You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Shatov and the emu
You have a point...
I’m just saying it could be that gnomes don’t share the same ethical framework as humans. They may be rational beings, but their sense of ‘right and wrong’ might be based on entirely different foundational principles. Their moral logic might operate on a completely different level from ours. (I’m not assuming gnomes must share our sense of right and wrong just because they can reason.)
Let's for a moment call the 'Klingon Ethics', based on honour and power and on loyalty (as it was in medieval Europe).
These ethics are not illuminated and not 'X-rayed' by reason. They have had an evolutionary process and a social function, and thus the principles of such ethics are not independent from religious dogmas (but construct an image of a deity which is a 'Lord' in the sense of a Prince or King) and not independent from the foregoing assumption that honour and power and loyalty be the highest values. From honour and power and loyalty is derived what 'good' has to be. The 'good' in itself as its own and very highest value is an insight and an idea of 'practical reason'.
Thus it is not possible for a single indivduum or a hyperindividualist to reach this conclusion only by itself. But on the other hand, a hyperindividualist has nothing to do with loyalty, nothing to do with concepts of honour (which are socially constructed). Power, understood as the possibility to force others to do what the hyperindividualist wants, is the last remaining pillar of hyperindividualist ethics.
Now will gnomes see that each of them tends to gain power over others, and that they can only solve this problem by admitting: each gnome is born free, i.e. not under the power of others, and each gnome has to respect the freedom of others.
Human beings are inclined to specicism: they don't regard beasts or plants as being 'free by nature' in the same ways as theirselves. So, gnomes could regard humans as some beasts which do not deserve protection against arbitrariness and power of the gnomes. But this argument cannot be hold since humans insist on their freedom and are able to talk and to question and to reason, just as gnomes are.
In the end, there is no consistent hyperindividual gnome ethics possible. What 'good' or 'bad' has to be regarded of is not dividible by cultural differences. Shatov cannot be exculpated by 'some other traditions'. His behaviour looks criminal and immoral as far as it concerns the stealing of the seeds. If Shatov will be able to convincingly explain that the seeds were not stolen, than here is no further reason for accusations in this direction.