On ethics

My most recent foray into Substack niches has been the vast world of ethical philosophy. These are posts where an analytical philosopher does advanced calculus to prove that we shouldn’t torture and kill the innocent, or draws on high level statistical theory to show that the ancient conception of God is a real moral precedent that exists a priori and demands that we shouldn’t torture and kill the innocent, and then atheists fill the comment section with devil’s advocate objections¹ based in physics or multiverse theory to show that there is no such thing as objective moral truths. While I don’t disagree with the idea that we should have a secular theory of moral obligation since the modern world is not going to provide one by itself, and the last thing I want to do is get into a riff with an analytic because I won’t be able to understand their argument, I also can’t help but feel that this whole field defeats the point of ethics. When we get to the level of having to introduce multiple thought experiments and probability exercises to abductively or inductively prove something almost categorically accepted to be true, that it is good to not torture and kill the innocent, it almost seems easier to believe what we’ve always believed before roughly the 18^th century, which was that ethics is an emanatory and participatory component of reality.

the OG calculus with words guys

This is clearly an oversimplification, and a Christian would say that there was only moral relativism before the revelation, but it is true that each orthodox tradition has a coherent and complete form of ethics that aligns with its ontology. If one accepts nondualism as ultimate, they must accept that alignment with ethics is structurally bound because there exists no otherness upon which to commit unethical behaviors. If one supposes a creature-creator distinction² of some kind, the ethical conclusion is one of divine paradigm, an exemplar model that must be followed. If one insists on a fully emanatory ontology, then virtue is that which is most in accordance with the principal center and misalignment with virtue becomes a function of distance from the good and true. These frameworks seem much more effortless than doing math with morality, and that is a common theme in the discrepancy between the traditional and modern mindsets. In each facet of life, a traditional doctrine seeks for that which grants the lightest yoke. This is the oft repeated notion that God is simple. Of course, a common analytical argument is an appeal to simplicity, but this is often lost in the logic, and still more effort filled than the traditional alternatives. Rene Guenon constantly reiterates that logic, rationality, and discursive reason are modern fixations, devolutions from true principial knowledge which is iniatory and symbolic and ultimately complete. The Greek σύμβολον, or symbol, means ‘to bring together’. So even if analytical philosophy can prove through various complex inductive arguments that there are ethical certainties, why is this supposed to be more convincing? It’s like if you brought your car to a guy on Craigslist who proved that because of a widely accepted new theorem in a paper that just came out, it is statistically the same thing for him and his friends to all work on one part of the car at the same time using YouTube videos as it is for one expert to work on the car all at once. This group of laymen is capable of fixing your problem just as well as any licensed mechanic because the theorem shows that all car fixers are theoretically the same with a large enough sample size. While this may technically be true, it is hardly easier than just taking the car to a mechanic. These have been my thoughts on ethics.

1. Watching an analytic and an atheist debate the existence of God is like watching a Frenchman and an Italian debate the existence of language.

2. The one that I’ve talked about a lot is the essence-energies distinction in Christianity, but for maximum illustration consider Sufi doctrine. Its ontology maintains a creature-creator distinction while emphasizing that God sustains all of manifestation, which is entirely contingent. Ethics flows into manifestation like a river, and the only choice is to surrender entirely though purification of ego (tazkiyah), annihilation (fanā’), abiding in God (baqā’), and devotional love. In this sense Sufi ethics is both effortless and grueling. At its simplest level submission is everything, but at its most complex there is a relentless battle to attain closeness with the infinite good. This is mirrored across traditions. In Orthodoxy, ethics at its simplest is the cultivation of discernment to battle sin. In practice this is just about the most impossible task there is.