Increasingly, I find myself drawn to an ethics of harmonizing with the Dao. Invoking "the Dao" might sound mystical, non-Western, ancient, religious -- alien to mainstream secular 21st-century Anglophone metaphysics and ethics. But I don't think it needs to be. It just needs some clarification and secularization. As a first approximation, think of harmonizing with the Dao as akin to harmonizing with nature. Then broaden "nature" to include human patterns as well as non-human, and you're close to the ideal. Maybe we could equally call it an ethics of "harmonizing with the world" or simply an "ethics of harmony". But explicit reference to "the Dao" helps locate the idea's origins and its Daoist flavor.
A point that I'd be interested in clarification of or expansion on is your view that harmonizing with the Dao involves participating in, enriching, and enabling others to participate in patterns and processes that lead to the flourishing of the world, while also seeming to state that the Dao isn't inherently tied to one value. In other words, I take it that your view is that harmonizing is a useful conceptual framework that can be applied to various values, and this approach, regardless of its specific value application, is useful. That I agree with. However, I think your definition of harmonizing with the Dao as harmonizing with the processes of the world already implies a specific value that the Dao necessarily moves towards and somewhat constrains its potential application as a broader evaluative framework.
I say this because the idea of harmony is somewhat implicit in Buddhist ethics, but the harmony it aims at is precisely the dismantling and refraining from engaging, participating in, or enabling other to participate in the patterns that lead to the flourishing of the world. This is still, however, a type of harmony, just with a very different music. Canonically, the goal of Buddhist practice (at least as presented by the Early Buddhist texts) is to go against the grain of the world, which could potentially be considered to be the Dao, and to enter the stream of Dhamma. That entering of the stream is something that can be "harmonized" with, in a sense, but the way you've presented the Dao as specifically in line with the world or nature seems to make it incompatible with Buddhist thought, but with a slightly different formulation, it could be a useful way of evaluating actions in even a Buddhist context, giving it wider application. Granted, maybe you specifically wanted to exclude Buddhist, Gnostic, etc. thought. But this was just my reaction upon reading.
One other quick thought: I think that the divide between melody and harmony is somewhat artificial. The melody instrument is an active and necessary participant in the creation of that harmony, even if they are playing to an accompaniment. For example, in the key of C major, if a pianist simultaneously plays C, E, and G, the harmony would be a C major chord, which is the root chord, the most stable of all possible chords in the key. But if the violinist plays a Bb over that, the harmony is now C7, which has a completely different harmonic function, introducing tension that sets us up for a modulation, changing the whole frame of reference. The structure of harmony is interdependent, and I feel like an approach to ethical harmony that takes that interdependence into account would be useful. That can be mixed with improvisation too, as one of the key things that jazz improvisers aim for is finding the right melody notes that will shift or expand upon the harmonic basis that the rest of the band is providing.
Wow, Otto -- such thoughtful and helpful thoughts!
On Buddhism: Yes, it's interesting to consider that an ethics of harmony can be developed in that direction. That does seem right. I prefer a more Daoist or Daoist/Confucian blend myself, and so that influences how I expand on the idea -- and is perhaps one reason that it's better for me to think of the viewpoint I prefer as "harmonizing with the Dao" rather than "the ethics of harmony" more generally.
On melody and harmony: You are right and my presentation was oversimple. I do want to hold on to one thing: Even the violinist playing the melody, to the extent they're thinking of the Bb as creating a C7, is filling in a pattern primarily made by others, rather than conducting the whole orchestra.
Thanks Eric. How should this approach lead us to think about: 1) very "natural" but likely catastrophically bad wild animal suffering and 2) the very "unnatural" exploitation, farming and slaughter of non-human sentient beings by human sentient beings?
(For me, the perspectives and interests of individual sentient beings are the foundation of ethics - not so much human aesthetic preferences for natural patterns we happen to like. Although those aesthetic preferences still matter too - as we're sentient beings!)
The view has room for flexibility on these issues, depending on the theoretical and empirical details (as do most broad-brush ethical systems). A Xunzian approach to harmonizing with the Dao sees humanity as forming a triad with Heaven and Earth, so that the flourishing of human culture is part of the process, even if it is "unnatural". Xunzi praises "unnatural" crafts, such as carpentry and pottery, and the "unnatural" shaping of our reactions to conform better with the patterns that enable a harmonious society.
One distinctive aspect of the Zhuangzian approach to harmonizing with the Dao is that death is part of the pattern. I think on a Zhuangzian view, death -- and probably pain -- at the right time in the right way is part of the pattern of the Dao. So I think Zhuangzi would be less troubled by predation in the wild than others might be.
The view lacks content if one doesn't have an axiological vision of what constitutes a flourishing pattern of existence on the planet. If the overall concert, so to speak, would be more harmonious without factory farming (as I think it would), then arguably factory farming constitutes a sour note, and vegetarianism or humane farming would be overall more harmonious. *Maybe* that could also apply to rescuing wild animals or preventing their suffering from non-human-related causes.
Thanks Eric - v.helpful. Is there also recognition within the approach that much hangs on who gets to decide what is a harmonious and flourishing pattern or concert? Even if they claim to be talking from a universal point of view?
I'm thinking of the risk that a powerful person or group sees a pattern as harmonious and flourishing when that same pattern might be seen as horrific (e.g. pain and death) from the perspectives of less powerful beings (human or not) within the pattern?
Many terrible people have claimed that they are just working towards restoring or achieving "the natural, harmonious order of things". Do Xunzian or Zhuangzian approaches have safeguards here?
I'm not so keen on the framing of "who gets to decide". It's not a decision, but rather more like a recognition. In the same way, one could complain of a utilitarian ethics that powerful people might "get to decide" what is likely to lead to happiness (perhaps a technological panopticon?) or of an Aristotelian ethics that powerful people "get to decide" what counts as flourishing.
One *advantage* of a harmony view is its modesty. On a consequentialist view, interpreted crudely (perhaps too crudely) anyone who can do a calculation can choose, if they have the power, to risk everything and everyone based on their guess about future expected value. In contrast, the idea of harmonizing suggests that you are not the leader but instead should aim to flow along with what is good in the world as it is. The complementary disadvantage of a harmony perspective is that thinking that way probably tends to discourage activism and rocking the boat.
I like that humility. Agree on the risks too though - along with a danger of slipping into the naturalistic fallacy (when the harmony of nature is, of course, brutally amoral - a truly abominable ethical role model).
I enjoyed this. A couple thoughts:
A point that I'd be interested in clarification of or expansion on is your view that harmonizing with the Dao involves participating in, enriching, and enabling others to participate in patterns and processes that lead to the flourishing of the world, while also seeming to state that the Dao isn't inherently tied to one value. In other words, I take it that your view is that harmonizing is a useful conceptual framework that can be applied to various values, and this approach, regardless of its specific value application, is useful. That I agree with. However, I think your definition of harmonizing with the Dao as harmonizing with the processes of the world already implies a specific value that the Dao necessarily moves towards and somewhat constrains its potential application as a broader evaluative framework.
I say this because the idea of harmony is somewhat implicit in Buddhist ethics, but the harmony it aims at is precisely the dismantling and refraining from engaging, participating in, or enabling other to participate in the patterns that lead to the flourishing of the world. This is still, however, a type of harmony, just with a very different music. Canonically, the goal of Buddhist practice (at least as presented by the Early Buddhist texts) is to go against the grain of the world, which could potentially be considered to be the Dao, and to enter the stream of Dhamma. That entering of the stream is something that can be "harmonized" with, in a sense, but the way you've presented the Dao as specifically in line with the world or nature seems to make it incompatible with Buddhist thought, but with a slightly different formulation, it could be a useful way of evaluating actions in even a Buddhist context, giving it wider application. Granted, maybe you specifically wanted to exclude Buddhist, Gnostic, etc. thought. But this was just my reaction upon reading.
One other quick thought: I think that the divide between melody and harmony is somewhat artificial. The melody instrument is an active and necessary participant in the creation of that harmony, even if they are playing to an accompaniment. For example, in the key of C major, if a pianist simultaneously plays C, E, and G, the harmony would be a C major chord, which is the root chord, the most stable of all possible chords in the key. But if the violinist plays a Bb over that, the harmony is now C7, which has a completely different harmonic function, introducing tension that sets us up for a modulation, changing the whole frame of reference. The structure of harmony is interdependent, and I feel like an approach to ethical harmony that takes that interdependence into account would be useful. That can be mixed with improvisation too, as one of the key things that jazz improvisers aim for is finding the right melody notes that will shift or expand upon the harmonic basis that the rest of the band is providing.
Wow, Otto -- such thoughtful and helpful thoughts!
On Buddhism: Yes, it's interesting to consider that an ethics of harmony can be developed in that direction. That does seem right. I prefer a more Daoist or Daoist/Confucian blend myself, and so that influences how I expand on the idea -- and is perhaps one reason that it's better for me to think of the viewpoint I prefer as "harmonizing with the Dao" rather than "the ethics of harmony" more generally.
On melody and harmony: You are right and my presentation was oversimple. I do want to hold on to one thing: Even the violinist playing the melody, to the extent they're thinking of the Bb as creating a C7, is filling in a pattern primarily made by others, rather than conducting the whole orchestra.
Glad you found them of use!
That makes sense. What you say about the harmony and melody makes me think a bit of Heidegger — being thrown into a world that's already laid out.
By the way, a few years ago, I read your paper "Kant Meets Cyberpunk", and it really left a mark. So it's very cool to see you here!
Thanks Eric. How should this approach lead us to think about: 1) very "natural" but likely catastrophically bad wild animal suffering and 2) the very "unnatural" exploitation, farming and slaughter of non-human sentient beings by human sentient beings?
(For me, the perspectives and interests of individual sentient beings are the foundation of ethics - not so much human aesthetic preferences for natural patterns we happen to like. Although those aesthetic preferences still matter too - as we're sentient beings!)
The view has room for flexibility on these issues, depending on the theoretical and empirical details (as do most broad-brush ethical systems). A Xunzian approach to harmonizing with the Dao sees humanity as forming a triad with Heaven and Earth, so that the flourishing of human culture is part of the process, even if it is "unnatural". Xunzi praises "unnatural" crafts, such as carpentry and pottery, and the "unnatural" shaping of our reactions to conform better with the patterns that enable a harmonious society.
One distinctive aspect of the Zhuangzian approach to harmonizing with the Dao is that death is part of the pattern. I think on a Zhuangzian view, death -- and probably pain -- at the right time in the right way is part of the pattern of the Dao. So I think Zhuangzi would be less troubled by predation in the wild than others might be.
The view lacks content if one doesn't have an axiological vision of what constitutes a flourishing pattern of existence on the planet. If the overall concert, so to speak, would be more harmonious without factory farming (as I think it would), then arguably factory farming constitutes a sour note, and vegetarianism or humane farming would be overall more harmonious. *Maybe* that could also apply to rescuing wild animals or preventing their suffering from non-human-related causes.
Thanks Eric - v.helpful. Is there also recognition within the approach that much hangs on who gets to decide what is a harmonious and flourishing pattern or concert? Even if they claim to be talking from a universal point of view?
I'm thinking of the risk that a powerful person or group sees a pattern as harmonious and flourishing when that same pattern might be seen as horrific (e.g. pain and death) from the perspectives of less powerful beings (human or not) within the pattern?
Many terrible people have claimed that they are just working towards restoring or achieving "the natural, harmonious order of things". Do Xunzian or Zhuangzian approaches have safeguards here?
I'm not so keen on the framing of "who gets to decide". It's not a decision, but rather more like a recognition. In the same way, one could complain of a utilitarian ethics that powerful people might "get to decide" what is likely to lead to happiness (perhaps a technological panopticon?) or of an Aristotelian ethics that powerful people "get to decide" what counts as flourishing.
One *advantage* of a harmony view is its modesty. On a consequentialist view, interpreted crudely (perhaps too crudely) anyone who can do a calculation can choose, if they have the power, to risk everything and everyone based on their guess about future expected value. In contrast, the idea of harmonizing suggests that you are not the leader but instead should aim to flow along with what is good in the world as it is. The complementary disadvantage of a harmony perspective is that thinking that way probably tends to discourage activism and rocking the boat.
I like that humility. Agree on the risks too though - along with a danger of slipping into the naturalistic fallacy (when the harmony of nature is, of course, brutally amoral - a truly abominable ethical role model).
This is inspiring and interesting and quite relevant to my research in many ways. Thank you for posting it