Freedom Series - Episode 2: The Subjective Ethical Framework

If you haven’t already read through the first episode of this series check it out here:

Episode 1

In episode 1 I discussed how determining a set of ethics is an individual subjective decision. From this subjective framework you can objectively determine if a human action is ethical or unethical. My aim in this episode is to establish one common attribute in all human actions and determine a binary qualifier that the attribute can be compared against all human action, sorting ethical actions and unethical. Thereby establishing my subjective framework.

My claim:
The threat of or use of force in order to coerce another person or commit violence against them ,subverting or eliminating their free will, should be the standard of unethical action.

My support for the above claim:
Continuing with the line of thought from episode one, we need to establish a common attribute of all human action. Now there are many, many different actions a person may make. Everything from murder to self-sacrifice to save another and everything in between - drinking a cup of coffee, driving to work, writing an article series about the ethics of freedom, etc. The only thing that is true about all of these actions is that a person decides to make that action because they believe the value of taking that action is higher than the value of not taking that action. If you thought the value generated by taking the action would be lower than by not taking the action, you would not take the action. In short, taking an action shows your preference to that action.

Now, obviously, this does not include involuntary actions like breathing or your heart beating. However, every voluntary action, by nature of being voluntary, requires you to volunteer to take that action. When you drive to work in the morning you voluntarily make a decision that you will get up, shower, get dressed, and get in your car and drive. When you drink a cup of coffee you must voluntarily brew or purchase that coffee and voluntarily consume it.

So I think we have established the common attribute of all human actions. They are voluntary decisions made by the individual. This is essentially free will. So now on to the binary qualifier. Being binary in nature we need this qualifier to equate to a true of false statement.

Let’s examine the different effects we can push on the actions made by individuals. The ending result of any external effect we can push on to an action is that either the action is taken or not. If we desire the action that an actor wants to take to be taken we can take steps to ensure that action happens, including but not limited to encouraging the action, providing incentive towards the action (monetary or otherwise), and stopping all other actions that would prevent the action. In the end however, the final decision of whether to act or not in still 100% in the actors hands. Encouraged, incentivized or whatever the actor still maintains free will. The actor may capitalize on the incentives or not. The actor may listen to the encouragement or not.

However, in order to prevent an action an actor wants to make you must be invasive with your effects. Effects could include but are not limited to: preventing all actions by killing them and removing the ability to act, threaten to kill them or enact violence on them, etc. Now you might react and say something like “we can just incentivize the actor to act differently.” Yes that is a possible scenario however that does not always “prevent” the action. It forces the actor to reconsider the values of the actions and make a free will decision. In order to “prevent” an action you have to assert your will against someone else’s. When you assert your will against someone else’s you have controlled that person’s ability to freely make a decision. This leads to that person making decisions that may go directly against their preferences.

So our binary qualifier is: Is another person exerting their will against you to prevent an action you would have made without their coercion? Or is another person exerting their will against you to ensure an action you would not have made without their coercion? If so then their action falls into one category I would subjectively call “unethical.” If not then it would fall into the category I would subjectively label “ethical.”

Again, as set out in episode one, the categories and labels I established for these two kinds of actions are subjective. I value free will and the ability to make actions that fall in line with my values and preferences. When someone hinders or prevents this, it go against my personal values. I can use the subjective framework of the binary qualifier I’ve set out in this article to examine every action committed by myself and others and use that to make the objective decision of whether it is ethical or unethical.

You are more than welcome to disagree agree with my personal framework as it is completely subjective. If you do not value your free will to take actions that match your preferences then you would, of course, arrive at a different framework than I did. However, if you value free will and freedom of choice and action you should arrive at the same, or at least a similar, framework as I have. If you have arrived at different ethical framework, please comment below and let me know how you reached it. Either way make sure to comment and let me know what you think.