Y1

conceptual inquiry regarding meaning » value » morality / valuable for us / our 'ought'

 
Under this node we envision how we ought to live together—projecting possibilities for communities. Projecting such possibilities will involve a dialogue with normative ethical theories and normative theories of justice in societies (social/political philosophy). Ethics overlaps with the S-node, providing a foundation for addressing how individuals ought to live, but typically normative ethical theories tell us how we all ought to live just the same, and not as individuals with unique histories, so ethics is more properly at home under this node.

The question How ought we all live just the same? is dangerous. It can invite a dynamic of domination. One group will find that a particular way of life suits their interests well, so all of its members will have an incentive to promote that way of life, even when it comes at the expense of other groups. This danger applies to any group, but when the partial, exclusionary way of life promoted is already dominant, systems of oppression can persist as if by interia. This is why there must be a deliberate effort to gain distance from personal (egocentric) or group-specific (ethnocentric) interests and consider the objective, common point of view shared by all members in ever-widening domains, extending to the species level (anthropocentric) and beyond. Perhaps we should pragmatically prioritize whom our actions most affect (or could most affect), while taking into consideration the concerns of any whom our actions affect.

Just because the question about how we all ought live can be dangerous, doesn't mean we should avoid asking it. Taking the point of view common to all human beings, all sentient beings, or even all life on the planet definitely permits great tolerance of healthy differences, but it also helps us identify sets of common concerns that will promote the importance of looking out for each other across our differences. Already empowered groups will need to take the lead on reaching across differences to look out for the vulnerable, and those members of groups that have been historically non-dominant on the world stage, or even oppressed, need to be encouraged to keep an eye on the larger picture as well. Their non-dominant position does not justify egocentric or ethnocentric acts that harm other groups (or even, unwittingly, their own members), and defending any sort of tribalism on the part of any group will only be counterproductive in the long run. A healthy cosmopolitanism, for example, while it's highly tolerant of differences, doesn't say anything goes.

For the reasons above and many others, the question about how we all ought to live hasn't been fashionable for some time. Market forces that capitalize on our natural desire to uniquely contribute to our common world (see the S-node) promote egocentrism and narcissism. There's money to be made when people are conditioned to focus on their own self-expression or to think of themselves as individuals that have or have not rather than members of communities. We're conditioned to believe that the unique contributions we make are linked to what we uniquely consume, even conspicuously. There's so much more to be said on this, but back to the main question.

Virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism are just a few examples of normative ethical theories that can help inform our question about the common good. Virtue ethics tells us we ought to cultivate for ourselves virtuous character traits such that we naturally respond appropropriately to any situation we happen to find ourselves in, relative to what the wisest of us would do. Deontology tells us we ought to act the way we'd want anyone to act (as a general rule) when encountering moral dilemmas. And utilitarianism tells us we ought to act in ways that produce the greatest amount of happiness—or reduce the greatest amount of pain—for all those who might be affected by our actions. Normative theories regarding justice then shift the question from how ought all individuals conduct themselves in societies to how ought societies be structured such that those societies satisfactorily benefit everyone participating in them—a much more complex question.

 
With reference to how this, the Y-node, functions in the I and O-phases, Y of J (in I) = experiencer as world, and Y of P (in O) = an universal point of view. Experiencer as world refers to how it is that all experiencers of a domain are the same. For example, all humans have the same faculties of perception (at least until some of us begin to become genetically modified or otherwise cyborgs), and so we're all the same in that respect. These basic similarities are non-trivial and extend into practical concerns. We all have similar needs. (Consider Maslow's hierarchy.) Mostly we're all the same just as mostly what makes us what we are is unconscious and transpersonal. This suggests that there's a very similar way that it's all good for us to live our lives.

As for an universal point of view (Y of P in O), this is the point of view involved in objectivity. So, the question regarding what's best for all of us just the same needs to be addressed as we imaginatively empathize with others. Again, this highlights the importance of making a deliberate effort to stand outside the worlds of personal, familiar, tribal, or cultural-specific concerns and consider the concerns of all human beings, all sentient beings, or even all life on the planet. This doesn't mean that we are to sever ourselves from the concerns of those more immediate domains. On the contrary, we must feel the passions born there, but from a point of view that sees how what motivates those passions occurs in other contexts just the same.

Please share your thoughts on Discord.