The fundamental six squares of ethics as a crosstable

26 Jul, 2022

Let 'good' be heplful compassion or giving some resources of power to it's object. Let 'evil' be tough love or setting boundaries by at least relatively denying it's object some resources of power, or without the love part just plain sadistic cruelty. Which I say can be justified and right. Let 'neutral' be the stance of taking no action, or the action of taking no action.

Let there be a hierarchy of ethical values so that the end (the higher right) justifies the means (the lower wrong) given adhering to the principle of least wrong caused in the pursuit of the higher right, but on the other hand making the security of the critical assets certain enough, which means if needs be also violating the principle of the least wrong done in the lesser priority dimension. This is of course always a line draw in water, just like the one Scylla and Charybdis found themselves in between.

Ethics is just about right and wrong. Plain and simple. You done.

What is "right", then? Depends on the situation. As always, you'll have to use your own discrimination and be the judge. Common sense is the key I would recommend to this task. Don't outwit youself. Keep It Simple Stupid. In other words what would Batman Occam do?

You might say I'm merely stating the obvious. Well, this model has clarified my own thinking a lot and I thought someone else might benefit from it as well. That's the problem with the holy simplicities. They're just 'stating the obvious' once you get it. Everybody knows that. Still, the price of wisdom is above rubies.