Sunday, December 1, 2013

The Two Fundamental Categories of Ethics (feat. Rape and Murder)

In the last article I established a simple objective base and criterion of morality considered apart from God and religious texts.  This is a follow up. 

All modes of human actions can be grouped into two distinct categories via their resolved morality apart from motives, circumstances, consequences, codes, rules, laws, texts, emotions, tastes, customs, traditions, opinions, judgments, etc.  It is irrational, inconceivable and impossible to argue otherwise. Either the human target is directly harmed by the human mediator or it is not via the action in question.  A moralist objectively and impartially resolves whether or not the action in question resolves to harm inherently directed to the target or not.  

A moralist is not first concerned about the motive behind the murder or even what the murderer thought about murder.  Criminal investigators and prosecutors are concerned with resolving motives in order to discover the serial killer’s location, etc.  Writers are interested about what possibly influenced the serial killers views of certain actions in order to write an interesting book.  But a moralist detaches a manner of behavior from the motives and thought of the murderer so as to impartially ask questions like

Does murder make sense?

What is the quality of murder?
What do all murders have in common?
Does an act of murder directly harm the target?

In their unbiased studies some genuine ethicists have discovered that all human actions imaginable resolve to two fundamental categories.  The words used to label the two fundamental categories of morality are completely irrelevant.  One can call them X and Y.  In religion there are probably fifty synonyms for X and Y and in ethics another twenty.  It doesn't matter what one names the two fundamental categories or what one uses to modify an action to communicate which of the two fundamental categories it fits into.  What is most important is that one resolve inherent direction of the act in view of the target.  The simple objective criterion used to resolve the morality of human actions is whether or not the mediator of the relational action directly harms the target.  
Is this type of action directly helping or is it directly harming the object?  

Harm is a sort of moniker or place holder or abstract concept nesting any sort of deprivation or damage imaginable whether physical, psychological, emotional, vital, monetary, property, etc. pending the human act in question.  Example:  Murder directly deprives the target of his or her life.  When ethicists isolate human actions via their brains, they sometimes consider them AS IF they were humans with their own immutable motive.  What is the motive of murder ‘itself’?  To directly deprive a target of life.  Murder's purpose is to directly deprive an individual of his or her own life.  I prefer not to communicate a concept such as murder AS IF an object.  But some ethicists do for ease of communication because ethics can get fairly abstract.  On the other hand I prefer to focus on the objective human target.  Ethics is all about the other. 

But back to one of the most important concepts in all of ethics: some types of human actions are direct deprivations in view of the target.  And this is NOT a matter of opinion.  Either the human action directly harms the target or it does not.  There is no other option and all opinion on the matter is irrelevant.  If one is attempting to resolve an obscure or complex human action then there might be some room for opinion or disagreement to help get the problem solved; but all human actions will inevitably resolve to Y or not Y(X).  If the mediator of the human action in question directly harms the target it is categorized as Y.  If not it is categorized as X.  Y is the cluster of all types of human actions that directly harm the target.

The objective base of morality is a minimum of one human target of the relational action imparted by a minimum of one human mediator (even if the mediator and target is the same individual as in the case of the inherently harmful actions of washing, eating, drinking, sleeping, or the inherently harmful actions of suicide, etc.).  The objective criterion of morality is whether or not the intentional action imparted by mediator to target directly harms the target.

I've firmly established that this criterion is objective, i.e. observer independent, as is the base for the base is an object.  Example:  In a hypothetical single man and single woman universe a rape performed with man as mediator and woman as target STILL directly harms the target and is irrational since there is a contradiction between the mediator and target.  The base and criterion are detached from subjective opinions, personal judgments, rules, codes, laws, religious texts, God, personal intent, consequences, whims of the times, emotions, ignorance or lack thereof, sincerity or lack thereof and even culpability or lack thereof.  The mind of the mediator and the mind of the target are cut off in an analysis of the act in question.  Either the mediator of relational human action in question directly harms the target or does not.  

If a certain type of conceptualized human action is obscure or complex one has to apply critical thinking and rational analysis in an attempt to resolve the human actions category of morality.  The below examples of rape and murder are SEVERE and BLATANT examples that can easily be resolved.  Most types of actions can be easily resolved.  But not all human actions can easily be resolved to their category.  It might take a good amount of objective and impartial thought even apart from the ethical literature and religious texts of the ages. 

What everyone and your mom thinks has nothing to do with the reality that a target object is directly harmed or undergoes harmful change effects when really involved in specific deliberately chosen human actions categorized as Y.  Motives are irrelevant.  The motive behind the rape does not change the harm intrinsically directed to the target in all rapes performed in reality by mediators.  What the rapist thinks about the act of rape is irrelevant and does not change the fact that his act of rape directly harms the victim.  This is impartiality personified!  Either the mediator of a manner of human behavior directly harms the target or not.  If a specific type of human action directly harms a target engaged this same action always directly harms a target when performed in reality.  If one thinks he found an exception then that one is considering a different type of action OR has misconceived the action as a consequence or motive.

No one’s opinion can change the moral category of a human action.  Why and how we are rational animals able to resolve human actions and cluster them in the two distinct categories cannot change the inherent harm directed to a target in a rape. One's worldview or understanding of science or whatever theory one's hold to about the history of the human race and the Earth cannot change the inherent harm directed to a victim in a rape and murder.  Evolution or Judeo-Christian tradition cannot change the fact that a target is always directly harmed in a rape and murder when performed in reality by a mediator.  One's opinion about right or wrong cannot change the inherent harm directed at the target in a rape and murder.
Your or my opinion of a human action’s category (X or Y) may be rational or irrational but that does not determine whether or not the isolated human action in question directly harms the target.  Either the action does or it does not.  No one can change the essential quality of a specific mode of human action.  Either the mediator directly harms the target or the mediator does not.  It is impossible, inconceivable and irrational to argue otherwise.  And a specific action cannot cross categories.  Y cannot change into X and X cannot change into Y.  If the type of action directly harms the target no object or concept can change its nature.  For example:  An abortion cannot deprive the prenatal of life and save the prenatal’s life!!!  This is a conceptual issue resolved by critical thinking and rational analysis. 

Now let’s pick up the example of rape from my last article and add murder. 

Imagine Object A is a male human and Object B is a female human.  Object A signals to Object B, “I want to have sex.”  Object B signals to Object A an unequivocal “No”.  Herein lies a contradiction.  Object A signals X, and Object B signals not-X.  But Object A moves against Object B’s word and helps himself to Object B.  Rape is inherently irrational. Object B is not even freely performing her mediation of the relational action as in the case of a rational sexual act between two mediators and two targets (Man and Women).
the Sowjanya rape and murder 
After the violation of Object B, Object A murders Object B.  At a frame prior to the event Object B looks like the picture in the top left . . . at a frame subsequent to the event Object B looks like picture to right and center . . . 

The motion picture is Rated R for explicit nudity and graphic violence thus I will leave the missing frames to your imagination. While imagining these frames think of any sort or irrationality in the acts or harm and deprivation directed to the target apart from any motive, circumstance, emotions, etc.   

When one visualizes the rape in isolation, in abstract; from the rapist’s opinion, thoughts, motives, etc. as well as one’s own personal opinion in so far as possible; one can resolve whether or not the mediator, in these specific modes of relational action, directly harms the target.  And one can imagine all rapes and all murders in all frames of Earth’s history to help solve whether or not rape and murder considered apart from all opinions ESPECIALLY the serial rapist and killer’s, directly harms the target.  So what is the answer?  Do rape and/or murder performed by all mediators of all times directly harm the target?  Yes or no.  If yes the rape is morally categorized as Y.  If no the rape is morally categorized as X. 

An objective base of ethics is the target object.  And an objective criterion of ethics is whether or not the target object (in this case Object B, the female human) is directly harmed by the mediator object (in this case Object A, the male human) in the identified mode of relational action.  If so the action in question is categorized as Y.  If not the action in question is categorized as X.  The base is unarguably objective as is the criterion.  No one can argue against whether or not a human action directly harms the target when performed in reality.  Either the act does or it does not.  It doesn't matter what Object A’s opinion or thoughts about rape and murder are . . . it doesn't matter what God’s opinion is . . . it doesn't matter what all the opinions of all humans of all history are . . .  Either the performance of rape and murder directly harms the target or not.  End of story.  This aspect of morality is truly a black and white issue.  Other aspects of ethics are more subjective such as culpability, motive, circumstance, ignorance, sincerity, etc.  But the directed harmful change of the target imparted by the mediator in an act is indisputable.  Criminal investigators know this intimately and these sorts of acts consummated in reality impart harmful consequences even to the investigators.  And if no one chose to enact a rape or murder or any other human action which SEVERELY deprives or harms a human target they would be ought of work! 

One’s opinion does not determine whether or not certain types of actions directly harm a target and or targets.  All one can do is attempt to resolve the issue.  Some intentional human actions are difficult to categorize and have taken time and many ethicists writing papers stating their personal opinions, but when all is said and done the mediator performing a specific mode of action either harms the target or does not.  There is no in between and there is no shifting from category Y to category X.  No intended end, thought, opinion, circumstance, law, religion, custom, etc. can change the inherent quality of a specific human action performed in reality.  

Your opinion about whether or not the understanding, application and resolution of morality are irrelevant.  NO one cares what you think.  The objective criterion used to solve the specific action’s native quality is like a punch in the face.  You can rationalize and bellyache and cry and preach that morality resolves to naught but opinion or what is or is not appropriate like at a dinner party; but this does not change the harm inherently directed to the victim by the criminal.  Rape and murder, when performed in reality always directly imparts SEVERE harm to the objective target.

At the present most humans in the world are biased against my analysis but even this cannot change the inseparable harm directed to the target via a rape and murder performed by a mediator in reality.  Social media bias, herd mentality, and bullying cannot change the inherent harm directed to the target via a rape and murder performed by a mediator in reality.  Appeal to authority and all appeals cannot change the inherent harm directed to a target in a murder.  No possible imaginable object or thought or even God can change the intrinsic harm directed to the target engaged in a rape with the mediator.  Thus rape and murder are categorized as Y. 

Grow up world. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.