Copyright © 2024 Ihor Delta. All Rights Reserved.
As part of the discussion, I will try to answer the question: "in what manner should we exist in reality, in the sense of how should we act in relation to reality?"
This name was chosen as the most suitable within the framework of the ethics of human existence because this discussion answers the question: How should we exist in reality [what should we do and in what manner]?
Further I will use word "researcher" to mark an individual (a representative of subjective reality).
The main idea of this discussion is the actions of the researcher, which are not limited to the context of society, but are directed towards reality as a whole.
The question of the researcher’s spirituality will be omitted within the framework of these discussions. I will try to give a theoretical justification for ethics (the principle of action).
Also, within the framework of the ethics of existence (hereinafter - ethics), we dare to talk not about an action that occurs in reality, but about an action aimed at reality - that is, about a certain thinking action (operation) carried out on the reality itself of the researcher before directing action into reality.
We can think of actions as bad or good by their consequences (profit or loss), or think of actions as bad or good by their quality. Here we will consider quality of actions in relation to reality.
For now, or completely, we cannot go beyond the spatio-temporal limitations of our reality, which means we have to exist within these limitations. A change in this state of affairs will inevitably lead to the collapse of systems existing in reality, to a change in the patterns arising from these restrictions, which are the basis for stable activity.
The motive of society is the common good. What is the motive of human existence? The answer is the achievement of some idea of reality.
We exist within the framework of a certain state of affairs in reality, mastering the patterns based on this state of affairs, adjusting our actions in order to achieve another, necessary for us, state of affairs - the ideal.
Within the reality of the researcher, a necessary condition for the ethics of his existence is the correlation of his ideal with the ideal of the common good of society. This process is possible only if the stability condition of both of these systems is met.
The ideal is a difficult thing to achieve, and therefore I dare to talk about goal setting to achieve it. The goal is the following: to achieve a state of stability for the researcher/society, which will be the basis for achieving it (ideal). The main feature of the required level of stability in the context of the ideal motive is the absence of crises that increase the risk of collapse of the system (researcher or society).
Crises seem inevitable, but if you develop an approach to resolving them, they become part of the process of stability.
Stability implies the presence of a certain unchangeable structure of the system, which will lead to the stable nature of its functioning, and in case of its evolution/development - preservation of the system.
An invariable characteristic of the life of a researcher and society is the presence of challenges in it. Including an approach to their resolution into the structure of the system is a necessary condition for the stable functioning of the system. In my opinion, the achievement of such a structure of society is an indicator of the achievement of the common good, which will be the basis for achieving stability of its (society’s) representatives.
Reality have a tendency to change even without the effectual participation of the researcher.
Evolution and development is a factor that can lead to crises/collapse, the overcoming of which must be determined by the presence of an approach to its resolution.
A controlled process of changes in the structure of the system is a condition for the success of society in achieving the common good.
This idea implies that the researcher/society are under the process of his/its development - a certain approach to controlled development that is part of his/its manner of existence.
In the realities of the 21st century, society functions as many systems, that is good for its evolution, but not for its functioning as a whole, and its general structure has yet to be arrived at unless it collapses.
Society, like the researcher, follows the path of least resistance. I really hope that society does not make the task of its own evolution so difficult that it occurs through collapse.
The principle of ethics may look like this:
As part of your activities, directed at or within a systemic conceptual phenomenon, you need to consider whether the result of the action violates the process of maintaining the stability of the system, even in the context of its evolution/development.
Following this principle presupposes the recognition of systems in the phenomena of reality.
iii. Sociocybernetics / Wikipedia
My ideal of society may seem cosmopolitan or even utopian, but I am still a fan of it. I will wait for the concept of “healthy competition” to be replaced by the concept of “healthy cooperation”, where the competitive nature of man will be pacified by a system of challenges.
"Borders are imaginary, but people are different. As nations are separated by invisible lines, humanity is united by diversity." - Dr. Lucas D. Shallua
