TL;DR at the bottom
The primary reason that I’ve created this document is as a resource for individuals to properly understand my belief system and predict what beliefs I might hold and reactions I might have, as well as successfully critique and analyze my reactions as compared to my sets of beliefs to ensure the highest level of ethical and philosophical consistency as is possible given what I am willing to do in terms of energy expenditure.
I hope you enjoy what I have to say, and find it informative!
The most fundamental belief that I hold is materialism, or that all aspects of the universe, i.e. matter and energy, are found in the material world, and that an immaterial world either does not exist, or cannot be known to exist through empirical observation, and thus by justifications that will be elaborated on in their relevant sections, cannot be verified as existing.
Second in my list of fundamental principles is skepticism in the philosophical sense, which is to say that one cannot know with certainty that any given thing exists, or that no single thing can be proven with 100% certainty to exist. Although I would not go as far as to say that nothing can be suggested to exist as some skeptics might claim, I would argue that even that which can be reliably suggested to exist cannot be said to exist without doubt, and thus cannot be proven with complete certainty.
Rule Utilitarianism is the ethical framework by which I judge actions as either right or wrong, and it states that an action is morally right insofar as it conforms to an ethical rule that can be observed or predicted to produce the best outcomes for the most people. This is as opposed to act utilitarianism, which states that any action that produces the best outcomes in a given situation is the morally correct one.
The logical justification for my materialistic beliefs can be referred to as the predictability of outcomes, or predictive outcomes. To give a brief overview of what this means, I will create a thought experiment:
If you were to launch a ball in a chamber with no outside forces acting upon it beyond a consistent flow of air coming from a consistent direction, as well as the forces of gravity, one can reliably predict the exact location the ball will land using mathematics. What this means is that the ball and the forces connected to the ball exist insofar as they might predictably react to one another. Furthermore, if one was to change or remove an aspect of the environment, i.e. wind flow, the outcomes would remain predictable and calculatable within the new environment excluding the environmental aspect, thus suggesting that all aspects of the environment also exist
This method of proving that something exists is the only means by which I have seen to reliably prove that something exists, in other words, one can only observe that something exists as it interacts predictably with other things, and as such, only observable traits of an environment can be proven to exist through this framework, and any metaphysical aspects of the environment can be neither proven or disproven, or are non-falsifiable. However, this is the only means by which I have personally found that things might be proven, I would not claim to have the ultimately correct view and understanding of how things might be known to exist, and as such, I would not discount the possibility of proving the existence or the existence of metaphysical aspects of the world. This then relates to my views relating to philosophical skepticism.
I am a skeptic, which is to say, I believe that nothing can be truly known to exist. To justify this, I’ll create another thought experiment:
Suppose that there exists a computer that simulates the ball and the environment the ball is within above. The outcomes would be just as predictable if a computer was simulating it as if it had truly existed, so therefore I cannot state with pure reliability that the ball or the factors connected to it truly exist, but rather can only prove that something exists that produces predictive outcomes. Instead, I state that it is most likely true that the ball exists, as it is simpler to state that the ball exists than to say a separate computer exists that simulates the ball and its environment.
Related to this, I believe on a fundamental level, that nothing can be absolutely justified, but rather must have, at some level, an unjustified assumption. In the example relating to the ball, and my observations of the ball, I assume that my observations are reliable enough to observe predictive outcomes in the first place, while this itself could hypothetically be a faulty assumption.
Additionally, I firmly believe that this is only my own reasoning, and my own reasoning is not ultimately superior to everyone else’s, even those that disagree with me, therefore I cannot conclude that any of my conclusions are necessarily true or false, as I very well could be wrong, and can’t ignore this possibility.
Utilitarianism is the concept that one ought to perform actions that produce the best outcomes for the most people. This ethical framework consists of two parts: Act, and Rule. Rule Utilitarianism is the ethical framework that I believe in, and it states that the actions ought to conform to a set of rules that consistently produce net positive outcomes for most people. Below I will explain but not fully justify this ethical position, as I am somewhat unable to do so to a level that I deem satisfactory for myself.
In relation to the rule aspect of rule utilitarianism, I will use the famous thought experiment of the hospital to justify why act utilitarianism is not sufficient for satisfying the above premises. Suppose that there is a hospital with 3 patients, one needing a heart transplant, one a liver, and one a kidney, and the hospital is unable to find donors for all patients, meaning they will all die unless a donor is found. In the waiting room is a universal donor who has all of the necessary organs, but to extract them, he must die in the process. Is it ethical to kill this man to save the 3 others without his consent? An act utilitarian must say yes, because in that moment the best outcome for most people is to kill the man, but a rule utilitarian would say that this is not ethical, as killing a person to extract their organs for someone else creates a rule that will consistently produce net negative outcomes. So although in this one instance 3 people would die to save 1, the society as a whole will function better and produce better outcomes overall since each person is able to have a right to life, and consent is valued such that they choose what does or does not happen to them. In a society where any person at any time could be kidnapped and taken away from their family to save at least more than 1 person’s life through organ transplant, many plethora of problems would arise, such as paranoia and unhappiness related to fear of being killed, as well as individuals being unable to satisfy their life goals because their individual life is not valued such that they may pursue these goals effectively, etc
In this section, I will underline some examples of my beliefs in practice to give examples of these beliefs so as to make the future analysis of my past, present, and future actions easier. Firstly, I’ll explain some of my political and economic beliefs, point to the reasons for this opinion, then move onto the next. The explanations will be limited for the purpose of the reader’s active application of my principles to better understand them.
Through the course of this document, I have outlined my beliefs, the justifications for these beliefs, and the application of these beliefs, but as a brief overview, I believe that the universe is materialistic, that nothing can be truly known for certain, and that we should create a set of rules that people ought to follow that consistently produces the net best outcomes for the most people.
addendum: the religion section has been modified due to my recent return to Judaism, as well as the reconnection with that side of my family.
Back