The Role of Methics

Back Story
One day I was watching video clips from a symposium called Beyond Belief at which Sam Harris and Scott Atran were speaking. At several points, Atran posed a challenge that essentially said: Show me how science has positively effected morality - where religion hasn't. Where is the data on that? Be scientists.

I later posed the question to myself. 'How WOULD someone go about showing that?' and the natural progression of side questions, 'Does it need proving?' Etc.

I first started by thinking of historical events that show how scientific findings address morality and ethical behavior.. for example: Scientific disproval of witchcraft, giving us moral ground to not torture women to death on accusations of supernatural behavior.

Realization
As I was working to recall more situations, I suddenly I realized the challenge was irrelevant.. Why? The challenge relies on the assumption that Morality and Ethics are concepts that require a containing structure like Religion or Science.

The simple truth is that Morality and Ethics (or, Methics*) are a category unto themselves, belonging neither to Science nor Religion. While they may be tailored to fit the special situations of any social structure, they do NOT require them.

The Domain of Methics
The only reason it is popularly considered that moral codes are the domain of religion is because most religions subsume what they must to seize power. Religion dictates that its code of ethics are THE code of ethics, regardless of how late they were tacked on. This common misconception has been deliberately propagated by the many religious factions - and it's high time we put an end to this. Morals were not invented by religions, they were highjacked by them.

Agreed codes of methics show up in all walks of life - from laws to cultural norms, to professional guidelines, to village practices, to house rules and go all the way down to communication of personal boundaries. All these sources of vocalized or written methics flourish in abundance in our world, completely separate from the purview of religions and sciences. Even with religion being so pervasive, people still make up their own lists of what is good and bad for - either for themselves to follow, or for their community of cohabiters, coworkers, etc.

The methics listed in our major religions may be the most widely known but that says more about the dominance of some power structures than about the quality of the codes or their place within those structures.

So if methics do not come from religions or sciences.. where do they come from? Well, most come from empathy and the rest come from practicality. And while the methics are often communicated after an unfavorable outcome - to learn from a mistake and prevent further misfortune - it is often best to simulate potential situations and come up with methics as a preventative solution.

If you take the road of empathy - putting yourself in other peoples shoes so to speak - you find that there are a great many things that you would like or dislike done for you or to you, if you were them. If you take the next step and take those considerations into practice for your interactions with your community, that completes the cycle of empathy and creates your set of methics. People who have less ability to empathize - particularly with others that seem more different - have a greater struggle with the methics of their community.

Practicality also takes a bit of simulation ability but it's a less emotional process - more of a story with many endings to try. You think of a situation, simple or complex, and add as many changes as seem likely and see how it effects the outcome. If the outcome is unfavorable, you try the situation with a guideline or practice. If a guideline works to alleviate misfortune in most or all the cases you've imagined, that might be a worthy entry in a code of methics.

Science and Religion
Science and Religion both require elements of Reverence and Belief, yet require opposite amounts of Skepticism and Rationalization.

This makes a lot of their details and practices very different. But it also means that both are better served when their methics are most similar.

Potential for good and bad shared by Methics, Science and Religion
All three of these subjects are potentially very powerful and as such, are extremely vulnerable to misuse. Whenever anyone starts broadcasting a thing to do or a way to behave, the audience must ask itself, "To what end?" Only by asking this and coming back with a satisfactory answer is there any hope for systems of methics, inquiry, and belief discouraging corruption.

Misuse of Culture
Why should I do as you say and not as you do?
Why should I cover every inch of my body so men cannot see me?
Why shouldn't I form a union or speak up opposing company policy?

Misuse of Science
Why am I commissioned to invent this new weapon?
Why have I been asked to change these election results?
Why am I creating a system to spy on people?

Misuse of Religion
Why must I believe that you have a more direct connection to the beyond than I do?
Why must I believe that our faith is true and other faiths are false?
Why am I to believe that my life is precious I will go to Immortal Heaven while others are worthless and await nothing but damnation after we kill them?

When corruption arises, the most common answer is simply: For one entity to dominate others (for me to dominate you, us to dominate them, etc..)

Whether it's the creation of weapons, the obedience to use them, or consent to follow the selfish - misuses of these three subjects have been responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. It is therefor of utmost importance to think about them critically.

Test them against your methics, test them against other peoples' methics before acting upon them.

When empathy, practicality, and start to finish thinking are applied to anything - you can build a code of methics for any practice, any structure, any society.