Baseline ethics

When we act, we would usually like to think that we're acting for the benefit of everyone, even for all humans. However, when we act confidently with this justification, it makes as much sense as saying we're acting in the interest of the Scottish, ignoring all other humans. Caring about sentient beings without considering that it is a certainty that there are many other sentient beings in the universe that are experiencing life. Although painful to acknowledge, if we care about anything other than our own experience we have a much larger duty than might have ever been imagined.

I find pain in considering that whatever I do, whether I've done something great in the day or feel great, there will always be someone somewhere in immense physical and mental anguish. This may be a pessimistic thought but it forces me to consider what exactly it is about the world, or reality, that humans want to change. When we act ethically do we simply to do it because we feel compelled to, or because we think we can actually make a difference. Is it wise to act based purely on the fact that your action stems the tide of suffering somewhat, even if you can never stop the daily incredible suffering in our world and possibly in others.

Because of these thoughts I started considering whether it is actually beneficial for humans to keep on living. The cliche scenario is a post apocalyptic world where only one man and one woman survive. The obvious compulsion here is for them to carry out their natural duty as humans and reproduce to save our species. However, I'd contend that such a situation may be an ideal one. If possible, those humans may not wish to procreate and instead take the chance to end the suffering of our species once and for all, by ending the species. Is there a name for this style of thought? Perhaps it's fatalistic, because it somewhat assumes that humans have no greater potential for combating suffering as they progress into the future. However, quite opposite to this view, I believe that, apart from in this situation, humans have to carry on and try to progress. Establishing any plan to end the species would be catastrophic and probably only create way more suffering. Humans have no choice but to fight on, but with a difference. We have a duty to continually reexamine our fundamentals, and try to look for ways that undercut our everyday suffering. People might agree that every new generation has to go through a normal life making mistakes to learn and really appreciate life, but it seems unethical to expect countless individuals to experience horrific pain for no reason. That is the current human condition that needs to end.

A further reason to long for progress is the thought of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In my opinion, this seems very likely. While the probability of ever communicating with such beings is very low, we have a responsibility to them (like I implied in the first paragraph) that can only be carried out by our continued existence and progression.


My views on this can be summarised as:
While merely existing is problematic, we do and it is probably impossible to end our species on purpose, therefore we have a responsibility to progress, revolutionize human life and reach out to help all other intelligent forms of life that suffer.

~

Should we accept suffering as an ethical baseline? Some don't. Some would say that their life is about doing the best for themselves in terms of money and fame, or perhaps improving the ranking of their country or army. The actual feelings and comfort of the people in their society or the world are irrelevant to their aims and ethics. I'm not sure there is anything logical I can say to respond to their position. This is because caring about the suffering of others, all others, is my baseline. It is the most fundamental of my ethical beliefs and is difficult to challenge. It is not logical but based on what I feel compelled to do. Not dissimilar to a person going to war for their country's prosperity, knowing that the war will in turn damage the opposing country's best interests. This sounds contradictory to me from my baseline, but mine would seem so to the soldier, who doesn't see any benefit in some of my actions to my country, so sees my actions as contradictory.

Can there be agreement and progress when people have contradicting baselines? It makes it more difficult, but we can come up with win-win scenarios where progress is achieved while not necessarily contradicting the wishes of the more nationalistic, or the more self-interested, or the more humanistic beliefs. An example is climate change control. Not everyone believes in climate change, or cares in it, or thinks it's the highest/a high priority, but by encouraging energy efficiency as a way of saving money, there has been a lot more approval and progress.