Two things...

First of all, you *really* should read this article by David Wong. It's somewhat on the longish side, but it's stunningly insightful - it'll give you a new perspective on and insight into human society and interaction. At the very least, it certainly did for me, and even though I was at least vaguely aware of many of the points it covers, it took them all, presented them in a fresh form and worked out the connection and put it all into one coherent piece of text.

It's a pity it doesn't really touch upon ethics, though, and that's probably its only weak point; it'd have been interesting to discuss philosophical systems of ethics in the light of the monkeysphere and try to work out both what an ethical system would have to look like to make the world a genuinely better place and how it actually could be implemented in a fashion that would ensure that people abided by it (that is, that they learnt that it was important and why - that they were *convinced*, in other words, rather than forced to accept it).

Speaking of ethics and forcing people to accept things, BTW, an interesting thought occurred to me earlier today at the gym, too. I've thought for a while that generally speaking, you can discuss most things and debate most decisions (past or future) on two distinct levels, namely the ethical level and the practical level; the ethical level considers, well, ethics, whereas the practical level is really concerned about getting things done (in other words, the different questions asked are, respectively, "is it right to do this?" and "will this work - i.e., have the desired effect?").

I think that a lot of the misunderstandings between people, especially in political discussions etc., stem from the fact that they're arguing on different levels; if one person approaches a problem from an ethical perspective, on the ethical level, and another approaches the same problem on the practical level, and if these people then come to different conclusions, they will not be able to have a fruitful and constructive discussion about them unless and until they realize they are arguing on different levels.

With this brief introduction of the most salient points of this concept, today's thought that occurred to me was that laws - that is, "the law" - is really a way to translate concepts from the ethical level to the practical level. Even though it may seem misanthropic of me to say so, I think it's true there are a significant number of people who simply lack the ability (or willingness) to really argue and think on an ethical level, and for these, this sort of translation seems essential: instead of "I do X because X is right" (an argument on the ethical level), the argument can then be "I do X because X is the law" (an argument on the practical level), and this works because of the hidden translation of "X is (i.e., was made) the law because X is right".

Interestingly enough, this also ties into questions such as "would you obey a law if you thought it was unjust?" (which always seems to be a favorite in personality type tests and the like). I consider myself someone who usually thinks/argues on the ethical level (or at least *also* on the ethical level), and I always answer "no" there. I know that there are some who might feel uncomfortable about that, but the key there is that, as noted above, the law is defined by ethics rather than vice versa: so for me to answer "yes" there would be putting the metaphorical cart before the horse.

Anyhow, this is just something I wanted to talk about, even though I doubt most people will even read this entry.

(And regarding the monkeysphere again... it really does make you wonder whether it wouldn't ultimately be nice to just buy some land in rural Montana or so and live there in your own house, away from most of society, wouldn't it? I know if I won the lottery, I'd do that, although I also confess I'm probably lazy (not to mention dependant on civilization) enough to still want things like air conditioning, broadband Internet access, a car to buy groceries etc. from a supermarket in the nearest town, and so on. *s*)

Tags: ethics, thoughts
Hugarástand: thoughtful