The distinct difference between humans who care what others think enough to be ethical and those who do not
In understanding ethics we first have to define it. So for this post I'm relying on the definition of ethical is to make a decision where you care about the outcome (measured in consequences) and so you seek to make the least bad choice based on your current understanding (model) of reality). The first point I will highlight is my current conclusion:
- We can distinguish between humans based on those who care and those who do not.
People who do not care can do anything unrestrained. This would be the bold psychopathic serial killers who do not care about anyone. This would be people who just don't care what other people think of their behavior in general and so they can do exactly whatever they feel like doing at any given moment. These people are actually quite rate but they do exist.
What does it mean to care?
What does it mean to care though? To care about what others think of your behavior is all it really takes to develop a system of ethics. If you care how anyone else in this world thinks of you (whether it be your parents, your children, your heroes, your love interests, your boss at work or students or clients) then from this care you can create priorities. Priorities are based on how you want those others to remember you, or think of you. This behavior behind being ethical is ultimately approval seeking.
The child seeks the approval of their parent because they love their parent. The parent seeks the approval of their child because they love their child. This enables ethics to develop based around managing expectations and seeking approval. A parent for example can prioritize (rank) consequences based on the impact it could have on how their children perceive of them. A child for example can prioritize (rank) consequences based on the impact it may have on the parents. A child would feel shame or guilty if they make a choice which disappoints (violates the expectations) of their parents because this dishonors them.
Why do people care?
People care simply because they have a desire to be loved. This desire to be loved is enough for any person to develop a sense of right and wrong based on the impact their actions could have on their "lovability". The concept of lovability is a placeholder concept because I don't have a more accurate one but basically speaking a person if they care what you think of them; they may try to impress you (get you to like them more) by adopting behaviors which you like. This in my opinion is approval seeking behavior but it is at the core of ethics.
The rightness and wrongness of an action can be measured in many ways but for people who desire to be loved then it will be based on consequences in relation to this desire. For example a person who wants to be loved by the world will adopt the behaviors which the person thinks the world views as correct at the time. This may or may not always lead to good consequences long term for the world but if we look at it as Allen has a preference to be loved (he prioritizes being loved), so Allen adopts behaviors which he thinks will make him easier to love and harder to hate. Evil behavior would go against Allen's self interest (his desire to be loved) and so Allen can never adopt evil behavior. In fact Allen might even adopt heroic good behavior to seek approval and love (to be perceived as the hero in the situation).
We could say Alen is selfish and this would be correct. We could say Allen is egotistical and this would be correct. We could say Allen is rational, and this could be correct if Allen's behavior creates consequences for himself which he prefers. Happiness for Allen requires being loved and if this is the case then Allen is required to do any behavior necessary to create the conditions for that outcome. This can be good for the world or bad, because if Allen is entirely rational then in theory Allen would be capable of killing millions or billions to remain loved in society. Even if society is evil, Allen would still seek social approval and be rational to do it.
Consequences ranked by impact on loveability
Suppose we mention Allen again and take a consequentialist perspective (consequence based ethics). Allen could in theory determine right from wrong decisions (decisions in his self interest) based only on how each decision is ranked according to impact on his loveability. This would make every decision by Allen a mathematical calculation which can be put on a chart or spreadsheet even. Every decision would be given a score (will this make it easier for others to love me or not?). The decisions which have clear impact of improving how others feel about Allen would quickly rise in priority over the decisions which could disrupt or harm how others feel about Allen.
Summary
- Allen does not need to have any emotions except for a desire to be loved. He does not need to feel any empathy or sympathy or compassion. Allen just needs to know that the people he seeks approval from do feel this way and so to be loved by these people he must adopt behaviors which respect these feelings.
- Allen does not need to believe in any God, deity, or moral absolutes.
- Allen doesn't need to love others (just has to desire to be loved by others).
- Allen doesn't need to be inherently virtuous but must be able to adopt the traits which make him easier to love and harder to hate.
The conclusion from all of this is because people seek approval and status (the rewards from being loved) they desire to be loved in the first place. Of course we could also reverse it and say because people desire to be loved they seek approval and status. This desire to be loved motivates in a rational way a person to prioritize decisions which have a positive impact on their ability to be loved. In this case consequences are all that matters (in relation to being loved) if being loved is the ultimate goal. The ends would justify the means if the person with a desire to be loved takes a rational approach (is there anything this person would not do to be loved?). Share your thoughts?