So I have been thinking about things. I have decided, as I stated in previous posts, that reality is defined individually, however society influences individuals so those that share beliefs, upbringing, and general experiences have the same general view of reality and interpret the things they experience based on this reality. So the defining feature of a person is their ability to do just that. Another thing I have decided is that Kant's categorical imperative is partially correct. I have not really decided on the willing an action into a universal law part. I think that has issues with the fact the idea that experience is unique. It can be shared based on culture and society, but it is still defined by the unique experiences of an individual. So it is almost impossible to will something into a universal law do to the unique nature of individual experience. However the part that I do agree with is that you need to treat other people as ends and never as means. Kant said this was true because people shared the trait of a good will. I however do not think that it is the defining characteristic. Mainly because he also stated that the only unqualified good is a good will, which does not make sense to me since good is a qualification of the term will. I think we can adjust this idea to state that people need to be treated as ends, and not as means because this ability to experience and interpret reality differentiates them from objects. If something is not an object it should not be used to simply to achieve a goal. A person who can be considered to be good is one who understands that other individuals have their own reality defining experiences and respects that which makes another person a conscious individual.
Their is however an issue with my theory. It is an issue of individual relativism. Individual relativism is a philosophical concept that covers a broad range of theories. It primarily consists of the idea that we all individually define what is good. It is a flawed theory because if an individual defines what is good, then two people can view the same action and one can say that it is good and the other can say that it is bad, and both can technically be right because they define the goodness and badness of any given action. However I do think that there is a solution to that issue. In any given situation if two people view actions differently there needs to be an arbiter that defines whether the action is indeed good or bad. In ethical theories that do not suffer from individual relativism there is a defined system or method of value that determines who is correct or incorrect. In my theory the arbiter is the shared, or opposing culture or society that holds sway over the subject. The determiner of the rightness or wrongness of an action is based on the scope of that action. If an action is within a given society, then the arbiter would be that society. However there are times when the issue is between two societies or two individuals. In a situation like that, the thing that will determine the rightness or the wrongness of an action is conflict. The two societies or individuals will conflict either through discussion or even violence depending on the situation and the one that end up on top is the one whose perception of the value of an action is the one who is correct.
In my mind violence is the worst possible determiner of a given action. It does not allow any given idea to be better then another it only allows for one party to be dominant over the other. Reason and intellectual debate are the only true determiners of the actual value of an action in these situations because it is the only way one party can logical and correctly prove the actual value of an action. However the nature of humanity does not necessarily allow for this. Hume states that reason is the slave of sentiment and that sentiment is what determines the value of an action. To me this concept is what damages our ability to use reason to determine the value of any given action. Hume also states that sentiments judgement should be suspended so that the reason can properly inform sentiment of the connections between actions so it can make an informed decision. This is, to me, the primary contradiction within Hume's work, but the closest to the truth. I agree that we determine whether or not an action is good or bad based on the sentiment provided when considering that action. Our experiences shape this sentiment, and it is what allows us to define our realities. If you agree with the second statement I provided from Hume then it stands to reason that as I stated intellectual debate and reason are the only true and correct arbiters between conflicting parties. This is because violent conflict and dominance do not allow you to perceive the proper connections between actions and come to an informed sentiment. They simply allow you to force your own ideas upon those you dominate. Where as reason and debate allow you to better understand these connections because it provides an experience of reality that can enhance your own, and yours can enhance those you are disagreeing with.
So I guess what I am saying is that the arbiter that allows for my theory to not suffer from individual relativism is conflict. It is a flawed arbiter if accomplished through force or dominance, and is a informative empowering arbiter when it takes the form of reasoned discussion and debate. There are additional ideas that need to be discussed, but this is the basis of what I want to establish, well for now it is.
