ETHICS

METAETHICS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      A brief definition of Metaethics: “A classification within western philosophy that attempts to discover the origin or cause of right and wrong.”

      Within the laws of Nature, the same laws that created all things that exist, is the law that all things are composed of three or more components. The law of three is a very simple thing, and it is easily observed throughout Creation. A difficulty, however, is that the typical human mind cannot easily hold three things simultaneously in the consciousness while comparing, weighing, and applying creative logic to the three things, and thus, although the law of three might be recognized, rarely is it applied within man’s reasoning, which results in man rarely catching a glimpse into the natures of the things that he investigates.

      Within a man’s typical analysis of what is decided as right or wrong, at minimum there will exist dozens of actions occurring simultaneously in the mind, but since the typical man’s analyses are subconscious, then the typical man is not consciously aware that the analyses are being performed, and thus, of the several results there will be (1) an unknowing of the origins of ethics, morals, right, and wrong, and (2) the man’s only means of knowing that he subconsciously made a choice of right and wrong is by his now feeling an emotion that defends or attacks the current question of what is ethical, moral, right, or wrong.

      Numerous beliefs have been created within western philosophy, such as that of Utilitarian Ethics, that promote the claim that morality can be judged by the degree of happiness that results from a moral behavior. There does exist a small degree of truth in the idea that a happiness might result from moral behavior, because the happiness will be the product of a subconscious analysis being made consciously recognizable through the physically felt emotions, but never can any end-product be the standard or origin of right and wrong, and never can a man’s lower animalistic emotions be deemed a suitable substitute for conscious reasoning.

      Metaethics is also structured upon a foundation of believing that man’s upside-down manner of interpreting his world is a correct interpretation. As the IQ Questions and Answers – Types A and B Intelligences helps to explain, the reasoning behind the theories within Metaethics is based upon an incorrect knowledge of Nature, and thus never did Metaethics possess the potential of achieving the desired answers of ethics and morals. It is not possible for a man who “sees objects” to discern the nature of his world or even the nature of his own thoughts, but for the man who “sees light” and self-observes, he has the advantage of already knowing the origins of right and wrong because he remained conscious while his mental activities were in analytical progress.

      One theory within Metaethics is the belief that god(s) dictate what is right and wrong, and that the final decision will always end with what the god(s) dictated in a holy book. A difficulty with laying all responsibility of right and wrong on holy books is that no known holy book is accurate in its description of the laws of Nature, the very laws that the god(s) allegedly created to create Creation. If a teaching in a holy book teaches that a certain act must be obeyed, but the laws of Nature dictate that the act is against the laws of Nature – the very laws that the god(s) allegedly created – then how might it be possible for the holy book’s commandment to be valid if the commandment contradicts the laws of god(s)?

      Naturalist and Non-Naturalist theories in Metaphysics approach the topic of right and wrong from several different angles, including the obviously incorrect belief that preexisting cultural standards can be the authority of what is ethical and moral. As with Applied Ethics and Normative Ethics, Metaethics was created upon a belief that the undefined words of end-products, those of ethics and morals, were sufficiently enough understood by all people, and that somehow it should be possible to discover the nature of right and wrong through the existing definitions of right and wrong. Never did Metaethics have the potential to define right and wrong, and never will it ever have the potential.

      It matters nothing that the general public often gives undue praise to the historic philosophers and prodigies who invented the many sects within western philosophy; the individuals did not advance man’s understanding of right and wrong, nor did the individuals recognize even the most simple of things, such as the law of three, and there is no just reason to continue within the charade that western philosophy can be the standard of ethical inquiry.

      Within the origins of ethics, morals, right, and wrong, there exist numerous components that combine to create the end-product of deciding what is right and wrong, but the components cannot easily be recognized by man unless he is first told what components to look for. Logics Origin of Ethics, Morals, Virtue, and Quality speaks of the components.