The Foundation of RIght and Wrong

  In Stoic thought, we say that one of the choices we have that is within our control is our ability to act on our moral principles.  Although we are never guaranteed success--that is an external and, hence, a "thing indifferent"--our actions are totally within our control.  We can always choose to do the right thing in the given circumstances.  But...what makes something right or wrong?  In a purely naturalist philosophy, how do we determine what is ethical and what is not?

  Start from this observation: in our relationships with others, there are two basic types of relationships.  There are general relationships, those where we are simply aware of our shared humanity, where we have nothing more in common than the fact that we both exist.  There are also what I call "special relationships," where we have entered into a voluntary association, such as a friendship, a business, or a marriage.  These relationships will entail certain specific responsibilities, IF we wish to preserve them.   It is sort of an if-then situation; IF I wish to maintain this friendship, THEN I will have to treat this person in a friendly way.  If I do not do so, the friendship will be lost.  In general relationships, on the other hand, all I am obligated to do is to leave the other person alone, to avoid infringing on his or her space.

   There is another key observation we have to make.  Philosophical and religious systems can be classified as falling into one of two types, along a continuum with these two ideals representing the opposite poles of the continuum.  There are "perfectionist" moral systems, where we focus on improving our nature, so to speak, and "social" moral systems, where the goal is to define the rules that allow the society to function.  In the latter, it does not matter what you think, only how you act.  You could hate me, but as long as you do nothing harmful to me you have done no wrong, violated no laws.  

   Say that this other person, Joe, is riding a subway with me.  My only obligation to him is to avoid bothering him.  Our shared existence does not require anything further engagement.  I am not responsible for Joe's happiness. I have no obligation to support him, take care of him, or do any other thing of an affirmative nature.  Now, if he happens to be a friend, that would be a different matter, if I wish to "preserve the character of friend," to use Epictetus' phraseology. 

   This means that as naturalists we cannot affirm any form of Golden Rule or categorical imperative as least insofar as it might affirm positive duties to mankind as a whole.  Negative duties, yes, because a social order cannot exist without them.  Common sense tells us that a society that allowed anyone to simply take the property of another because he wanted it would not survive.  Negative obligations are all that we can affirm, at least in relationships to strangers.

   There is one other consideration for the Stoic, and that is this, and it is also along the "If, Then" model.  If I wish to emulate the Stoic ideal, there may well be certain forms of behavior that are conducive to such a life, and simply logic may compel me to act in certain ways.  But, these are not universal in their applicability.