5.5 A Note on Ethics
61
Fox starts his discourse by stating that at the core of ethics lies the definition of
the values we should live by. Philosophers refer to this as “normative ethics”, the
aim is to define the norms and standards that we should meet or attempt to meet
in our conduct. Traditional thinking focused on human and their relationships with
each other. That is an inter-human ethics, i.e., an anthropocentric view of ethics,
disregarding, for example animal suffering. Ethics really started transcending interhuman ethics in the 1970s. There was the desire for a holistic approach of ethics to
replace “silos” such as anthropocentric (humans), bio-centric (animals), eco-centric
(environment) ethics.
The point is that the world, our “environment” consist of natural “self-organizing”
systems as well as intentionally organized systems, built environments, resulting from
the Anthropocene. Fox argues that General Ethics is a single integrated approach covering inter-human, natural environment and human constructed environment ethics.
The Theory of General Ethics, which Fox also calls “the theory of responsive
cohesion”, attempts to address three questions:
• What values should we live by?
• Why should we live by those values?
• How should we live by those values?
To answer but the first, Fox explains we need to define the “basic” or “fundamental” values in a single value statement. The most fundamental value there is—i.e., the
foundational value—consists in a basic relational quality, or form of organization,
which can be described as responsive cohesion. Responsive cohesion is one of three
possible kinds of cohesion. It is the most important and valuable. The other two
kinds are fixed cohesion and discohesion. Thus responsive cohesion is normative of
relational qualities and tells us what relational qualities ought to be respected.
This summary will most likely leave you with appetite for more information. You
can of course read the book, but before you do let us get back to our main subject
with some examples.
The fixed cohesion characteristics are rigid, frozen, mechanical and prone to
routine. Fixed cohesion is based on compliance, audits, codes and the application of
fixed rules. Discohesion is chaotic, anarchic, “all over the place”, “with no logic”.
Responsive cohesion “holds together” a system. Elements of the system respond to
each other in deep, significant and meaningful ways. A responsive cohesion system
is internally and contextually responsive. It is flexible, adaptive and creative. Using
Fox’s terms, its salient elements and features “keep company with each other”, mixing
predictability and surprise. The system is genuinely complex, organic and “alive”.
Now that we have defined a responsive cohesion system and that we know that
responsive cohesion is the foundational value, we also know that an ethical system
has to “live” by selecting responsive cohesion maximization.
If we look at areas such as understanding and managing risks (maintaining an
internally and contextually responsive system); designing rational risk mitigation
based on Risk Informed Decisions (flexible solutions based on evolving uncertainties
and hazards); updating on a regular basis system structure and hazards, risks (adapting
mitigations); and Information transparency, SLO and CSR (integrating inter-human
61
Fox starts his discourse by stating that at the core of ethics lies the definition of
the values we should live by. Philosophers refer to this as “normative ethics”, the
aim is to define the norms and standards that we should meet or attempt to meet
in our conduct. Traditional thinking focused on human and their relationships with
each other. That is an inter-human ethics, i.e., an anthropocentric view of ethics,
disregarding, for example animal suffering. Ethics really started transcending interhuman ethics in the 1970s. There was the desire for a holistic approach of ethics to
replace “silos” such as anthropocentric (humans), bio-centric (animals), eco-centric
(environment) ethics.
The point is that the world, our “environment” consist of natural “self-organizing”
systems as well as intentionally organized systems, built environments, resulting from
the Anthropocene. Fox argues that General Ethics is a single integrated approach covering inter-human, natural environment and human constructed environment ethics.
The Theory of General Ethics, which Fox also calls “the theory of responsive
cohesion”, attempts to address three questions:
• What values should we live by?
• Why should we live by those values?
• How should we live by those values?
To answer but the first, Fox explains we need to define the “basic” or “fundamental” values in a single value statement. The most fundamental value there is—i.e., the
foundational value—consists in a basic relational quality, or form of organization,
which can be described as responsive cohesion. Responsive cohesion is one of three
possible kinds of cohesion. It is the most important and valuable. The other two
kinds are fixed cohesion and discohesion. Thus responsive cohesion is normative of
relational qualities and tells us what relational qualities ought to be respected.
This summary will most likely leave you with appetite for more information. You
can of course read the book, but before you do let us get back to our main subject
with some examples.
The fixed cohesion characteristics are rigid, frozen, mechanical and prone to
routine. Fixed cohesion is based on compliance, audits, codes and the application of
fixed rules. Discohesion is chaotic, anarchic, “all over the place”, “with no logic”.
Responsive cohesion “holds together” a system. Elements of the system respond to
each other in deep, significant and meaningful ways. A responsive cohesion system
is internally and contextually responsive. It is flexible, adaptive and creative. Using
Fox’s terms, its salient elements and features “keep company with each other”, mixing
predictability and surprise. The system is genuinely complex, organic and “alive”.
Now that we have defined a responsive cohesion system and that we know that
responsive cohesion is the foundational value, we also know that an ethical system
has to “live” by selecting responsive cohesion maximization.
If we look at areas such as understanding and managing risks (maintaining an
internally and contextually responsive system); designing rational risk mitigation
based on Risk Informed Decisions (flexible solutions based on evolving uncertainties
and hazards); updating on a regular basis system structure and hazards, risks (adapting
mitigations); and Information transparency, SLO and CSR (integrating inter-human