Ethics.
Primary and Secondary Ethics.
Given that human life always operates at some degree of idleness,
greater than zero and less than unity, and that zero idleness
is the threshold of death, while perfect or unit idleness is
a state of complete freedom of action, it follows naturally that
those actions which increase human idleness are to be preferred
over those which reduce idleness. What is "right" or "good" is
action which increases idleness. The adoption of the
alternative - that what is good is whatever makes life more
busy and difficult - can only result in the extinction of whoever
adopts such an ethical code, as their idleness falls to zero.
The circumstance of humanity is to be adrift, upon a sea
whose currents tend to draw them off the edge of the world
into oblivion, in a lifeboat whose sails carry them towards
secure dry land. Humanity is engaged upon rescuing itself.
The division of labour within human society results in an
increase in idleness, and is part of ethical behaviour.
The manufacture and use of tools which reduce human work
is a part of human ethical behaviour.
The trade in such tools, which results in their widest distribution,
is part of ethical behaviour.
The adoption of laws, which serve to expedite human work, and
minimize conflict, is part of ethical behaviour.
The observation of moral codes of conduct, to act in ways which
do not reduce idleness, is part of ethical behaviour. In many ways,
ethics, economics, and politics all form one subject in Idle Theory.
In all cases, Idle Theory is dealing with interdependent human
societies, in which each person is using tools produced by other
persons. Economics deals with the production and exchange of these
tools. Politics deals with the formal social structures (e.g. laws)
in which the exchange and use of tools is embedded.
Ethics, in the pure sense, deals with extra-legal and extra-monetary
ethical matters.
The first question that has to be asked of any activity which
comes under ethical scrutiny is: does it increase or decrease human
idleness? Does it make life easier or more difficult? And then it
must be asked: for whom?
Seen in this way, ethics is not about what free moral agents
should do in their idle time, but about how part-time free agents
act to become, as far as possible, wholly free agents.
The question of what free moral agents should do or not do in their
idle time is an entirely secondary question, which waits upon
primary ethical behaviour delivering idle time.
About this secondary ethical behaviour, which concerns itself
with how free agents should behave, Idle Theory has almost nothing to say.
It is only concerned with a primary ethics which has, as its
goal, the freedom which then prompts the questions of secondary
ethics - what is to be done with this freedom? Idle Theory is
only concerned with navigating the ship of humanity to the shores
of freedom. What men do once they step ashore into that freedom is
a quite separate matter, which it is entirely beyond the
capability of Idle Theory to address.
In this sense, the ethic of Idle Theory is not all-encompassing.
It is not a complete account of ethics. Beyond it, there lies
a realm of human freedom which it cannot enter. In this, Idle Theory
has a role akin to that of a doctor, who is concerned to heal the
sick, and is not interested with what people do with their lives
once they leave his care.
This is not to say that secondary ethics is completely separate
from primary ethics. If, for example, men use tools to increase
idleness, then it is unethical to destroy or damage such tools
in their idle time. That is, idle time activities which have
primary ethical consequences fall within the scope of a primary
ethics. Murder, which reduces human idleness to zero, always
has a primary ethical character.
But Idle Theory does not
need to enter into secondary ethical debates, on the ground that
human life has not attained such freedom. Or else, if anyone
is concerned with such secondary questions, they can be referred
to modern ethics.
Modern Ethics
Modern ethical theories - hedonism, utilitarianism, etc -
all begin by supposing that humans are free moral agents.
That humans are, in Idle Theory's terminology, perfectly idle;
that the ship of humanity has docked at dry land.
Freedom matters, because individual freedom is a prior assumption
of ethical reasoning.
(Brenda Almond. Exploring Ethics. Ch.1)
From the point of view of Idle Theory, all these ethical
speculations are of a secondary nature, and ask: What shall we
do with our freedom? Shall we be hedonists, or utilitarians,
or act according to some principle, or be guided by intuition?
In Idle Theory's view, anyone can at best only be a part-time
hedonist in pursuit of personal pleasure, or a part-time
utilitarian seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
When human idleness falls to zero, there can be no pursuit of
pleasure or happiness or virtue, because there is no time
available for their pursuit while humanity is locked into endless
work. These ethical theories all have the character of luxuries,
and the disputes over which is more reasonable or principled or
applicable are so many disputes as to whether porridge is
preferable to partridge. Human life is not idle life, to be
disposed of at will: this is rather the goal of human life.
Yet Idle Theory is, in some senses, arguably a close relative of utilitarianism,
in that it might be stated as seeking the greatest idleness for
the greatest number, and to have a calculus of idleness comparable
to a utilitarian Felicific Calculus of pain and pleasure, and to
engage in totting up the gains and losses of idle time consequent
upon any activity. But utilitarian "happiness" or "well-being" is
a vague, immeasurable and subjective notion. Idle Theory's "idleness"
is much more tightly defined and measurable. But the increase in
definition results in a loss of generality. Utilitarianism is, in
principle, applicable to any human activity, as it results in more
or less happiness. Idle Theory can only deal with those activities
which have effects upon human idleness. Also, while in principle,
utilitarian happiness may become infinitely great, with no obvious
maximum of happiness, idleness has a distinct maximum and minimum.
Idleness is clearly a different end than happiness.
But for John Stuart Mill, all rational morality had some end in mind;
for utilitarians this end was pleasure:
Whether happiness be or be not the end to which morality should be
referred - that it should be referred to an end of some sort,
and not left to the dominion of vague feeling or inexplicable
internal conviction, that it be made a matter of reason and
calculation, and not merely of sentiment, is essential to the very
idea of moral philosophy; is, in fact, what renders argument and
discussion possible. That the morality of actions depends on the
consequences which they tend to produce, is the doctrine of all
rational persons of all schools; that the good or evil of those
consequences is measured solely by pleasure or pain is all of the
doctrine of the school of utility which is peculiar to it.
(J. S. Mill. Essay on Bentham.)
Oddly, while Utility meant 'happiness', 'pleasure', or 'well-being'
to the early utilitarian philosophers (Bentham, Mill) the modern
meaning of 'utility' entirely lacks any connotation of pleasure.
A 'utility' product, such as a garment of some sort, is typically
something that is minimal, devoid of frills, and serves to perform
a task, and nothing more. The one thing it does not give is 'pleasure'.
Utilitarianism, in this modern everyday
sense, is much closer to Idle Theory. Whether this is because the
term 'utility' has changed its meaning, or that the original
intended meaning has survived its association with 'pleasure' or
'happiness', is hard to say.
Utilitarianism is frequently attacked by arguing that the world
would be a happier place if unhappy people were killed off.
The same argument is harder to apply to Idle Theory, because,
in an interdependent human society, killing off busy people
would simply shift the burden of work onto hitherto idle people.
In Roman society, freemen were presumably relatively idle, and
slaves relatively busy: killing off the busy slaves would have resulted
in the idle freemen having to perform the work of slaves - defeating
the whole point of the institution of slavery. In societies in which
each person was entirely independent of others, killing off busy
people would not increase the idleness of those remaining.
In the view of Idle Theory, 'happiness' and 'pleasure' appear
defective ends, because they are unable to be measured.
It is this great defect that renders calculation futile. By contrast,
idleness - which is a ratio of periods of time - is in principle
measurable, and therefore suitable for calculation.
But an idle person is not necessarily a 'happy' person.
Idle time is simply freely disposable time, and an idle individual
might find themselves bored, or prey to innumerable fears and
delusions and worries, just as easily as they might find such
time pleasant and fulfilling.
Much modern ethical thought begins with some actual ethical dilemma
- such as that which surrounds abortion -. Idle Theory's approach is
much more one of speculating how (and why) ethical codes arose in
the course of human history. Idle Theory tends to look back into the
remote past, and the evolution of humans and human society, and work
towards the contemporary human world. This has the advantage of
keeping Idle Theory relatively uncontroversial, and the disadvantage
of making it irrelevant to the extent that it fails to address
contemporary ethical problems.
Christian Ethics
Most modern ethical discussions disregard Christianity. This is
really because most ethical theorists are trying to construct ethical
systems which are based upon reason rather than revelation.
They are, in many senses, post-Christian, and are trying to struggle
out from under the immense shadow of Christianity. And yet,
Christian ethical codes - the Ten Commandments, and the specifically
Christian injunction to 'love thy neighbour' - still largely provide
the ethical underpinning to modern Western society - largely
because the post-Christian ethical theorists have never managed to
construct an ethical theory that surpasses that of Christianity.
Purely on account of this, Christian ethical codes deserve greater
attention.
And Idle Theory is arguably more closely related to a Christian
ethic of salvation than to any modern post-Christian ethical theory.
In Idle Theory, human life - and all life - is suspended between
two extreme states - zero idleness and perfect unit idleness -, with
one far preferable to the other.
Thus Idle Theory has a distinct Hell - zero idleness - which baulks
huge upon one horizon, and a distinct Heaven - perfect idleness -
which can be discerned as a distant smudge upon the other horizon,
with the ship of humanity sailing towards the port of Heaven, and
away from Hell. Or else its geography is of a ladder which extends
from Hell below to Heaven above, up which humanity endeavours to climb,
and down which it regularly slides.
Idle Theory also sees human life as deeply unfree, and therefore
not wholly culpable. The Demon of Idle Theory is entirely constrained
to work, and its God is absolutely free. Fallen humanity is
somewhere between the two, and Redemption is recovery of lost
freedom. All human evil - lies, theft, murder, etc. - is rooted in
necessity, in humanity's fallen state. Those evils will end only
with Redemption. There is no such thing as a free will that is
also an evil will.
From the point of view of Idle Theory, the Christian cosmos of
Heaven and Hell, of Fall and Redemption, of God and devil, appear
to more accurately describe the realities of human existence than
any of the post-Christian ethical theories (which effectively place
humanity in Heaven). Of course, the Heaven and Hell of Idle Theory
are translations of Christian terms. In Idle Theory, 'Heaven'
and 'Hell' acquire meanings which Christians might deny correspond
with their actual meaning within Christianity. Idle Theory is a
rational system, rather than one based upon revelation. But what
emerges from that rationality is a description of the human
circumstance which strongly echoes Christian revelation, and which
suggests that there is perhaps a lost rationality within Christianity
which may yet be recovered.
For just as rational ethical systems can be constructed, they can
also decay and become lost. Early Christianity was clearly robustly
various and disputatious. When Christianity became dogmatic, and
all heresies were suppressed, often with violence, moral dispute
and moral reasoning lapsed. The received orthodoxy became a matter
of rote learning and repetition. Moral dispute became out of bounds
for everyone except ecclesiastical authorities using the now-dead
Latin language. The result, after
several hundreds of years, was that when moral dispute was revived,
Christian terminology simply no longer made sense to any but the
most erudite theologians, and quite possibly not even to them.
Post-Christian secular moral theorists had to discard Christian
terminology, and start all over again, writing in their own
natural language. But it does not follow that,
just because Christianity may appear nonsensical and irrational, that
it actually always was, and our ancestors were idiots.
It is not too difficult to imagine that a
subject like modern physics could become equally dogmatic, and
its intricate details known only to a dwindling minority of
experts, to the point that equations like e=mc2 become
entirely incomprehensible to most people, so that they throw away the
textbooks, and start all over again - only, in time, to rediscover
the lost wisdom.