Modes of Ethical Reasoning

We define a mode of ethical reasoning as the resultant strategy one adopts as a result of their understanding of the universe and their place in it.  This strategy, or methodology is the means by which we determine what is “Right” and what is “Wrong”, what is “Good” and what is “Bad” – or even what is “Better” and what is “Best” from among apparent options presented to us by our universe.

1st Paradigm:

Since each individual has nothing more than his or her own five physical senses by means of which to physically perceive “Reality” and only his or her own personal degree of Intellectual Acuity by means of which to organize into some strictly relative pattern of meaning these otherwise disparate pieces of purely physical data, each individual will perceive Reality itself in accordance with his or her our best… selfish… interests.


There is no absolute or objective “TRUTH.” There is no “RIGHT.” There is no “WRONG”. There is simply the exercise of RAW POWER the power to declare what ought to be CONSIDERED to be “the facts” in any given situation.  And it is perfectly understandable – indeed RIGHT – that each individual person attempt to physically or intellectually compel every other individual to recognize his or her Reality, the “Reality” that identifies his or her Maximum Physical Pleasure and his or her Minimum Physical Pain, as THE Paramount VALUE in the entire Universe.


When faced with a given PUBLIC POLICY or COMMUNITY problem, it is perfectly predictable – and, indeed, “RIGHT” – that each individual person would – and should – attempt to “exploit” that particular public problem to MAXIMIZE HIS OR HER OWN PERSONAL PHYSICAL PLEASURE and to MINIMIZE HIS OR HER OWN PERSONAL PHYSICAL PAIN.

Therefore, when confronted with a range of alternative “choices” that might be made as to WHAT one ought do to in response to a given “Public Policy Problem,” one merely selects that specific choice that one believes (based upon one’s own best physical data processed through one’s own intelligence) generates the greatest degree of short-term physical pleasure to ONE’S OWN SELF and that generates the least degree of short-term physical pain to ONE’S OWN SELF (or, by simple physical extension, the choice that generates the greatest degree of physical pleasure and the least possible degree of physical pain to ONE’S OWN immediate biological family members.)

The adoption of this specific Mode of Ethical Reasoning is the straight-forward rational product of there being no other referent for “Right” or “Wrong” that we, as rational human beings, are capable of physically EXPERIENCING through our only five physical senses.

And, of course, one’s experience is expressly limited to one’s biological or physical experiences that place an absolute limit on the efficacy of attempting to rally individual human beings to some more abstract, NON physical ethical referent. There simply is no other such referent. There is certainly no “Cosmic” referent by means of which any individual human being is personally capable of directly physically experiencing The Cosmos itself.

Since nothing holds REALITY together in any predictable, reliable system in accordance with which one can reliably say that any act is either “Right” or “Wrong”, I will get “MINE” and I will seek to generate an immediate sense of physical security around ME and around MY IMMEDIATE BIOLOGICAL EXTENSIONS. This is the ONLY true referent for “Right” and “Wrong” that I can directly experience through my five senses.

Thus only Might makes “Right.” Indeed, Might makes REALITY itself. For there IS no other REALITY on which we can depend.

2nd Paradigm:

As a result of this specific Epistemological Belief on the part of Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview, Adherents to this Second Paradigm Worldview believe that, while every person is capable of articulating his or her own thesis as to what is “Real” and what is “True” and is, therefore, capable of asserting his or her thesis as to what “The Facts” are pertaining to any given matter, this thesis will then take its place “in the market place of ideas” – AND, since this thesis is only relative, other persons (having a different “perspective” based upon their different life experiences and different location in relationship to the facts) will generate an ANTI‑thesis (asserting that “The Facts” are different than those asserted by the proponent of the thesis).

As a result of the “dynamic” generated by the bi-polar expanding and contracting of the physical Universe, this thesis and this ANTI‑thesis will struggle in contention with one another “in the market place of ideas” – and, consisting only of relative truth, each will burn away that portion of the other’s thesis which is NOT “true,” generating a “SYN‑thesis” made up of the more truthful portion of each thesis.  This synthesis will then become the new operative THESIS which will take the field in the market place of ideas asserting its contention as to what “The Facts” are pertaining to the matter at hand.

It must be understood that “TRUTH” will NEVER be known to any degree of absolute certainty by simple human beings. However, through this dialectical process of struggle between sequential thesis and anti‑thesis and then into synthesis and a new “Thesis” and new Anti-­thesis, our human family will struggle TOWARD the “truth” concerning “The Facts”.

The above-described dialectical process characterized by struggle between a relative thesis and an opposing relative Anti-thesis is The Mode of Ethical Reasoning through which human beings will progress toward the “Right.” “Right” is NOT to be obtained through the mere imposition of an arbitrary assertion of “Fact” by the most powerful (as occurs pursuant to the First Paradigm Worldview) but, rather, through legitimate struggle, pursuant to which the strictly relatively superior thesis will prevail, leading our human family toward relative truth. This Mode of Ethical Reasoning is the utilization of “The Dialectical Method.”

Thus, given the perpetual Oscillating Cosmology of the physical Universe and the strictly Pre-Determined Teleology of the physical Universe, the only realistic Mode of Ethical Reasoning that could logically be adopted by an Adherent to The Second Paradigm “Dialectical” Worldview would be to yield to the physical tropism of “jumping on board” one “SIDE” or the other “SIDE” of whatever dialectic one is physically cast into by the physical Universe or which is physically presented to one by the physical Universe.

Thus Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview are intensely Fatalistic.  That is, they accept, indeed actively and enthusiastically embrace, whatever the local dialectic happens to be into which he or she is born.  Indeed, they utterly internalize the bona fides of their local community’s dialectic and become champions of the specific “SIDE” on to which they were born.

This is, indeed, the very mechanism of their “Mode of Ethical Reasoning.”  Thus, any and all choices are governed by the simple principle of “Which action best ‘serves’ MY side in the dialectical struggle in which my family, my community or my tribe is engaged with ‘The Ultimate OTHER” ?

3rd Paradigm:

Because of this unique Epistemological Belief on the part of Adherents to The Third Paradigm Worldview, Adherents to this Worldview employ an equally unique “Mode of Ethical Reasoning.” The Mode of Ethical Reasoning employed by Adherents to The Second Paradigm Worldview is a rigidly dialectical Mode of Ethical Reasoning and from the Mode of Ethical Reasoning of Adherents to The First Paradigm Worldview who employ a consistent Mode of Ethical Reasoning which, when faced with a number of alternative action choices by means of which to respond to a given problem, will always choose that action which merely maximizes that person’s personal degree of short-term physical pleasure and/or minimizes that person’s personal degree of immediate physical pain.

 This unique “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” employed by the Adherents to The Third Paradigm “Right Middle-Marginalist” Worldview is this:

Adherents to The Third Paradigm “Right Middle-Marginalist” Worldview, when confronted with a number of optional actions from amongst which to choose by means of which to respond to a given problem will first: Choose which “REALITY” they can rationally project out into the future to be probable and potentially true and they then choose to engage in, or choose to endorse as “better,” that particular action which will maximize that REALITY (which he or she has chosen to make “REAL”) as though THAT “Reality” were REAL.

This is an “Existential” Mode of Ethical Reasoning…or a Mode of Ethical Reasoning which is directed toward making The World into The World which the Adherent to The Third Paradigm Worldview can rationally “project” as being potentially EXISTENT.

4th Paradigm:

When faced with a number of alternative “choices” from amongst which to select, an Adherent to the Middle-Marginalist position will always select that choice which generates “the greatest good for the greatest number”, the classical “Utilitarian” choice.  They are thus not ideological. They are pragmatic …almost mathematic in their ethical decision-making.

They do not attach metaphysical values to data. They are strictly “rational.” They are the “Mentants” of Frank Herbert’s DUNE. They are the “Dr. Spocks” of Gene Rodenberry’s STAR TREK.

5th Paradigm:

Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview exercise all of the purely scientific criteria of Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview in gathering their data, but, since they hold the Epistemological Belief that we, as human beings, have direct experiential access to the very real “Realm of The Ideal Forms,” Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview supplement their data derived from their exercise of Scientific Logical Positivism with an exercise of Intuition … causing them to modify their otherwise purely Majoritarian Utilitarian Mode of Ethical Reasoning with an Intuitive supplement. This “Intuitive supplement” causes Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview to select options which, while these choices do generate “the greatest good for the greatest number” these choices also at the same time generate “at least something for the very least well off. This Fifth Paradigm “Liberal” Mode of Ethical Reasoning is discussed, in detail, by Professor John Rawls in his famous work entitled A Theory of Justice published, in 1972, by Harvard University Press.

Professor Rawls attributes the adoption of this specific “Mode of Ethical Reasoning” by Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm “Liberal” Worldview to the influence upon otherwise rigid Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview of The Sixth Paradigm “Intuitionist” Worldview.

However, the adoption of the Fifth Paradigm Mode of Ethical Reasoning which attributes merely a supplemental importance to the data obtained via the human Intuitive faculty is the product of an entirely distinct “Cosmology”, “Teleology”, “Ontology” and “Epistemology” on the part of Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview. They attribute a merely supplemental role to this data NOT as a merely Utilitarian judgment, but, instead, experience the human “Faculty of Intuition” as merely supplemental to their otherwise strictly Intellectual Faculty.

This is because their ONTOLOGICAL Belief informs Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview that we, as human beings, are capable ONLY of imitating the “Ideal” Consciousness of The Cosmos, NOT of Being AT ONE WITH the Consciousness of The Cosmos. For this reason, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm are willing to place ONLY a supplemental degree of reliance upon the data obtained via this imitation of “Ideal” Consciousness.

One will recall that Plato, the ultimate Philosopher of The Fifth Paradigm, places the “Ideal” human observer in the position, in his “Allegory of The Cave” (in his Republic), ONLY in-between the Fire and the REAL “Players”, thereby being uniquely capable of recognizing that the “Shadows” cast by the Fire upon the wall of the cave are only shadows. But even this “Ideal” observer is not the real Player. Therefore, pursuant to the Ontology of The Fifth Paradigm, even the “Ideal” human observer is ONLY capable of “imitating” the conduct of the REAL Player. So, such an “Ideal” participant in Reality is ONLY an imitator (an “Actor”) and is NOT entitled to have the ABSOLUTE confidence in his judgments which a “REAL PLAYER” would have. He is only somewhere in-between a shadow and a “Real Player.” So, he should act “in moderation” on the basis of his perception of “The Ideal.” Thus, for the Adherent to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview, the Intuitional experience functions, properly, solely as a supplement to his otherwise entirely reason-based scientific judgments… NOT because an Adherent to The Fifth Paradigm Worldview is nothing more than a more practical utilitarian (as Professor Parsons’ asserts) but because he holds a profound Ontological Belief that his Faculty of Reason holds him forever separate and apart from the fully-engulfing Intuitive Experience which would allow (or compel) him to give to this Intuitive Experience the truly Central role in his or her decision-making process.

Functioning as true Utilitarians, Professor Rawls argues, in “A Theory of Justice,” that some Adherents to the Fourth Paradigm Scientific Logical Positivist Worldview take into full account the potential bone fides of the Sixth Paradigm Intuitionists assertions that they, as human beings, are capable of directly experiencing an other dimension of Reality which generate bona fide data and, therefore, according to Professor Rawls, some Adherents to The Fourth Paradigm Worldview simply add in the data obtained by the Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview to the data obtained from their strictly “Scientific Logical Positivist” sources as Fourth Paradigm Adherents generating a “Hybrid” (as distinct from a genuinely generic) Fifth, “Liberal” Worldview. However, according to Professor Rawls, Adherents to The Fifth Paradigm Worlsview do NOT attribute central importance to this Sixth Paradigm Intuitive data. They treat this Sixth Paradigm data as simply supplemental to the data they have garnered via their Scientific Logical Positivist Epistemology.

6th Paradigm:

The distinctive aspect of the Mode of Ethical Reasoning of the Sixth Paradigm “Radical Monist” Worldview is that they believe that this FACULTY OF INTUITION (experienced through the Seventh Chakra) should play a CENTRAL ROLE in each individual human being’s “Normative decision-making” or as their “Mode of Ethical Reasoning.”

Substantively, Adherents to the Left‑Marginalist Worldview believe that, when faced with a range of choices to address a given public policy problem, one should choose the form of human conduct which is most harmonious with the NATURAL LAWS of the physical Universe. The method(s) which one goes about determining what form of human conduct is, or is NOT “harmonious with” NATURAL LAW (and what forms of conduct are expressly “dis-harmonious” to NATURAL LAW) are determined by the utilization of the various Methods of Determining “The Facts.”

However, the central means which should be employed in making this specific decision is to resort to one’s own personal Intuition.

HOWEVER, Once this factual determination has been made by each individual who is a member of the community which will be directly effected by the public policy choice chosen, Adherents to the Left-­Marginalist Worldview insist that a specific procedural process must then be employed by means of which “The Community” ought to determine which choice among the several available will be chosen. And the utilization of this specific procedure by means of which to make such an inherently community choice is INTEGRAL to the “MODE of Ethical Reasoning” which is advocated by Left‑ Marginalists.

The proceedure is this:

Every person who is going to be directly or indirectly effected by the public policy choice which is being made on behalf of the Community must be informed concerning all of the component elements pertaining to the decision, then be afforded an adequate time period prior to his or her having to render this decision to educate himself or herself as to what he or she will need to know to make a fully‑prepared choice concerning the matter. Thirdly, every such person must be given a fair opportunity to express his or her views on the matter and to attempt to persuade others that his or her view should be adopted by the Community.  And then, finally, every such person who is going to be directly effected by the decision made must be given the opportunity to VOTE on which specific public policy choice is going to be chosen by the community.

This is referred to as a SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC decision­-making process. (This process does NOT require that all such votes be unanimous. Such votes may fairly be determined by a specific, previously-agreed‑upon percentage of the total votes cast or of the total eligible voting members of the community. This may be a simple majority of one‑half plus one; a plurality; a two‑thirds majority, a three‑fourths majority – or whatever percentage is deemed fair by a prior agreement reached by the community prior to the undertaking of this vote).

The need to undertake this process for every major public policy choice effecting each member of the community is the product of a substantive NATURAL LAW PRINCIPLE. So, to Adherents of the Left‑Marginalist Worldview, the utilization of this process is a Natural Law substantive value in and of itself. In effect, this value dictates that there are instances in which it is ethically preferable to have NO decision made to address a given public policy problem which will be enforced upon the individuals in the community (if no single alternative choice available generates the support of a specific percentage of the community members) rather than to have a clear choice made which might well solve that specific public policy problem at issue, but which is actively opposed by (or is not affirmatively accepted by) a high percentage of the members of the community effected.

Thus, there are two equally-important aspects of the distinctive Mode of Ethical Reasoning which is believed in by Adherents to The Sixth Paradigm Worldview. The first, which is substantive, is that a “Natural Law Ethic” be employed (and that each individual utilize, as the central means by which he or she determines whether a given option is harmonious or dis-harmonious with Natural Law, the Faculty of INTUITION.) The second, which is procedural, is that the procedure employed by the community to make its collective decision be Social Democratic (as defined above).

7th Paradigm:

Every decision made by a systematic Adherent to the Left‑ Systematist Worldview is made pursuant to an adherent’s effort to discern THE WILL OF GOD pertaining to that decision ‑ that is: to determine (through an exercise of ALL of the “methods of determining the facts” [including one of, or both of, the modalities of “prayer’ identified therein]) what particular choice, from among those which are available to the adherent, is most consistent with the “WILL” of The Infinite and Eternal Sea of Undifferentiated Consciousness which enfolded into being the entire physical Universe, which entirely pervades every micro‑milli‑meter of this material Universe at every moment, and to which each such adherent owes his or her very continuing life at that very moment ‑ so as to comport his “perfecting” of the Human Family…and which It has intended since the micro‑milli‑second at which It “enfolded into being” this physical Universe.

8th Paradigm:

Adherents to The Eight Paradigm Worldview believe that, once one has “perfected” the vibrational frequency of each of ALL EIGHT of the human Chakras which are located within one’s own physical body, one should direct one’s physical body (and all of one’s material and NON-“material” vibrational fields) to the task of “maintaining”…or to “re-integrating” into “symphonic harmony” with one another all of the “disparate” (but would be “integrated”) “multiples” of CONSCIOUSNESS which one finds occurring within the specific time period of the physically – incarnated life into which one finds oneself “born” into this physical Universe. These “multiples” of CONSCIOUSNESS are supposed to be vibrating “in symphonic harmony” with one another as “stepped” whole-number multiples within ONE OCTAVE of the ONE fundamental “wave length” of THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR COSMOS which is occurring within our physical Universe.

Therefore, Adherents to The Eighth Paradigm Worldview believe that the ONLY truly ethical human conduct is conduct which is directed to the task of either bringing into perfect “symphonic harmony” ALL Eight of the Chakras within one’s own human body or (that having been already achieved) directing all of one’s conscious attention to the task of “maintaining” …or “re-integrating” into “symphonic harmony” with one another all of the disparate “multiples” of Consciousness which one finds occurring in one’s world during one’s lifetime.

The Eighth Paradigm Cosmology necessarily implies that our physical Universe is filled with Intelligent, Sentient Life. The Latin root of the word “Intelligence” is “intellectus,” the ability to distinguish the difference between. Intrinsic to The Eighth Paradigm Cosmology, “Intelligent” Life exists within each different (i.e. “differentiated”) band of vibrational frequencies, indeed, such “Intelligent Life” is the Conscious “organizer” of “experience” within each such “band” of vibrational frequencies. Thus, there being other Sentient, Intelligent Life Forms within our galaxy which have developed technological means of entering the “band” of vibrational frequencies in which WE abide is entirely foreseeable, indeed likely.

Therefore, the fact that we, as human beings, have been encountering “other” mysterious Life Forms… which seem to come into our World from somewhere else is entirely compatible with the Cosmological assumptions of The Eighth Paradigm. And it is also entirely compatible with the Cosmological assumptions of The Eighth Paradigm that these other Beings would display abilities significantly different from the physical abilities which we human beings are physically capable of performing, trapped as we are within the simple three (or four) dimensions of our limited physical experience.