A Tripartite Ethic (way off topic)

It's my personal belief that we probably have never read the work of the most brilliant philosophers. That is, no one has read their work, because they never wasted their time writing it down. The most knowledgeable philosophers were probably smart enough to pursue happiness on their own, outside of the public light, and never felt the need to have their ideas validated by others. The most wise philosophers don't need blogs.

Which all just comes as a preface to say that I write the following post with some hesitation, and that by the very act of committing it to words probably proves that it is wrong. With that preface, here are my thoughts:

It strikes me that we have a very confused conceptions of ethics in this country. I don't know who the culprit is, but I just want to state the problem. The fundamental confusion lies in unifying or scrambling the elements of what are most properly thought of as three different fields of ethics into a single mishmash. This is almost impossible to explain without first describing what the three separated fields are, as I see them. 

The Tripartite Ethic:

1) What you should do

2) What you should motivate others to do

3) What you should enforce others to do

Since that simple description is probably not crystal clear, I'll clarify. Field number one of ethics is what you should do. It consists of systems of rules or guides for your own behavior and a method for answering questions in your own life. It's what I think most people think of when they think of "ethics" writ large. This can be as mundane as "should I go to the store" to as broad reaching as "should I dedicate my life to the poor and helpless?" This is the broadest group.

The second sphere is really a subset of the first, in that it is still a set of rules that govern your own actions. This group of ethics, though, govern the way you react to others actions. That is it answers the question: "How should I respond in my actions to the actions of others?" In a manner of thinking, it is a set of rules that you apply to others' behavior to determine how you should react. For example, "Should I lend money to someone I know to be dishonest?" or "Should I associate with someone who dedicates her life to the poor?" or even "Should I invest my earnings in a cigarette company?" This is a set of ethics applied to others, but viewed through the lens of your reactions.

The third is probably the most frequently confused of the ethics. It answers the question: "When should I resort to applying force or threats of force to others or sanction the use of force in my name?" Few people, day to day, find many situations in which they should apply force, barring of course soldiers and police. Frequently when we believe it is proper to apply force we delegate that duty to police and soldiers rather than ourselves. However in the end it is force, applied by handcuffs, jail cells, bats and guns, that constrain the the thief, tax evader, or political dissident.

My point is not to propose an ethic, but point out that each of these is distinct, and deserves its own attention. For example, you might believe that all that are capable should give their lives to the poor (Sphere #1). You might, moreover, believe that when you observe others that are giving their life to the poor, you should respond positively to them and help them in turn (Sphere #2). However you probably don't believe that you should call the police or physically restrain those in the street who aren't helping the poor (Sphere #3). Then again, you might! However it certainly doesn't go without saying.

The problems seem to lie most frequently in blurring Sphere #1 and Sphere #2. Our philosophers, priests and politicians are full of ideas about what "we" should do. This amounts to their sphere #2, what they think that others should be encouraged to do. We have a name for the fact that sphere #1 and sphere #2 are not usually equivalent, it's called hypocrisy.

For all of the moralizing about how terrible hypocrisy is (perhaps it is also in the interest of sphere #2 to bemoan that others aren't practicing what they preach), I think it remains a universal element of human nature. The fact that our interests conflict with others' is just an unavoidable fact of a world with finite resources. We aren't naturally inclined to do unto others whatever they would have us do unto them. There are limits to our kindness. There will always be dissonance between what we'd like to do and what others would like us to do. In the end, the enticements and confinements created by others do shape our choices, as they must. But it is these enticements and confinements, not others' desires alone, that shape our actions.

To go way out on a limb (am I out on one already?), I think that the confusion has most likely been driven by the tendency to follow the person in the pulpit or square who has been invested with authority. We consume their Ethic #2 and try it on for our Ethic #1. They would have us give unto others, or maybe unto the pulpit, so we give unto others, or maybe unto the pulpit. Perhaps we shouldn't be quite so surprised when this borrowed morality becomes hard to follow, and even personally arduous. It is an ethic not our own.