Ethics of Panphilosism

By David Rutland

Few subjects have been so debated and speculated upon as the subject of ethics, and for very good reason. They are, after all, the guidelines that govern our behavior toward our fellow human beings and the rest of the universe. Do we need ethics to come from outside of ourselves, or do we carry within us a moral code that is “hardwired” into our very nature? Are human beings basically good, or basically evil? What is “good” and “evil”? Is morality relative or absolute? Our answers to these questions define a large part of who we are.

Let me begin by stating that the concept of “original sin” does not exist in Panphilosism. We are not suffering from a curse handed down from some long-ago transgression, but merely from a condition of ignorance, that is, not knowing any better. There also exists within us an innate moral code, one which does indeed know right from wrong. How can both of these seemingly conflicting statements be true? I will explain.

We enter this world with two “selves”; our egos and our larger consciousness. The ego is what drives our self-centered behavior and for infants is necessarily very strong. The more subtle larger consciousness is where our ethical sense resides. It tells us that our best response to any situation is one balance and kindness. Very early in our lives these two natures compete for dominance. Because the ego is reinforced by immediately gratifying behaviors, in the absence of any external parental or cultural guidelines, it becomes the dominant frame of reference. But the larger consciousness is there as well. How often have you heard a child one minute declare “Gimme! That’s mine! I want it!” (an ego-based statement) only to complain several minutes later that something is “not fair” (a statement indicating larger consciousness). By the time we reach adolescence, the ego is in almost every case firmly established in its dominance. But our larger consciousness will not go away completely. It remains as our “conscience”, urging us quietly to consider the consequences of our actions and to put ourselves in other people’s place.

If we continue to become more egocentric, we push the larger consciousness further from our immediate thoughts. We find ways to justify behavior, but are plagued by a sense of guilt or deliberately reject any sense that we are wrong. Because we are moving in conflict with the rest of the universe we injure ourselves and those around us by lying, stealing, manipulating and otherwise leaving a trail of broken relationships behind us.

This is not to say that being self-interested is wrong. We need a certain amount of it to be healthy, happy and ultimately of benefit to others. Just as the character of the universe is balance, we need a balance between the ego and the larger consciousness. The key to achieving that balance is opening up to the larger consciousness and placing the ego in its proper position.

Is morality relative or absolute? The answer is both. Yes, killing is wrong, but not always. To defend the life of another or our freedom, it may be necessary to kill. Yes, stealing is wrong, but if our family is starving and no other choice exists, we may feel justified in attempting it. These are situations where the circumstances can come into consideration. In matters of rape, genocide, child or animal abuse we can say these are always wrong because our innate larger consciousness knows they are. They are more likely caused by an unbalance ego-based mind state than any internal ethical dilemma we may face. There are only ego-based excuses and justifications to be offered for them. In short, our ethics come from within and our external laws and moral codes are but a reflection of them. Every ethical decision should be weighed and measured against the ethics we already carry in our hearts.