Anyhow, I guess I'll rant some more since I've got time/bored - the question, whether it be asked by some snot-nosed kid trying to be "sophisticated" or a passing thought of a middle-aged parent, is the central question of "ethics" - what is happiness, how can I attain said happiness, and does the welfare of others play into my view?
Of course, anyone with half a mind will tell you this ties very much into ontological quandry, but ethics is a heavy subject by itself, I don't really care to go into ontology (not that I'm any good at it), and I'm rambling so it doesn't matter anyhow.
Of course, on a pragmatic level, one could argue that ethics is a very individualistic subject; that is, the parameters are set by their own person; it is in some ways true and false. We lead our own lives (for the sake of argument let's say that this is true - this is where a lot of metaphysical arguments come up) but yet we choose to live in society. And as stated prior, people have different ranges of what is acceptable in their behavior, but many of them overlap, like, again, the "thou shalt not kill" example.
So what ethics does is not set up a specific list of rules, but rather a set of parameters, a guideline to follow: for example, you shouldn't kill people, but who gives a fvck if you decide to flip someone off while driving?
Let's use a different topic that's relevant to a lot, if not all, of ATOT - sex. I'm not saying that all of you have had sex, it deosn't matter - you have a natural drive to do so; but, would it be fair to go out in the streets and rape a poor girl? Of course not! On the other hand, would it be fair to condemn others for involving themselves in activites in which you disagree with? Again, of course not.
In that situation, the rules may not be stated explicitly, but most people have the idea: as long as the involved party are responsible adults who understand all that is implied and give consent to said activity, who are we to condemn? It is the best of both worlds, just laid out in a skeletal form. Kant was the one that brought up the idea - to treat them as ends in themselves, as "autonomous rational beings".
So, how to reflect that to our daily lives? Same idea - treat everyone else as "rational autonomous beings" - who gives a fvck what you do to pursue your dreams, given that it does not harm an 'innocent"? Of course the problems of economics come up - limited supply, unlimited want: how would we pursue this?
Unfortunately, we can't. Not everyone can acheive all that we want.
But would we ultimately want to? I would say that humans are complex, simultaneously being pack-minded yet incredibly competetive. For many, the means outweight the ends - your life loses meaning if you've acheived all that you set out for: you see this mainly in people that have retired - they have lost their meaning, their drive in life. What next? Even if your goal was to accumulate money, nothing else; after a certain amount, you hit a saturation point - on a pragmatic level, would it really matter to Anand Sempai that his annual salary pales in comparison to Bill Gates other than a point of pride?
To focus on the subject of drive, it is exactly what Simon Blackburn has said in
Lust that carries weight here: Lust, or any of the other six '"sins" would be considered so only if in excess.
If controlled, it would be the drive to better yourself.
My point? Absolutely nothing. I don't really feel like writing a thesis online, nor do I suspect anyone will actually read this rambling rant of mine anyways.
😉
