The Starting Points and The Inspirations
The Actualization Ethic doesn't pretend that there's some non-value-based meta-moral system which is objectively true without agents. Nor does it pretend that evolution has a goal or that agents necessarily want to want things. It's purely an instrumental normative system in the sense of "Do you want X? Then do Y and don't do Z."
My primary inspiration for The Actualization Ethic is Alonzo Fyfe's Desirism which removes the spooky dualism and platonic forms which plague many other systems. As a description of how morality works as a process, I think it's spot on. As a moral system itself, it defers to much to research instead of starting with a baseline which has worked well. Moral systems need norms now. A norm of "do what others give you reasons to do" doesn't really define a moral system - it defines the process of morality itself. Still, Desirism has made what I feel to be valuable contributions to the field of ethics - particularly in defining a good desires as desires which tend to fulfill other desires as well as styling itself as a rule utilitarianism with rules that agents can't disobey though I would say it fits partially into various ethical frameworks.
The Actualization Ethic first takes Desirism to its logical but unstated conclusion by asserting that if you don't care about others directly or indirectly, then you literally have no reason to care about those others and there's no meta-normative reason why you should.
Then it takes the ample evidence that humans are social creatures and are more likely to get most of their goals actualized in a robust, adaptable society (a "good society") than by living alone or living in societies which hinder goal actualization. Given that, it declares good society a means to most human ends.
Then it's a short jump to declaring behaviors which undermine or harm good societies as bad and those which shore them up as good. There is a fair amount of evidence that not believing falsehoods or spreading lies, trusting other humans by default, and interacting with and trading knowledge and goods with others makes for a robust, adaptable society which serves the interests of its members. Actions which have a high likelihood of working against truth, trust, or trade become proscribed under The Actualization Ethic.
A few more assertions expand the scope of moral consideration - humans almost always have other human advocates and you're likely undermining your goals somewhat by treating others poorly especially in a world whose borders are dissolving. Even with strong future discounting, humans generally want to keep their options open which further indicates not treating others poorly because you don't know who'll be useful later.
Why the indirection? Because humans are only as good as they can afford to be. Acting rationally with respect to norms in the moment is more calorie-intensive than following cached rules even if such rules will, on rare occasion, produce results which hinder goal actualization - precisely why trolley problems are almost entirely pointless. A nebulous goal like "act so as to not undermine society" or, worse, "act so as to fullfil the most and strongest desires of others" is too vague and references too many constructs to cache into the limbic system with practice. Furthermore, it makes no distinctions between types of societies and ignores that societies are in competition for resources including mindshare so destroying a bad society doesn't necessarily make things worse since a good society might take its place.
Don't lie, don't steal, don't assault, mind your business, don't act as a roadblock or tollbooth to others - namely don't be a jerk. These are pretty easy to form into habits and are quite teachable. In 90%+ of cases they work even at the level one learns in kindergarden.
My primary inspiration for The Actualization Ethic is Alonzo Fyfe's Desirism which removes the spooky dualism and platonic forms which plague many other systems. As a description of how morality works as a process, I think it's spot on. As a moral system itself, it defers to much to research instead of starting with a baseline which has worked well. Moral systems need norms now. A norm of "do what others give you reasons to do" doesn't really define a moral system - it defines the process of morality itself. Still, Desirism has made what I feel to be valuable contributions to the field of ethics - particularly in defining a good desires as desires which tend to fulfill other desires as well as styling itself as a rule utilitarianism with rules that agents can't disobey though I would say it fits partially into various ethical frameworks.
The Actualization Ethic first takes Desirism to its logical but unstated conclusion by asserting that if you don't care about others directly or indirectly, then you literally have no reason to care about those others and there's no meta-normative reason why you should.
Then it takes the ample evidence that humans are social creatures and are more likely to get most of their goals actualized in a robust, adaptable society (a "good society") than by living alone or living in societies which hinder goal actualization. Given that, it declares good society a means to most human ends.
Then it's a short jump to declaring behaviors which undermine or harm good societies as bad and those which shore them up as good. There is a fair amount of evidence that not believing falsehoods or spreading lies, trusting other humans by default, and interacting with and trading knowledge and goods with others makes for a robust, adaptable society which serves the interests of its members. Actions which have a high likelihood of working against truth, trust, or trade become proscribed under The Actualization Ethic.
A few more assertions expand the scope of moral consideration - humans almost always have other human advocates and you're likely undermining your goals somewhat by treating others poorly especially in a world whose borders are dissolving. Even with strong future discounting, humans generally want to keep their options open which further indicates not treating others poorly because you don't know who'll be useful later.
Why the indirection? Because humans are only as good as they can afford to be. Acting rationally with respect to norms in the moment is more calorie-intensive than following cached rules even if such rules will, on rare occasion, produce results which hinder goal actualization - precisely why trolley problems are almost entirely pointless. A nebulous goal like "act so as to not undermine society" or, worse, "act so as to fullfil the most and strongest desires of others" is too vague and references too many constructs to cache into the limbic system with practice. Furthermore, it makes no distinctions between types of societies and ignores that societies are in competition for resources including mindshare so destroying a bad society doesn't necessarily make things worse since a good society might take its place.
Don't lie, don't steal, don't assault, mind your business, don't act as a roadblock or tollbooth to others - namely don't be a jerk. These are pretty easy to form into habits and are quite teachable. In 90%+ of cases they work even at the level one learns in kindergarden.
What You Won't Find in The Actualization Ethic
- Suffering is bad - Definitionally one will consider their own suffering bad, so they don't need a moral system to tell them to avoid it. What individuals consider suffering varies and emotional and physical pain (which overlap with suffering sometimes) can sometimes have silver linings such as giving people an impetus to change.
- You should care about everyone for no reason - Why? You should care about those who you should care about - those who you either like or fear directly or indirectly. The Actualization Ethic says that this set is likely to contain most humans both now and in the future. That's the solid reason to not be a jerk to them.
- Humans are special - Every species has some sort of trick or oddity, so special in this case deflates to different. If you want to make a value judgement that humans deserve different considerations than other agents due to some aspect of biology such as the ability to reason, then go for it - just be consistent. The Actualization Ethic only states that other humans will most likely be directly or indirectly important in your goal actualization. Does that sit on top of certain biological aspects? Sure. But the biological aspects only matter in this system's perspective due to the influence others can bring to bear on your chances of goal actualization.
- Intrinsic value - it doesn't exist. Value is a relational process between goals and states of affairs or goals and means. In fact, The Actualization Ethic rejects any use of the word value or its analogs which are not verbs or adverbs.
- Natural rights or the social contract - Both are lazy and demonstrably false. Rights come from others.
- Judging the acts case-by-case - It's simply too expensive and humans can't be trusted to think long-term when clouded by emotion. It's far easier to not lie to the Nazis looking for hidden Jews than it is to come up with all sorts of sub-rules which can backfire or conflict. If people practiced simple rules such as not lying in the early 20th century then it wouldn't have been possible for the Nazis to rise to power in the first place. The Actualization Ethic, like Desirism, judges the act indirectly - is the act an expression of a rule which tends towards goal actualization? The primary difference is that The Actualization Ethic makes claims about what some of those rules are though changing situations could hypothetically lead to different rules being necessary. The Actualization Ethic is therefore a more concrete variant of Desirism - it implements Desirism.
- Scientism - Science cannot directly justify goals, it can only discover them or justify means in relationship to ends.
- Moral realism - Oughts are ultimately based on values and values are ultimately based on goals. Goals are subjective even if they have objective causes.
- Moral progress - Progress exists only in the context of some goal. The goal of moral systems is adherence by agents to its precepts. Within The Actualization Ethic it's possible for moral progress or moral regress to occur. Outside of a moral system, moral directions are meaningless.
- Vapid definitions of harm - Harm requires discernable entanglement with agent-caused states of affairs. That, by itself, doesn't determine whether certain forms of harm should be considered permissible or prohibited but it does mean that harm claims need to be backed up with proof.
- Conflation of government with society, the general welfare, "state worship" - With no current examples to the contrary, the state is at best a system suited solely to social stability which can be phased out over time with the proper technological and normative innovations. All functions of the state which undermine truth, trust, or trade or other prerequisites of a good society or the general goal actualization of the members of a society are considered wrong by The Actualization Ethic.
- Conflation of goal actualization with desire satisfaction - the difference is in the correspondence with belief and reality. While one can only act so as to satisfy their desires, The Actualization Ethic promotes actualizing one's goals. When one has true beliefs, these two states of affairs overlap. Without true beliefs, they might not overlap.
Haidt's Moral Foundations
All six of Haidt's moral foundations are likely to have been adaptive at various points in primate evolution. Human and non-human primates exhibit these traits to varying degrees. The problem with these six foundations are that they are maladaptive in certain present-day circumstances and that they can conflict. Simple rules and easy practice need to inculcate desires which are compatible with those of others. Though a strict ranking is impossible even in all known circumstances, the precepts of The Actualization Ethic expresses the following ranking in descending order:
- Liberty where it does not deny allowable, non-dependent goal actualization. That is, the liberty to deny others the liberty to deny others goal actualization is acceptable though the focus should be on rehabilitation where possible so as to keep a trained human around for instrumental benefit later. Denying others goal actualization which depends on you or another where they have not agreed to perform for another is also acceptable. That is, no one under The Actualization Ethic is allowed to deny one's liberty to deny them access to their time or rivalrous creations.
- Fairness in the sense of everyone playing under the same rules and having access to the same level of non-interference in non-human-dependent opportunity access. That means that no one can deny others opportunities to nature or third parties who haven't agreed to be bound by the denier. People can deny others opportunities to themselves, their time, their rivalrous creations, or access to things or others agreed to voluntarily by contract. Fairness under this system does not mean correcting for luck by transferring opportunities to others. This is a net loss of actualization even if it creates more balance. It also undermines truth, trust, and trade. For those four reasons fairness as luck balancing or equality of outcome is prohibited. While there is ample evidence that wealth inequality is one of the fastest ways to ruin a society, there are ways to fix that without undermining goal actualization.
- Care where it does not interfere with the previous two foundations. It is advised that, since people may be useful to you presently or in the future, you should treat them well now. Empathizing is an effective way to practice non-interference with others and it helps build trust and can lead to trade opportunities. Caring about others to the point of undermining liberty or fairness can work in limited situations, but is not compatible with a large, long-term stable and adaptable society and is therefore considered wrong.
- Loyalty where it does not become mindless allegiance to arbitrary factions or institutions. Loyalty to the society you live in solely because it's the society you live in approximates a death cult. Loyalty to the institutions of a society, such as its government or religions is responsible for the hinderance of much goal actualization throughout history. If you are to be loyal, be loyal to what you value and to whatever moral systems you adopt. But do not do so mindlessly nor permanently - reevaluate your loyalties periodically.
- Sanctity only where it prevents social degradation; for instance letting masses of people flow into society without a proper guarantee of compatible desires can destroy a society in short order. Diversity often aids in adaptability, but it can do so at the expense of stability and cohesion.
- Authority should not be respected mindlessly or automatically. Respect those who have earned it by your standards and expect respect in return if you are meeting those same standards. Authorities in certain disciplines are necessary due to the division of labor but demand clear, easily-explainable proof whenever possible. Do not trust those who claim authority in creating norms or rules solely due to popularity or luck - demand proof there as well and be ever skeptical. Yes, that includes skepticism of The Actualization Ethic.
As Compared with Various Philosophies and Political Systems
- Act utilitarianism - The Actualization Ethic does not judge individual acts by their direct effects. It judges them by whether they express a desire which tends to promote or inhibit goal actualization.
- Rule utilitarianism - The Actualization Ethic judges rules by whether they tend to promote or inhibit goal actualization. However, it recognizes that following rules has a cost and does not demand that individuals follow rules which are either not possible or for which they have no direct or indirect reason to obey.
- Deontology - The Actualization Ethic is not deontological because it recognizes that "similarly-situated individuals" is a value-laden term and that not every agent can or will adopt it as a moral system. Even if it were possible to cause everyone to be fully on the same page, it could close off future opportunities and adaptability by becoming a moral "monoculture." That moral memes exist with variation allows moral evolution should the need arise due to changing environment.
- Virtue ethics - The Actualization Ethic only cares about the character of others insofar as it makes them either useful or not harmful to the goal actualization of its adherents.
- Libertarianism - The Actualization Ethic rejects self-ownership as a starting normative principle. It significantly changes the definition of the non-aggression principle to include all acts or passive states which deny non-agent-dependent goal actualization.
- Conservatism - The Actualization Ethic rejects most of the sanctity and authority moral foundations and, in doing so, rejects much of current conservatism. While it doesn't embrace change for its own sake, neither does it respect "the tyranny of tradition." Institutions and social norms are expected to serve the goal actualization of the members of society and be discarded if they can't regardless of their history.
- Progressivism - The Actualization Ethic rejects the notion of acontextual social or moral progress. It rejects using social institutions to inhibit goal actualization which doesn't come at the expense of another. It rejects scientism.
- Anarchy - While The Actualization Ethic leans anarchistic, it is ultimately structure-agnostic. If social institutions can be set up which allow more disperse goal actualization then they cost, they can be justified. It is expected that technology and human augmentation will eventually eliminate or severely curtail the justification for involuntary social institutions. The Actualization Ethic rejects the notions of forced collectives and framing right and wrong in terms of property.
- Desirism - The Actualization Ethic is strongly related to Desirism. It judges actions on the desires they express, but it defines "good desires" slightly differently. The Actualization Ethic does not take into account the desires of those one has no reason to consider.
- Divine command theory - The Actualization Ethic rejects divine command theory until it can be shown that one or more gods exist and that their will is known.
- Various Falsehoods - The Actualization Ethic rejects the various falsehoods of natural rights theory, social contract theory, propertarianism, argumentation ethics, Objectivism, and the original position/veil of ignorance.
