Philosophical Ethics

Reeds Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805), schrijver,
filosoof en leerling van Kant, bekritiseert Kants
plichtethiek en zet er een gevoelsethiek
tegenover (Wikimedia Commons).

With Unconditional Love as a metaphysical and therefore anthropological starting point (axiom), it is obvious to work out a universal ethics on that basis as well. Love is the absolute criterion for action, because man thereby corresponds not only to his own nature but also to the primal principle of all reality. Researchers can then examine what connections can be made between such a new, universal ethics and existing forms of ethics (comparative research). For example, one could study the relationship between this rela-tively new, love-only ethic on the one hand and the utilitarian ethics of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) on the other. Or one could confront the felt ethics from the totality experience with Immanuel Kants (1724-1804) deontological ethics. Or one could compare the ethics of feeling with forms of religious ethics (prohibitions, dogmas). In short, all sorts of projects can be categorized within this domain of philosophical ethics, thus crea-ting a sea of research possibilities.

An extremely important theme in this context, which is also affiliated with philosophical psychology, is ‘communication’. This is where things often go wrong, both privately and professionally. People come face to face with each other, instead of looking for solutions together. This may be related to a simple misunderstanding, but also to egos. Ego’s are some-times so big that they easily walk all over others, especially if the others have smaller egos. This does not make the latter ‘weak’ by the way – often they are amiable people – but it shows that egos that are too big can be extremely destructive. However, through philosophi-cal psychology based on the experience of totality (see above) we learn that egoism is actually a lack of self-love, more precisely a compensation for it, and thus amounts to an aberration. By definition, egoists and narcissists communicate poorly because of a structural lack of love in childhood.

In general, one aspect seems to be of great importance for loving communication anyway, namely, absolute abstinence from any form of aggression. Successful communication begins with the basic rule: ‘Never get angry with the person with whom you are communi-cating! If one approaches the interlocutor with a state of mind based a priori on acceptance and forgiveness, then one is in a different position in the conversation than if that approach is based on aversion. In the latter case, there is a considerable chance that the conversation will come to nothing, with the other person shooting off in defense, which will only widen the gap and may even escalate the situation. Love therefore plays a crucial role in the field of communication. The urgency to further develop this theme and teach people about it is evident and can both save suffering and increase happiness.

With pure, that is, unbiased communication, not only a universal theology, but science at all, is served. Scientists are by no means perfect people and, like everyone else, are guilty of harmful forms of communication, con-demning fellow professionals with different views. However, heresy is a gross form of lovelessness, not only toward others, but also toward the truth. Dilution or framing is a symptom of people who, from a communicative point of view, are at a degenerate stage, which in fact only shows that they are far removed from their inner core.

In short, there is still much to be researched in the area of philosophical ethics and the mai-eutics school wants to stimulate and facilitate this. If the results are then implemented in society through publications, education, coaching, lectures and debates, one promotes an authentic, namely entirely from within the human being, evolution.