Staring at the Sun (Ethics Part One)
Well folks, as a token of my appreciation for your faithful patronage over the past two years, I have made all drinks available free of charge, compliments of the quandaries of life. As promised, I now present to you my newly refined cocktail, mixed with the finest ingredients that manage to kick just as much as they slide. It is likely that the question of what it means to be ethical has been asked (and perhaps answered) by those who frequent thesecondchance. The context from which your bartender speaks concerning this issue is that of a formerly "active" Christian who continues to study and wrestle with issues that revolve around what it means to be a presently active one. While I will not pretend that the following statements sufficiently answer the question at hand, I do believe there are some underlying principles involved that are perhaps fundamental to engaging it. Shall we?
"I'll stare straight into the sun and I won't close my eyes, til I understand or go blind." - Dustin Kensrue, Thrice
The question of ethics, as everything, begins from where you are, where I am, and the place in which we all reside at each given moment. It is for this reason that the universality we all so desperately seek when it comes to ethics is always there but yet just out of reach. How do you form a system of ethics when the nature of life works against all systems and forces you to grapple with the circumstances of life as they come? How do you find purpose in a life that gives you all the reasons in the world not to do so? How do you begin to ask questions about the "right" way to live our lives when the only life you can ultimately understand is your own? Can there be an ethics that applies to other people besides you? Well, let's hope so...but let's think about it first.
As influenced by certain theorists (if you're interested, I'll cite them), I believe that there are an infinite number of factors that play into this game we call life. There is no escape to the "game." And yet, the game can only be a game with the people who play it. We do have the power to play the game and change the course of history. There's rules that change and rules that don't change but herein lies the key: If you stop playing the game, the game plays you. Stay with me here, we're still on ethics.
I think that the way we play the game is what ultimately matters. Here's how I play it. There are factors beyond my control and factors wholly within it. For me, it's about commitment...resilience...an unwillingness to let the game play me. It's a stubborn denial of letting "them" have the ultimate say. It's a relentless and ultimately absurd drive to risk everything in order to understand just what the hell is going on here. Why is this required? Because if you wake up everyday bringing your system of ethics to your circumstances of life, you'll never see the other person for who they are. There's something to be said for suspension of disbelief; there might be something to say about suspension of belief as well. The only reason I say this is because that thing we call contradiction will present itself with an ugly head right about the time you think you've got it figured out. It's why Bonhoeffer was a Christian pacifist who joined a bunch of communists and atheists in a plot to kill Hitler. It's why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (this is why I settle with just "thewalrus") couldn't find a way to keep his pants on with women other than his wife and yet changed the course of history by being willing to give up everything for the sake of a principle. It's the utterly unlikeable person of Martin Luther who was just happenstance enough to be the only bastard who found a way to say "Here I Stand" at the precise moment it needed to be said (I'm tipping my hat to our good patron liveforwhatever here). It's the unwillingness to let the "how it's supposed to be" control how you do things. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus hung out with thieves, deadbeats, and professional assholes. How you face yourself and the Other person is how you begin ethics. How you find a way to keep doing it despite everything is how you proceed.
When we question the relative "rightness" of a particular issue perhaps we should consider all the X-factors that come into play. Why do people do what they do? That's the question that keeps ethics from truly being ethics. It's the "priestly" that conditions the "prophetic." Ethics lies somewhere in between these two poles. "Priestly" is tending to the particularities of life and personhood in order to properly enact that which one considers is right. "Prophetic" is saying "fuck you" to particularities and to waiting around for people to be ready. The truth lies in both but mostly somewhere in between. If you give up on either one, you've given up on ethics.
What I'm saying to you here, as long-winded as it might be, is merely to take a glance at what it means to be ethical. I want this to be the beginning of an extended conversation because in the core of this conversation lies what it means to be a patron of thesecondchance. It is within this conversation that your life is questioned and ultimately rendered worthwhile or...not so much. This is why I do what I do folks. It's why I keep fighting in a battle that surpasses reason, a battle that sustains my being on the edge of life (sometimes quite literally) despite all my misgivings. I could go further into all my personal reasons that drive this conversation but I'll save that for the jukebox. On that note, I'll leave you with this:
"We will overcome if no one sleeps tonight. We will wait for this. We waited too long to see the Promised Land...We will overcome." - Geoff Rickly, Thursday

26 Comments:
My question in all of this is, "Do I need to know where I'm going?" There are always the factors of the where we stand, but must there be the factors of where at least want to be? Or is it just a new where I'm at...Let me attempt something less opaque...
Let's take ML and MLK as examples. MLK spoke of the Promised Land, and like other "prophets", did not see the day when people began crossing over. It seemed that he knew where he wanted to go, and it wasn't always other-worldly. Even MLK the spiritual leader wasn't always banking on a fine, heavenly telos. Sometimes, he just wanted to see people treated with more dignity and respect.
And then there's ML...if you know me, you know I have issues with Luther. With the veil of Heaven always before his eyes, it was easier for him to construct an ethical system to be later universalized. But how much of what he said and did was in DIRECT opposiition to the Catholic Church? I'm not sure, but it seems as if our heavenly hopeful is a radical reactionary.
I guess I'm saying that maybe we don't need a telos, but I think thewalrus is on to something. (Or I'm misunderstanding...always possible). Regardless, maybe sitting ourselves in Life might involve claiming more than we wish to claim.
Next round's on me
--LfW
9:55 AM, February 15, 2007
lfw, thanks for starting this thing - I like your thoughts. My enormously sleep-deprived brain will try to engage them. I would say we don't need to know exactly where we're going; in fact, we probably shouldn't. I do think however that for those who desire some sort of ethical framework in life, it would be wise to develop a purpose that drives them. I think each person in this case should find a healthy way to provide meaning to their lives. In other words, since we don't know what's going to happen in the future, we should at least develop some open-ended principles that enable us to engage them.
However, I'd be curious to hear you say more about the telos thing. I think you might be onto something that's very pertinent to this conversation.
10:33 AM, February 15, 2007
Oh, I'll respond. I'll respond you good there, bucco!
But maybe not until the Wed exam...booooooo....
9:30 PM, February 16, 2007
Am I really the only cat around here who cares about ethics? Geez, I can't win. I'm too ethical to be pagan, too pagan to be Christian, and too short to model...but that notwithstanding, I do still get those damn smiles that make me want tomorrow to be today.
Has my bar become a place to serve myself? If so, I'll settle with it but I'm all about knowing something beforehand. liveforwhatever and I will drink without you but crazy people do love company. We'd love yours.
1:33 AM, February 19, 2007
I care about ethics, thewalrus. I just have a big test on Friday (I know everybody's busy).
I'm still listening, even while I am studying over here in the corner.
8:55 PM, February 20, 2007
I hear you hobbes. Thanks for letting me know.
10:49 PM, February 20, 2007
I guess I stayed on the sidelines till I figured out which direction this conversation is going to take. I still am no clearer but I'll jump in anyway. I guess the reason this may not be the most popular topic is that people don't want their 'ethics base' challenged. If they are thinking folk they have struggled with these issues already and picked a path that most suites them, if the aren't thinking folk they let the media define ethics them.
The people who have defined a ethical mixture come in a few different flavours also, I think the Bible is pretty clear in the way it portrays Jesus' ethical schema. I think it can be summed up in one word, 'selflessness.' On the other extreme you have the 17 year olds that read Ayn Rand books whom live by some kind of hyper selfish manifesto. On a completely different axis you have those who don't give a damn about ethics and live their lives bound by a creed to maximize their own pleasure (or minimize their own pain) at the expense of everyone else.
I think you touch on my point Walrus, "When we question the relative "rightness" of a particular issue perhaps we should consider all the X-factors that come into play." The world is a hugely complex place with alot of opportunities to take ethical positions based on your current inclination and situation. I think the problem that we as thinkers run into is trying to find one 'truth' and one 'judge' to cover all the situations that could take place on earth. I think we free ourselves when we realized that what is 'right' for some people is literally impossible for others and thus should be judged differently.
None of this is said to stifle debate on what is ethical, but to set the parameters of how it can be discussed honestly.
On a personal level I did (and still do) alot of observing and learning about the micro and macro results of my actions and determining (based on my life status and personal experience) if these results were good or bad. Then I shaped my actions to increase the good output and decrease the bad output. Sounds simple and vague but it works for me. I have a foggy notion of what I want to be thinking on my last day on earth; I was pleased and engaged, I helped others feel pleased and engaged, I left something in this world that makes it a better place than it was in the 70s when I was born. For now those are my goals.
I also recognize that the phrases 'for now' and 'from my standpoint' are key. I am doing the best for my level of knowledge and experience. Global or personal events may change my base of reference at any time. I am reminded of a notion I gleaned from the movie "Letters from Iwo Jima" and a book I was reading concurrently. In 1940s Japan what was 'ethical' was fighting for your country to protect it from evil invaders. Easy enough, but the prevailing idea was that it was 'good' and 'ethical' to die in battle, even if it was by your own hand. In both the movie and the book there were large groups of Japanese soldiers whom killed themselves to keep their honor, but in both cases there was a soldier who had different reasons to live. Neither of the soldiers were judgemental of the other soldiers who were locked in to the 1940 Japanese worldview. In fact both had a small hand in facilitating the other's suicide, but they choose to continue to live to accomplish their higher goals. Both of these stories drove home to me the notion that ethics are a personal matter and that no one set of standards can be used by everyone.
"Staring at the sun, guess I shouldn't have stared so long, now I can't see at all." -some obscure non-hip garage band.
7:22 AM, February 21, 2007
octavio, I'm glad you jumped in. I enjoyed your response and will add some thoughts later today. I'm off to lunch right now.
11:48 AM, February 21, 2007
Ok so I bitched about responses and now I haven't followed up. I promise to do so asap. I've been preoccupied with pressing matters the past couple of days. The rest of you can jump in at any time. Cheers.
11:31 PM, February 22, 2007
If I am truely honest with myself, then I want to be perceived as an "ethical" person. I may or may not live out my professed "ethics" behind closed doors...
It seems to me that there is no set code or boundaries and each person has his/her own idea of what it means to be ethical...How can we ever agree? How can I expect you, or you expect me to do this or that when I may not give a rip? Or if we can't agree on what we give a rip about?
Maybe some people are glad to just be playing...
8:27 AM, February 23, 2007
Fickle readership indeed. You also have a massively inconsistent bartender. I spent way too many hours of my life today studying the history of religion in America so I couldn't respond. I do hope to do so tomorrow.
As for Lost, you must've not seen the second Lost post. It's been posted but no one but me has responded. I haven't seen the 3rd episode yet so that's why I skipped this past week.
2:06 AM, February 25, 2007
Fickle indeed, I guess we are waiting for some kind of direction.
I just read this on al.com thought it might be of some use, " Cheer up, Tide fans. When all else fails, there's always gymnastics."
Ŵâŕ ĒãģĿĔ¡¡¡¡¡
2:39 PM, February 26, 2007
Ok I’ll pitch in and serve up a few. Elastic, whether you’re a regular wearing a hat and sunglasses or whether you’re a newcomer, either way I’ll extend you a welcome. My suspicion is that you and octavio are either identical or at least closely connected. You both root for the wrong teams!
Octavio,
Again thanks for the lengthy response. I’m not sure I would describe the ethic of Jesus as “selflessness” but this word carries a lot of weight so I may just be misunderstanding. I would however characterize it as love but that doesn’t get us too far.
The problematic universalism you speak of is precisely one of the issues I wanted to touch on here (and will further below in response to dante). Can there be an ethics that resists universality? If so, is it ethics?
Well, I got interrupted twice today trying to finish this but I'll put this out for now. dante and 2coopers, you will get your response. I'm having one of those blow-your-mind weeks so hang in there.
2:21 AM, February 27, 2007
Ok so I got a second wind at this ungodly hour.
dante, flesh out your position some. I'm with you on the Other-oriented ethics thing but my gut feeling is we're still bucking heads on the universalism part. I'm certainly not opposed to the possibility of universalism; I just don't know that it's feasible. In other words, who gets to call the shots? We can say "the Other" does but that doesn't get us far. I think you're going somewhere here but I'm not convinced I'm on board yet.
2coopers, I'm certainly glad you're still playing. I'm curious as to what you mean by behind closed doors. I guess I suspect you might be addressing ethics in your private life vs. ethics in your public life. What I probably failed to get across in my post is that I think the categories of private and public have issues. I'm advocating something along the lines of Bonhoeffer's "worldly Christianity" although I'm probably not as good of a Lutheran as he is...or on the other hand, maybe I'm more so...
Anyways, the question to be asked is this: on what terms can we decide what is ethical or not? Is it even possible?
By way of clarification, by "universalism" I am referring to the ability of ethics to apply to all of us equally, not just one person here or a few there. I say this only because these terms get thrown around too much with no clarification.
2:37 AM, February 27, 2007
I apparently had to leave thesecondchance for a rather lengthy piss-break....
There's something about all this subdued Levinasian theory floating around that makes me just a little uncomfortable. I agree with a lot of the -being claimed by the Other' business, but it seems be a consistently external practice. I don't think we can have a universal ethic. Perhaps we can have a universal mode of interpreting a personal ethic. And perhaps that mode is to recognize the full extent of who we are, recognize -our own Other-, and to recognize what it is within us that holds us back from making the right decision or from perceiving any given situation as one in which a moral/ethical decision must be made.
See, friends, I think we are all inherently pretty good. I also believe that the good gets stuck under a lot of repressed and forgotten memories of the world around us consistently packing down the good inside of us. There's something to those annoying hipsters reading Ayn Rand that intrigues me. (Well, attractive hipsters intrigue me anyway...) Is it so very wrong to be -hyper selfish- if it is done with the telos of doing good work always in mind? I suppose that's what I was getting at in my first offering.
And as for selflessness--Selflessness is an ontology, and can only be a base for an ethical system to be simply predicated upon as an ontology. The Tao Te Ching may help explain better than I can. The 81st and final teaching concludes by saying,
"The Tao nourishes by not forcing.
By not dominating, the Master leads."
7:29 PM, February 28, 2007
My head just a-sploded. I'll be getting back to you. Great response! I tip my hat to you sir.
10:02 PM, March 01, 2007
And suddenly, my true identity is revealed...what the hell just happened?
10:03 PM, March 01, 2007
lfw/thomas, a-splosion?
dante,
Why does one have to be a nihilist if they do not articulate their ethics in universal terms? I guess I don't know why it has to be an either/or. If I'm reading you correctly in saying you do believe in universal ethics, how do you articulate that concretely? I don't want this to get too heady or we might create a buzzkill environment but I do want to hammer this out if possible.
1:28 PM, March 02, 2007
In other news, I definitely just miserably failed my midterm I took yesterday which sucks. I am also waiting to hear back from the doctor once again about the lab results. It's been 6 weeks now so this waiting is getting old. I am thankfully now on spring break although I will be working about 40 hours in the library and at the end of the week I'll be going to California for my brother's wedding.
Therefore, I will have plenty of time next week to get you a new post and I intend to do so. Hope all is well.
1:38 PM, March 02, 2007
We have to be careful making these kinds of claims. I see where you're going with the reference to the death penalty, but even that kind of argument isn't universal.
I may act -as if- my ethic were universalizable, (and I agree that one should act in such a manner), but I think it is absurd to create a universal out of my own categorical ethic.
As one example: Let's pretend that I don't believe in the sanctity of same-sex unions/marriages/etc. If I believe that my belief is universal, instead of acting -as if- it is, then it has disastrous consequences. I will try to convince others that what I believe is universal. Suddenly, the private becomes the institutional.
In no way am I a nihilist, but I am happy to be labeled as such. I'm still struggling to the, "Which came first, the chicken or the Being" question. The primacy of obligation isn't an obvious statement, though I think many of us would agree that it might be the most effective statement.
What it boils down to for me is that we need to individualize ethical decisions. It starts at recognizing a situation as one in which we may make a moral/ethical decision. If we universalize the situation, then we automatically turn to the "what would ... do". At some point, Mr(s) "..." won't be able to help you. Allowing complications allow us to remain tied and obligated to the Other, which is always outside of us and always in need of re-evaluation.
1:56 PM, March 04, 2007
thomas,
Elaborate more on the private becoming institutional. I'm not sure I follow.
dante (and thomas on some points),
I find references to private/public problematic. How can anyone have a private ethics? dante, this is where you say "that's what I'm saying!" Yes, but how can anyone have a public ethics? We're still not getting anywhere.
I'm not claiming to exclude the universal a priori. I'm just saying I'm skeptical of the possibilities of articulating a universal ethic. We're bickering over the definition of ethics but we're still not saying anything useful.
5:08 PM, March 04, 2007
octavio, 2coopers, hobbes...
You guys stop drinking?
5:16 PM, March 04, 2007
Hmm, I'm not sure we're even disagreeing anymore. I do think we articulate our ethical approach differently, which is odd, seeing that we seem to live it out in remarkably similar ways. I think some of this goes back to our debate in the Leveling the Field thread.
12:15 PM, March 05, 2007
I'd like to try a different approach. So far we (or at least I) have been discussing the need for the personal over and above (while still considering) the universal. In that way, it's truly hard to argue against the universal ethic, but what I'm arguing for is not a personal ethic but a personal reaction to variations/complications of ethical themes.
I went back to a conversation (Leveling the Field--I still think Mel Gibson's an asshole, and not really that talented) that was prior to my appearance here. What I want to complicate is not the need for a universal ethic but the process by which we come to make ethical decisions. I recently told the Walrus that there would be a difference between a stranger killing my mother and my best friend killing my mother. I would react differently. I see now how you can say, Dante, that there cannot be a private ethic. If I'm going to stand up and say that everyone is my neighbor, then what gives my private relationships precedence over my civic relationships?
What I am arguing for is a situational ethic. Should a man be jailed for 20 years if he steals a loaf of bread for his starving child? Should a man be jailed for 20 years if he steals a loaf of bread, lets the bread dry for a month, then beats his child with the dried loaf of bread?
The problem of a situational ethic, I admit, is that what I'm actually referring to are systemic problems that cause complications in individual decision-making. In that way, the individual decisions are defined by a logical justification (i.e. making excuses).
I'll have to concede for now, but I do want to pose the question of whether a situational ethic, based on universal and/or a priori terms, is possible.
2:38 PM, March 05, 2007
dante, get in here and drink your beer...and both you and thomas can kiss it b/c I do think Gibson's talented. I don't know the guy so I have no idea whether he's an asshole or not. Most of my friends are assholes though, not to mention yours truly, so I don't have much to say to that.
Crap, I had always wanted to beat my children with dried loaves of bread...this ethical conversation is screwing up everything...
5:00 PM, March 05, 2007
I think that's a good place to start actually (and thomas, I hope this addresses at least tangentially what you're looking for). I do think we can all agree that that's the case. So now where do we go? I think we need to address what this means for the everyday person as well as those subscribing to a "Christian" ethics.
5:42 PM, March 05, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home