a theory of ethics

I stumbled upon a disk that had some papers from my freshman year. I was fairly stoked because I thought I had lost them...especially one paper in particular, my term paper for my intro to ethics class. I haven't done much editing, other than to re-add some points that were lost because of constraints on length and to fix some grammatical mistakes that resulted from the fact that I was still working out kinks in the theory up until 5am the morning it was due. Other than that, it's the same essay as the one I turned in.

The prompt for the essay was to argue for or against capital punishment using Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or a third theory.

An Theory of Ethics
There is no action more controversial than the act of taking another's life. When death is legitimized as a form of punishment, the controversy of the act increases, as our established ethical blacks and whites turn gray. Therefore, people look towards the philosophies behind their government in hopes of resolving this controversy. Two such theories are John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant's Kantianism. Though these theories have validity, they also lack in a way which leaves one uneasy. I will suggest a third theory, that all human life in relationship to Truth-which shall be defined-is valuable and should be treated as such, thus capital punishment should be rejected. Before doing this, it is profitable to first describe and dispel these two other theories.

In essays originally published for Frazier Magazine, Mill outlines his theory of Utilitarianism. This theory follows simple logic, yielding a fairly viable conclusion. As a right-act theory, the focus of utilitarianism is happiness, which is held as the only thing that is good in its self. Mill suggests that all other good things are good only in relation to happiness. Following the simple logic of opposites, Mill suggests that pain, the opposite of happiness, is bad. Mill goes on to suggest that there are two different divisions of happiness, that of the body, and the mind. Mill holds the pleasures of the mind, such as knowledge and justice, as more valuable than those of the body. This is the utilitarian theory of value, in brief. Mill continues by proposing that one should perform an action, only if it is the best option, among a group of choices. This is logical, since it would be absurd to choose anything which is not the best, given opportunity. Mill goes on to define what the "best" action is. Based on his system of value, Mill states that one's best option is that act which will promote the most happiness, or the least pain, universally. From this, one could conceivably support, or reject, capital punishment, making the decision conditional and based solely on whether it is the best option (Mill).

With this, Mill's theory touches on a very valid point. In looking at society, it would appear that the goal is the promotion of the greatest total happiness, assuming that these things tend to promote the survival of the species. Though this is valid, utilitarianism seems to offer no way to reach this. In fact, Mill refers his readers to the established ethical codes of Christianity and Stoicism. This is in itself a great weakness, since any ethical philosophy which is not actively applicable is effectively impotent, since their purpose is to shed light on central epistemological questions relating to right living. Another point of weakness is found when utilitarian thought is applied for the assessment of capital punishment; specifically, in that the life of a person hangs on the whims of his death promoting overall happiness (Mill).

The result of such a subjective view perverting justice can be seen in the acquittal of OJ Simpson. In spite of evidence proving his guilt, he was found "not guilty." This was largely due to fears that racial tensions would lead to wide-spread violence (in the wake of the 1992 riots). Even more horrifying is the lynch-mentality, in which an innocent person may be killed, simply to appease the masses. Beyond these examples, there are conceivable instances in which a utilitarian will contradict itself by condoning and punishing the same act. One possible scenario could be the assassination of a tyrant. Though the act could promote universal happiness by preventing widespread pain and suffering, international laws (which are established to promote universal happiness) condemn it. And so, a utilitarian judge may believe that the act is worthy of praise, but would be forced into contradiction, because of the duty to up-hold the law. And so, Mill's theory could ultimately come down to the discretion of a single person. Therefore, though Utilitarianism provides a means to decipher if capital punishment is the best option (promotes the most happiness), the circumstances are contrary to themes of justice. Thus, right and wrong must be based on something other than happiness.

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant sets about developing his theory of right action. Kantianism is focused on the motives of the actor. Kant first suggests that the only thing which is good absolutely is a good will. In Kant's theory, happiness can be seen as bad, if it is not obtained by one with a good will. From here, Kant goes on to define what a "good will" is. He first states that rationality is good will's a priori, or the purpose of rationality is to bring about a good will. Kant supports his claim by suggesting that logic, or rationality, is ill-suited for providing happiness or the satisfaction of desires because rationality regularly conflicts with these things. Because defining good will was so complicated, Kant illustrates how one with a good will would act, instead. Thus he introduces duty, which are those actions commanded by universal law, which are any actions that all should perform consistently. One with a good will performs one's duties, because universal law dictates that one should perform one's duties, because they are one's duties. Kant finally centers in on his theory of right action, which holds that right acts are those which one would have as universal laws and those which treat other rational beings with respect, which recognize the will of others as worthy of consideration, before acting. In other words, other rational beings are treated as more than merely means to ends (Kant). Thus, according to Kantianism, capital punishment is right, if it is one's duty, performed by one with a good will, and not using others as simply a means to an ends.

As with utilitarianism, Kantianism makes many valuable philosophical contributions, such as, the concept of taking one's motives into consideration when assessing the rightness of an act, beyond just its results. Another valuable contribution is the appreciation of rationality, by holding it as the root of good acts. Unfortunately, as with utilitarianism, the theory has weaknesses; specifically, allowing capital punishment to be conditional. It is difficult to establish norms for the use of execution, since these can lead to logical fallacies and lead to using the prisoner as merely a means to an end. Also, as with utilitarianism, Kantian thought can allow that an innocent person could be put to death. In looking at organized government, it is conceivable that, with small enough numbers, the legislation passed could truly represent the will of the people. This small Kantian group of people may find it advantageous that death is the punishment for all infractions, since any infraction of the set laws is a threat to the group and thus a failure each member into consideration as an end. Thus, after being tried by a jury of one's peers and being found guilty, this person would have indirectly willed their execution. They would do so, even if innocent, because not doing so would be contrary to duty since refusal to follow a rule cannot be accepted as a universal law. This opens the risk of treating themselves as mere means, and potentially others. As a government grows in size and complexity, it soon becomes an entity with its own will, essentially; this is because direct democracy becomes grossly inefficient with large populations. And so, legislation becomes less the will of the people and more of the government. Thus, it becomes more difficult to believe that the penal system of a state actually treats the populace as more than merely means to its own survival.

In looking at these two theories, it appears that, if the two could be combined with others to form a "grand unified theory," both motives and consequences would be taken into account in determining the rightness of an act. My personal beliefs-which are Kantianism extended, if you will, in light of modern understanding of human existence, through the cognitive sciences, and combined with the Gandhian theory of Satyagraha-ultimately reject capital punishment.
First, in order to have ethics, there must be a right and wrong. I believe that there must be an absolute truth (referred to here on out as Truth), which exists independent of its full realization. Without such a truth, all ethics would be relative and void of any real value. Thus, Truth is the standard by which things are determined to be good or not-Truth is what is good, while falsehoods are bad.

It can be concluded that there are two parts to the human being, a sensual part and a spiritual part. This can be supported by Socratic logic-one thing cannot be in opposition with itself, at the same time in regards to the same thing. The senses are essentially animalistic and motivated by physical stimuli. Also, due to the physical confinement to one space-time position, the sensual human is most closely linked to falsehoods, since its truth is subject to perception. On the other hand, the spirit is motivated by logic. By logic, I mean applied ideas, which are organized information, which is revealed truths, which all are part of and originate from Truth. Thus, the spirit is more closely related to Truth, since information spans time and space, only ending when proven false.

This is seen in the evolution of information-all cerebral thought can be traced back to information stored in DNA, which can be further traced to atomic information, and so on. Because information dies when proven false (one cannot believe that the earth is flat, one it has been proven to be round), an evolutionary process occurs. This allows for available information to approach Truth, as time progresses. Once Truth is realized, the process stops. However, because humans are sensual, as well as spiritual, this process can be impeded. This is since perception, by way of active and passive concealing of truths, can allow falsehoods to survive. This occurs most often when a falsehood is profitable, from an animalistic standpoint. The most prominent of these falsehoods are the related concepts of control, ownership, and elitism. These concepts, and the actions which they inspire, can arguably be called the source of all suffering in the world.

Since control and elitism are derived from the misconception of ownership, this must be shown to be false first, and then the relationships between the others can be illuminated. The world is divided into objects and thoughts, just as the human is divided into two parts. Dispelling the ownership of thoughts is perhaps the easier of the two. One cannot claim their thoughts as their own, since original thought does not exist. This is because information does not spontaneously generate, thus in every idea, there are traces of previous ideas-Newton did not create gravity, he discovered it, meaning that it and all of the mathematical theory relating to it existed before he put them into concrete terms understandable and applied by other physicists.

Dispelling the ownership of objects is harder, only in the fact that it is so deeply rooted within the human animal's psyche that rejecting it is a major undertaking. Two concepts work to dispel physical ownership. First, the most obvious, when a person dies, they lose all of their possessions, thereby shortening the period of ownership of an object to a time-frame which is quite insignificant, as compared to the actual existence of the object. One can think of inheritance, in that since the relative cannot maintain ownership of it postmortem, they must give it to their progeny. The second is perhaps less obvious; in order to be able to declare an object as one's own, others must accept this. If personal ownership is not widely accepted, the "ownership" is essentially void. For example, one could go into a public park and declare the land to be of their private ownership and thus off-limits to the public; if people continued to go to the park, in spite of the declared ownership, the declaration is worthless. Therefore, simply put, ownership is a falsehood saved from extinction by our animalistic instincts towards acquiring materials for survival. Its function could easily be replaced by granting all humans the right to the materials needed to survive, based on the right of survival.

To continue, I suggest that control is linked most directly to ownership. Control is derived from the want to gain ownership of objects, and the fear at the loss of ownership. Thus, control is any means by which one tries to maintain ownership of objects or thoughts. Where as all control is violent, the most drastic shows of control are those which involve the use of actual physical force to protect, or take, the ownership of something. Since ownership has been shown to be false, it follows that control cannot truly exist. Common experience supports this conclusion; numerous examples exist to show that things occur in life over which we have no control. What we as humans have is the ability to shape our future, to make decisions which cause other things to transpire; however, this ability does not insure that what we've planned will happen.

Finally, both of the previous concepts are essential for elitism. Elitism has control as a core belief, manner of act, and result. This is due to the fact that ownership is the basis for value within an elitist group, whether it is economic elitism, with material ownership as the basis, or social elitism, which holds that the ownership is among the members of the group, in a sense, of each other, while excluding those which they do not own and do not own them; or, intellectual elitists, who hold the ownership of thoughts as their basis for value. Another example of an elitist group is organized government.

Though created by the consent of the people, governments are elitist by nature. The object which it sees itself in ownership of is the populace. Since the purpose of a government is to maintain social order, governments impose various forms of social control: statutory, economic, educational, and various others. Of these, control maintained by the law is the most forceful and imposing. This is due to the existence of a penal code. Of the penalties imposed by the state, the death penalty is the most deplorable. Its very existence is based on numerous gross fallacies.
In order to be able to be justified in taking a life, one must have ownership of a life. As has been shown, ownership is absurd. Given the assumption that a government exists to serve the will of the people, it does not follow for it to have such control over the populace. Even in establishing laws, the people are held accountable to each other, not the government. Thus, I believe that capital punishment is wrong. This logic can be extended to all forms of control.

And so, once the concepts of control and ownership and elitism dispelled, it is seen that all are equal. This equality can be shown through the evolution of information. If one were to look at another and think of their very existence, one would find that this person is special. All people are the culmination of all information in existence before and during their life time. It could be argued that human life, being the singular history from an infinite set of possibilities, cannot be climactic, since it is a climax, in itself. This track of thought could be expanded to include all things in existence; however obvious absurdities arise from this, i.e. equating a human with a bolder. Therefore, as Kant presented for his theory, I suggest that there is an informational hierarchy, if you will, which places humans at the top and thus to be held accountable for our actions, since in our experience we are the only creatures with cognition. This is because we are the only information which can actively shape other information, recognize the existence of other information, and realize our own existence. A person, by being a climax in the evolution of information, is special; however, this is not a singular, exclusive uniqueness, since all humans are similarly and equally special. And so, equality is a truth which forms a fraction of the Truth, which should be the motivation of one's acts. Thus, in order to perform right actions, one should act in a way which holds all people as equal. This is the duty of all people, duty being those actions determined by Truth to be right acts. This manner of action will allow, by way of informational evolution, for a nonviolent order to establish itself, meaning one free from the imposing of control on others. Thus, this will create widespread contentment, thereby fulfilling the goal of society.

This all may seem quite far-fetched, because it runs contrary to our animalistic nature, which is, arguably, the part with which we are most experienced. Perhaps the strongest objection would come from a utilitarian, since their theory is most closely related to the sensual human, and therefore, easiest to accept without contemplation. A utilitarian, may object that government-social control by consent-was brought about to promote general happiness. Following Plato's logic, a utilitarian could argue that before government, all were allowed to pursue selfish goals, which led to an overall pain and unhappiness. Thus, people agreed to establish restrictions that were to be implemented by a higher force, in order to promote overall happiness. The result was government, which had statutes and penalties for breaking these laws. One may conclude that the statutes and their penalties were established to ensure the survival of this order, especially the penalty of death. Thus, since penalties and other forms of control are essential to the survival of this order, which promotes the happiness of all in the society, control is not only necessary, but is right.

This is a very valid objection; most people tend not to consider their spiritual side, in everyday life. The thought of eliminating control and punishment conjures frightening images in many people's mind, especially when one considers how animals behave and the degrading image of humans doing likewise. Humans, because of our contradictory nature, tend not to trust ourselves, and thus, not trust others. For us, it is safe, and therefore appealing, to have restrictions imposed upon each other, rather than allowing for our inherent goodness to shape how we act and react. To this, I would respond that it is the very same animalistic urges which spawned the need for a legal system as those that maintain it. It is by the widespread suppression of Truth which holds us to the society in which we live. If, however, those truths which we have discovered regarding humans and our behaviors, capabilities, and relationships were to be revealed to the masses, this belief, this fear of one's fellow human, would not, could not exist. Thus, by dispelling myths and ever searching for Truth, we can establish a true utopia, in which all are content and free.

I recognize that there are many holes in this theory, many questions left unasked and unanswered, many weaknesses left unchallenged, among other flaws. With this paper, especially, considering the amount of editing to try and fit specifications-meaning the removal of a lot of material-and the fact that I was exploring this theory, which is new to me in that I have found no primary sources outlining such a theory, it is inevitable for there to be these flaws.

Works Cited
Fairfield, Austin. Meeting. UNC-Chapel Hill. 6 May 2003

Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: With, On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. 3rd ed. Trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Ed. George Sher. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979.

Plato. Plato: Republic. Trans. G.M.A. Grube, C.D.C. Reeves. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992. 33-38

Turow, Scott. "To Kill or Not to Kill." The New Yorker. 6 Jan. 2003. 1 May 2003.
.