue from the law, which cannot possibly proscribe every single form that unethical behavior can take. Such minds believe that if it is not illegal then it must be -- if not right -- at least not wrong.

    • An example of this thinking can be found with some interstate truckers who haul toxic chemicals in their tankers one way and fill those same tanks with orange juice or milk for the trip back, neglecting to wash out their tanks because the law does not require it.

    This syndrome has been extant in our society for a few generations already. For example, Oliver North suffered from a severe lack of societal guidance on ethical issues, did not formulate a strong internal ethical code and, like so many who are in the upper echelons of our society, believed that conduct is ethical so long as it is legal. When backed against the wall for destroying documents demanded by Congress, he replied that he thought that such destruction of evidence might be wrong but he did not think it was illegal. Col. North, confused, relying on our inadequate and inconsistent system of laws, having no personal sense of ethics strong enough to help him, made many decisions resulting in the destruction of life in foreign countries and his own conviction on felony charges.

    This thinking is not reserved to public officials. We have a young generation of professional, business and government leaders who are completely at sea ethically, unable to make the independent, objectively ethical decisions on which our future depends.

    We see the spectacle of hysterical adults hanging opponents in effigy; displaying shriveled, aborted fetuses in tiny coffins or passing out pink, plastic ones; carrying posters picturing coat hangers dripping blood; screaming at anyone who dares not agree with them, refusing to give an inch and being totally inaccessible to logic. The abortion controversy is one that will only be resolved by objective logic and Neo-Ethics. Moral (and legal) arbitraries must be removed from this debate if we are going to get anywhere by reason, rather than by unreasoning hysteria. Neo-Ethically, based on survival mandates, both sides are right!  A compromise based on optimum survival is the only way to settle this. If half of the energy that is being angrily squandered by the so-called leadership of both sides of this issue was spent at the conference table hammering out plans to decrease teen-age pregnancies, to keep families together, and in demanding more reliable contraception, we would have a lot less misery. And our children would not see adults “solving” an important social problem in such a ridiculous and contemptible fashion, thus proving to yet another confused upcoming generation that no one can really know right from wrong, that important social issues will be decided by which ever side puts on the best circus.
    We must institute a workable and objective system of ethics that considers the rights of everyone if our society is to survive with its political liberties intact. “A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom,” stated Patrick Henry. With government intruding more and more upon our personal liberties, we must realize the root cause if we are to turn the tide.

AN ALTERNATE FUTURE: NEO-ETHICS AT WORK

    Neo-Ethics is not a high-minded system; it is fair politics, good business and sound ecology. The following examples of the principles of Neo-Ethics at work may not reflect the optimum Neo-Ethical solutions that might have been employed had the parties tried to consciously apply Neo-Ethical principles; nevertheless, they are very good actual examples.

    The uproar over flag-burning was resolved Neo-Ethically by the Supreme Court. The American flag is nothing more than  few square feet of weather-resistant cloth. Is there any real survival issue involved? You could argue that overt disrespect for one of the symbols of democracy is harmful to the survival of the country, but such argument would founder after only a few tottering steps, being unsupported by fact. A symbol has value and meaning only in the mind of the beholder. On the other hand, freedom of speech has been fundamental to the survival of the United States as the political entity envisioned by the founding fathers.

    Other issues are more complex and basic than flag-desecration. Greed, when it is not outright theft, is unethical  because it enhances short-term personal survival at the expense of future survival across many spheres (as defined earlier). Remember the character, Gordon Gecko, in the movie “Wall Street”? He leered and said, “Greed is good.” He even made an incomplete attempt to justify his statement with survival mandates. As an exercise, the reader could finish Gecko’s analysis of his position, using the tenets of Neo-Ethics. The reader will then see exactly where Gecko’s evaluation breaks down and is, in the end, invalid.

    Builders and developers have often been accused of greed. Twenty years ago the battle line between developers and conservationists was drawn at the construction site of a Tennessee Dam. A tiny fish called the snail darter was the first item on an expanding list of endangered species that has halted many a construction project. After a score of years of “us vs. them” wrangling in the press, courts and legislatures, the belligerents in such battles are learning to cooperate in achieving optimum survival through habitat conservation planning involving federal, state and local governments, developers, environmentalists, endangered species and the future human owner/users of the development in a master plan that takes into account the survival needs of all parties.

    One enlightened California developer, Michael Packard, president of Lane/Kuhn Pacific Communities, has even planned a development around a species of rare crustacean, the Riverside fairy shrimp. Packard did not bother summoning his forces to argue that we can live without the shrimp. He assumed from the beginning that it was worth saving the species and its habitat, even though it had not yet been officially declared an endangered species, and he worked with preservationists to that end.

    Such cooperation, although still the exception, pays off. A project in San Mateo County, California, set aside 2000 acres of a 3000 acre project for open space and wildlife habitat. Twenty species, including several endangered ones, were protected; the developer was able to build every one of his planned 3000 houses; and because the builder cooperated with environmentalists, the federal endangered species law was amended to end liability under this law for future developers who cooperate in this manner. Since the development was cooperatively planned from the beginning, the developer built without interference, the habitat was preserved, and future generations can enjoy the foresight of such Neo-Ethical action.

    It is possible that government intervention in environmental issues will not be necessary or desirable in the future as environmentalists and developers/industrialists cooperate in Neo-Ethical problem solving.

    A small town in Tennessee recently handled a situation Neo-Ethically without government intervention. Their problem was that white supremacist organizations (skinheads and Ku Klux Klan) were planning a demonstration in their town. The residents did not try to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the neo-Nazis by banning the parade. Instead they made known their disagreement with the message of racism by closing up their town completely during the demonstration and pinning up orange ribbons, representing brotherhood, everywhere. The Police Chief said there was not a soul from the town to be seen. The message of the townspeople was clear: “We turn our backs on racism and violence, embracing instead non-violence and brotherhood.”

    Not only small towns, but small businesses can also make national news by employing Neo-Ethical principles in handling important problems. G.T. Water Products, Inc., in Moorpark, California, resolved the problems of child care and quality schooling by opening its own private school for the children of its employees. The small amount ($30,000 per year) spent on the school is more than recovered by keeping personnel stable and loyal; turnover is no longer a problem at G.T., as it is for most small businesses. The company recently made news by appearing, along with AT&T and IBM, on Working Mother magazine’s list of the 60 best companies in the U.S. to work for.

    Individuals, too, can have a great impact using Neo-Ethical solutions. Several businesspeople have made the news in the last few months by “adopting” a school, challenging the students to get decent grades and graduate. If the student does so, the businessperson will pay college tuition for that student. Some may look upon this as self-sacrificing altruism and foolish; others may admire the businessperson for it. Neo-Ethically, it is not self-sacrificing or foolish -- or wholly unselfish. These actions contribute to optimum survival. Even though his or her personal survival is not directly enhanced by anything more tangible than satisfaction, the personal survival of that businessperson is not harmed (having more than enough money). Furthermore, many spheres of survival far into the future are enhanced, thus indirectly benefitting the philanthropist’s own genetic line. An educated future labor pool for business is increased; there will be fewer future welfare cases, less crime, less drug use; these children will make better parents, thus ensuring another productive generation; and these children are more likely to voluntarily help others.
    An individual does not have to be wealthy to be a practicing Neo-Ethicist. Most of us have either been or have had an individual in our past who instinctively employed Neo-Ethical principles. These people are considered extremely fair, enlightened and strong. Dealing with such a person in a position of power or leadership as a parent, a boss or a statesman is a rare joy.

    The creation of a civilization on Spaceship Earth of individuals, businesses and governments that employ Neo-Ethical principles is possible. Mankind can evolve into something wondrous: a culture of rich ethnic diversity, free of destructive forms of friction, cooperating toward an unlimited future.

    Ad veritus, ad astra, ad homo novis.

See related essay, “Problem Solving and the Ethical Uses of Force.”