Join the new world

My friend Andre stopped by for a visit recently, joining with some family and friends for a backyard feast. Even though he is not an active player, he is quite familiar with Plato and has even written a little book on philosophy. So in between the vichyssoise, the crostinis and the mousse au chocolat, in the interest of reviewing my own in-game attitudes and actions, I asked Andre some questions that he was kind of enough to answer.
I thought others might find it interesting or useful too, so sharing...



"It is better to be a human being unsatisfied than pig satisfied." -- John Stuart Mill






PQ: "Andre, tell me about ethics."

A, C of S:

"Ethics do not exist to punish, repress or condemn. The courts and police are not governed by pure morality.

Socrates died in prison, freer than his judges.

Ethics begins where no punishment is possible and no sanction is effective. Ethics begins when we are free.

If we don't steal only because of fear of being caught, that is not honesty. It is only self-interest.

Imagine you have a magic ring of invisibility. What would you do? As related by Plato in The Republic, even someone well known as an 'honest person' might be tempted to enter the palace, seduce the queen, assassinate the king, seize power... So maybe good and bad is simply prudence and hypocrisy, simply the significance that a 'good person' attaches to other people's opinions. Or perhaps it is just one's level of skill in concealing wickedness.

In fact the only valid response is within you. You have the ring. What would you do? What would you not do? No one can answer for you. The question concerns you alone, and it concerns you entirely.

That which you still require of yourself or forbid yourself, even if you were invisible, that alone is strictly moral. Your morality is the touchstone by which you judge yourself, not because of what others think, nor because of an external threat, but in the name of good and evil, of duty and prescription, of the humanity of yourself.

Morality is the sum total of rules to which you would voluntarily submit, even if you were invisible and invincible."





PQ: "Isn't that a lot for a player to handle?"

A, C of S:

"That is for you to decide. If you could make yourself invisible would you condemn an innocent man, or betray a friend, beat a child, torture, murder? Only you can answer.

For an honest person, prudence is not everything. That is the wage of ethics, and its ultimate solitude.

Ethics connects us to others. But it also connects us to ourselves. To be considerate of others, but 'unobserved by either gods or men', as Plato said, requires no one but oneself to witness the act.

It is not a gamble. It is a choice. Only you know what you should do. No one else can make the decision for you.

This is what Spinoza meant by reason: 'Act well and rejoice.' Happiness is impossible without self-respect. And self-respect is impossible without self-control, mastering oneself, overcoming ones own failings.

The ball is in your court, but it is not a game. You are what you do.

'What should I do?' and not 'What should others do?' This is what distinguishes ethics from moralizing. To say 'You should be brave.' is not an act of bravery. And to say 'You should be generous.' displays no generosity."




PQ: "So are there as many ethics as there are players?"

A, C of S:

"No. That is the paradox of ethics. It applies only in the first person singular, but it also applies universally, to every human being, to every player.

There is no absolute ethics, but when I abstain from cruelty, racism or murder, it is not simply a question of personal preference or taste. It is a question of the dignity of society as a whole, of humanity, of civilization.

If everyone lied, all communication would be futile.

If everyone stole, life in society would be miserable.

If everyone killed, civilization would be on the road to ruin, with only violence and fear. We'd all be victims of ourselves.

If you want to know if an act is virtuous or reprehensible then ask yourself what life would be like if everyone behaved as you do.

This is the substance of Kant's famous categorical imperative: 'Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.' Rousseau called it the 'sublime maxim': 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'"





PQ: "Don't we need some basis to justify this ethics?"

A, C of S:

"Not necessary. May not even be possible.

Do you need to justify your decision to save a drowning child? Do you need to justify a decision to oppose a tyrant?

We cannot provide a basis for reason itself. One cannot logically prove to person who prizes selfishness over generosity, lying over honesty, violence and cruelty over gentleness and compassion, that he or she is wrong. And what would it mean to them even if we could?

Horror cannot be refuted. Evil cannot be refuted. A war against barbarism needs courage more so than an ethical basis.

Ethics is a kind of noblesse oblige. There is nothing more to it than one's sense of one's own dignity. It is a respect for humanity, beginning with one's own."





PQ: "Is religion not then required for ethics?"

A, C of S:

"Correct. Someone who does good only that he may be saved does no good, and will not be saved. An action is good, ethically speaking, only on condition that it does not depend on the result expected from the action.

This is the spirit of the Enlightenment, of Voltaire, of Kant. Religion is not the foundation of ethics; rather it is ethics which provides the foundation for religion.

Ethics does not preclude belief. But neither is it dependent on it.

As Montaigne said, 'Nothing is so beautiful, so right, as acting as a man should.' The only virtue is to be human and that is something no one can do on your behalf.

Ethics is not everything and it is not the most important thing. It does not replace happiness. It does not replace love. But it is necessary because it enables you, while being free to be yourself, to live freely among others."