Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb
Hmm... Is it ethical to put social stigmas and artificial expectations on someone who has had their fill of society?  |
It's unfair and maybe impolite, but it may be morally right. As an ethical
Utilitarian, I believe that the moral value of anything is determined by its outcome. So if I light a fire under a man's ass, it was the right thing to do if it got him to pull himself out of absolute poverty and into a shack where he's ultimately more comfortable.
Utilitarianism is a good basis for your moral compass. The action which does the most to improve conditions for people is, ethically, the best. However, what is the quantity you want to maximize? Happiness? Pleasure?
Pleasure seems so awfully arbitrary to me. Once the needs of the body are met, as they are for all but the poorest 1.5 billion people on earth, we have no further need to enjoy the taste of food or the comfort of a warm bath. I believe a hedonistic utopia would look something like
this, which I find repugnant.
Happiness is fine, but the relentless pursuit of happiness will leave our descendants no better off than we are. I believe a life of pleasure, happiness, and contribution to technological advancement, is the right kind of life to live. In fact, if you look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (and you should look it up), you find pleasure at the bottom, happiness in the middle, and progress at the top. The rest of the things on Maslow's list are also worthwhile pursuits.
My moral compass says the most moral course of action is to enjoy life while living up to your full potential, and to help others to do the same.
I am not a saint.