Noetic Nut: CIVICS VERSUS ETHICS - tukul_draft

This article is still not finished, and am rationalizing further, and may self correct. You are free to read it any way My reason for writing is in part because I have come to realize that today we know a lot more about ourselves, about FEAR, LOVE, HAPPINESS, than did the great Athenian philosophers.

Ethics is generally defined as the subject of right and wrong. A lot of ‘great’ philosophers have had a lot to say on the topic, and many ‘great’ politicians have used the word in articulate speeches, used it to provide justification for a law, action or a war even. Saints have claimed to live by it and other mortal men and women have been punished or even hanged for infringement of ethics.

The great philosophers of yore Socrates,Aristotle,Plato(the three) … and more recent ones posited that ethics is defined as the study of right and wrong, and stop at that. What a sad definition indeed as then, my fellow netizens if one asks- what do you mean by the words- right and wrong, do you point back recursively at the definition of ethics above? A recursive definition has no use other than to a loony. It is like defining a CIRCLE as a circular object. Also, the great philosophers' approach the subject as applicable to a single individual. I so disagree, for what meaning could their ever be of words like right or wrong if there are no other people who are affected by ones actions. Imagine if suddenly just one person were left alone on earth, applying the idea of right and wrong to that one person is surely meaningless, for what would it matter to anyone else (other than just to him), if he looted all the food from his neighbors house, or drove his car on the wrong side of the road. If one still attempts to apply a set of rules ( of ethics ) upon him then one surely commits oneself to moral absolutism and narrow fundamentalism, surely leaving the rational self far behind. And if reason were to direct the result of any exercise in philosophy, then most philosophies on ethics suck at it. Of course, those who think ethics consists solely of moral values, doctrines handed down to us by a god (or gods, goddesses, ghosts, aliens, spirits, banshees, etc), would probably be totally at ease with the idea, and if they were the one living alone on earth, they may continue to follow such rules, blissfully hoping to go to heaven when they die. To other more rational life forms, the idea of ethics would cease to exist, and it would not matter if we went out naked and took a bath in the middle of the neighbor’s living room, and then proceeded to burn his house down. One would feel terribly lonely and sad in a few days, but that is more for the want of company (of near and loved ones) than due to the absence of ethics in ones life.

However, when pertained to a society of people, the idea of right and wrong can be very easily and intuitively applied to. In a society where we are no longer alone, it does matter if we rob our neighbors, or drive on the opposite side of the road. If a single person were to be stranded on an island, it would be difficult for anyone to figure out the right or wrong of it- if he or she were to eat up all the available food in a hurry all by herself. But if there were just one more person stranded with him, then it is easy to see that that one person eating up all the food by himself would be wrong (on his part). It is clear to me that ethics or civics (or call it the subject of right and wrong), can not exist if there is not a society of people and with more than one member in it. And further- it must be applicable to an individual. Since a society is not a structureless entity, but is composed of an arbitrary group of people, very divisible and reconstitutable. Any attribute of a society must be derivable from the attributes of its members. Thus again, no individuals- no ethics.

Furthermore, its study now has an obvious utility and purpose- to better the lives the members of the society. The practical minded would now find significant purpose in spending time on the topic. The utilitarianists would have reason to join in too. By betterment I explicitly mean an increase in (or a sense thereof) of the three requirements of a person- Happiness, Progress, and Survival . The mere possibility of clarity should attract more mathematical (read sharper) minds to dwell on the topic and perhaps attempt to form a mathematical model of an isolated society, whose members have attributes like ability to be happy, Progressiveness, and ability to survive, among others (greed, anger, fear, sexuality, laziness,...). If that is done satisfactorily, we can then attempt to study a mathematical model of a society logically, perhaps programmatically, enabling us to observe the effects of a rule when applied on its members, (or the effects of a change in their attributes to study non-human societies!).

It is therefore that I continue.

The moment we have more than one individual, the idea of right and wrong (or ethics) suddenly becomes inferential and very lucid. But then applying ethics to a bunch of people (call it a society if you may), is very adequately expressed by another (somewhat ignored) word- ‘CIVICS’ (similar to- law, rules, dharma, civic duty and rights). So I say, why not use it instead, so what if it sounds a lot less profound. It is practical. For even though ‘civics’ as a word, or a subject, has repeatedly failed to make it to the books of the great philosophers, and has been snubbed and pushed aside to be used only in the murky corridors of a our city halls, precedence or lack of it, is surely not a reason to shy away from clear reason.

And as for the topic in general, one can now attempt to move it from the arcane domains of vague philosophers, to the more scientifically inclined ones.

The noetic novice that I am, I have begun my own attempt to approach the subject more scientifically (and possibly mathematically), and will share it with you (hopefully soon).