One of my favourite pastimes is listening to so-called “academic philosophers” (that is, those men and women who have studied Western philosophical traditions at various tertiary “education” institutions, especially those without the Asian continent, and in particular those who have gained a master’s degree or a doctorate) explaining or debating their moral positions in the public arena, such as within social media on the Internet. Due to the fact that authentic dharma is virtually non-existent outside of Bhārata, those philosophers invariably are UTTERLY incompetent at formulating logical and cogent arguments for their often awfully-convoluted systems of ethics. If a person requires a doctorate in metaethics, in order to live a decent, harmless life, then it suggests that morality is an elitist topic, and the rest of humanity is doomed to rot in iniquity! Fortunately, this is not at all the case, as expertly demonstrated in what is, undoubtedly, the foremost work of non-fiction ever composed, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Imagine approaching a simple construction worker in Africa and informing him that you are a moral realist who subscribes to a strictly deontological position in relation to metaethics. Assuming that he is a native English speaker, he will most probably stare at you, thinking that you were speaking a foreign tongue! On the other hand, if he was taught that it is immoral for a person to enact unjustified harm upon himself, other humans, as well as other living creatures, he could, simply by hearing that simple lesson, possibly live the rest of his life in a reasonably moral manner, without needing to research the topic for several years at a university or college! In Western academia, there are two major branches of ethics: moral realism, and moral anti-realism. Moral anti-realism is the doctrine that there are no objective moral values or normative facts. It is usually contrasted with moral realism, which holds that there are objective moral values, and any moral claim is therefore either true or false. Within moral realism, there are a handful of major (supposedly) metaethical positions, including consequentialism (and its closely-related theory, utilitarianism), deontology, social justice and social contract theory, virtue theory, ethical egoism, rational egoism, hedonism, existentialism, Kantianism, contractualism, and religion (Divine command theory). However, perhaps apart from consequentialism, none of these moral theories address the most IMPORTANT question in regard to metaethics: “What exactly is ethics?”. If proponents of these ethical theories were to honestly address this question, they would be forced to agree with the author of this text, in conceding the undeniable fact that the notion of law/morality/ethics (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), is entirely concerned with any possible harm caused to humans, to human society as a whole, to non-human entities, and in rare instances, to inorganic matter, since this is to what the concept of law/morality/ethics have always referred! See the “MORALITY FOR DUMMIES” addendum to this Chapter. In order to further clarify, on utilitarianism and consequentialism, which are popular viewpoints of Western (so-called) “ethicists”, it is asserted that whatever is most morally right, is to be measured by how much utility is derived from any particular volitional act. For example, if it was possible to save the lives of one thousand human beings, by intentionally destroying the life of a single human, one ought to kill that person! However, the fact that the concept of morality has ALWAYS referred to the axiom, “do no (undue) harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in the Saṃskṛtam tongue of ancient India), seems to be taken out of the equation entirely, and certainly, there is no reference to a supremely-wise arbiter of such deeds, who has the authority to adjudicate the proper course of action. So, in the aforementioned example, whilst utilitarians would declare that the most ethical course of action would be to murder one human, in order to save a thousand humans, they are oblivious to the fact that the term, “ethical”, itself has its own unique meaning, and they invariably fail to offer a definition of the word, even within their lectures and verbose essay papers. Simply by stating, “This is the most ethical thing to do in such and such a case”, holds no real significance, unless one is able to concurrently tender an authoritative definition of the term, “ethical” (and likewise, the terms “moral” and “immoral”, as well as “law”). Therefore, in Kantian terms, there is but ONE categorical imperative (to avoid harm), plus a MULTITUDE of hypothetical imperatives (that is to say, to understand under what circumstances harm may be justified, such as the killing of an unborn human child, in the case of abortion). Of course, like virtually every other so-called “philosopher” who has ever lived, Herr Kant’s understanding of morality was fundamentally flawed.
One of my favourite pastimes is listening to so-called “academic philosophers” (that is, those men and women who have studied Western philosophical traditions at various tertiary “education” institutions, especially those without the Asian continent, and in particular those who have gained a master’s degree or a doctorate) explaining or debating their moral positions in the public arena, such as within social media on the Internet. Due to the fact that authentic dharma is virtually non-existent outside of Bhārata, those philosophers invariably are UTTERLY incompetent at formulating logical and cogent arguments for their often awfully-convoluted systems of ethics. If a person requires a doctorate in metaethics, in order to live a decent, harmless life, then it suggests that morality is an elitist topic, and the rest of humanity is doomed to rot in iniquity! Fortunately, this is not at all the case, as expertly demonstrated in what is, undoubtedly, the foremost work of non-fiction ever composed, this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Imagine approaching a simple construction worker in Africa and informing him that you are a moral realist who subscribes to a strictly deontological position in relation to metaethics. Assuming that he is a native English speaker, he will most probably stare at you, thinking that you were speaking a foreign tongue! On the other hand, if he was taught that it is immoral for a person to enact unjustified harm upon himself, other humans, as well as other living creatures, he could, simply by hearing that simple lesson, possibly live the rest of his life in a reasonably moral manner, without needing to research the topic for several years at a university or college!
In Western academia, there are two major branches of ethics: moral realism, and moral anti-realism. Moral anti-realism is the doctrine that there are no objective moral values or normative facts. It is usually contrasted with moral realism, which holds that there are objective moral values, and any moral claim is therefore either true or false. Within moral realism, there are a handful of major (supposedly) metaethical positions, including consequentialism (and its closely-related theory, utilitarianism), deontology, social justice and social contract theory, virtue theory, ethical egoism, rational egoism, hedonism, existentialism, Kantianism, contractualism, and religion (Divine command theory).
However, perhaps apart from consequentialism, none of these moral theories address the most IMPORTANT question in regard to metaethics: “What exactly is ethics?”. If proponents of these ethical theories were to honestly address this question, they would be forced to agree with the author of this text, in conceding the undeniable fact that the notion of law/morality/ethics (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), is entirely concerned with any possible harm caused to humans, to human society as a whole, to non-human entities, and in rare instances, to inorganic matter, since this is to what the concept of law/morality/ethics have always referred! See the “MORALITY FOR DUMMIES” addendum to this Chapter.
In order to further clarify, on utilitarianism and consequentialism, which are popular viewpoints of Western (so-called) “ethicists”, it is asserted that whatever is most morally right, is to be measured by how much utility is derived from any particular volitional act. For example, if it was possible to save the lives of one thousand human beings, by intentionally destroying the life of a single human, one ought to kill that person!
However, the fact that the concept of morality has ALWAYS referred to the axiom, “do no (undue) harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in the Saṃskṛtam tongue of ancient India), seems to be taken out of the equation entirely, and certainly, there is no reference to a supremely-wise arbiter of such deeds, who has the authority to adjudicate the proper course of action. So, in the aforementioned example, whilst utilitarians would declare that the most ethical course of action would be to murder one human, in order to save a thousand humans, they are oblivious to the fact that the term, “ethical”, itself has its own unique meaning, and they invariably fail to offer a definition of the word, even within their lectures and verbose essay papers. Simply by stating, “This is the most ethical thing to do in such and such a case”, holds no real significance, unless one is able to concurrently tender an authoritative definition of the term, “ethical” (and likewise, the terms “moral” and “immoral”, as well as “law”).
Therefore, in Kantian terms, there is but ONE categorical imperative (to avoid harm), plus a MULTITUDE of hypothetical imperatives (that is to say, to understand under what circumstances harm may be justified, such as the killing of an unborn human child, in the case of abortion). Of course, like virtually every other so-called “philosopher” who has ever lived, Herr Kant’s understanding of morality was fundamentally flawed.