Two Recommended Core Values

R
eligious morality is structured upon the following values:

CORE VALUE: The word (whim) of the religion’s deity and the deity’s prophet.
CORE VALUE: The well-being and happiness of the self.
INTERMEDIARY VALUE: The well-being and happiness of others.

In the made-up religion of Flimflam, anything the prophet Barney says is law. Barney says to be nice to other people. Therefore followers of Flimflam are nice to others, but not because they really care about other people per se, but just because obeying Barney is core value #1 for them, and Barney told them to be nice.

Flimflam also teaches that there is a mystical force in the universe called Car-for-mwa. If you are nice to other people, then Car-for-mwa will eventually manifest a new car in your life. Therefore followers of Flimflam are nice to other people, but not because they really care about other people per se, but just because seeking their own well-being and happiness is core value #2 for them, and new cars accomplish that.

Flimflam also has the concept of Epilady After Death. If you’ve failed to obey Barney well enough during your life, then after death you are chained in a windowless spa where attendants rip out your body hair with an Epilady for all of eternity. Therefore followers of Flimflam are nice to other people, but not because they really care about other people per se, but just because their two core values make them terrified of Epilady After Death.

The black mark on religious morality is that the well-being of others is an intermediary value. Doing good unto others is only valued to the degree it helps the self. Is this truly altruistic? Even psychopaths who are unable to feel empathy for others will help others if they see they have something to gain from such behavior.

As for irreligious people, it is my observation that some dump value #1, but hold values #2 and #3 in much the same way that religious people do. Their “self-first” morality is based upon the following values:

CORE VALUE: The well-being and happiness of the self.
INTERMEDIARY VALUE: The well-being and happiness of others.

The good of others is still just an intermediary value for them, only important for the impact upon their own well-being and happiness. Their singular core value is the good of the self. The Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand falls into this category (although I’d argue that Ayn Rand placed arbitrary value on the autonomy of others).

It should be noted that this self-first outlook can still produce what we regard as very moral behavior, as long as it is recognized that the well-being and happiness of others is usually in one’s self interests. There is nothing necessarily wrong with Objectivist morality; it is perfectly capable of producing societies in which well-being and happiness are maximized. And jettisoning obedience to a deity or a prophet as a value of any kind is surely an improvement over religious morality.

But a preferable morality, it seems to me, elevates the well-being of others from an intermediary value to a core value. Doing good unto others is valued for its own sake, not for what rewards are gained or what punishments are avoided.

The two core values I choose for myself, and that I’d recommend to you, my dear reader, are these:

CORE VALUE: The well-being, happiness, and autonomy of the self.
CORE VALUE: The well-being, happiness, and autonomy of others.

And what deep, philosophical reasons can I give you for adopting these two core values?

None, I’m afraid. The choice of core values is necessarily arbitrary. That’s Hume’s Law. I could tell you that you’ll go to Epilady After Death if you don’t adopt these two values, but I know it isn’t true. I won’t attempt to lure you with false promises or coerce you with empty threats. I recognize that I can’t force you. But that’s okay. I don’t want to force you. Forcing you would violate one of my core values. You are free to choose as you wish, which is just how I like it.

I will say, though, that although there are no existential reasons for you to adopt these values, they do seem to be tacitly endorsed by nature, for whatever that is worth.

Now, from the starting point of these two values, a system of ethics falls into place quite easily…