This is an idea I've been toying with recently. I can't really say what brought it into my mind
, except maybe it's got something to do with being sick of all these dry, abstract moral
philosophies that we have to learn about.
I guess I got thinking about a human system of morals. Something messy and arbitrary... like sex
So, how does it work? Well, the best act in any situation may be considered to be that which results, in potentia, in the most and best sex for you, the moral agent, the emphasis being on 'better'. Not morally better, because then the argument would be circular, but just blow-your-mind, incapable of disengaging sort of sex.
Why I like it: Well, you can't just go around cynically manipulating people into sleeping with you. This counts as bad sex, and also eventually reduces the amount of in potentia sex available to you. You can't be like Hitler, because although thousands of women wanted to sleep with him, they were all hoary old frauleins, so it's easy to see how morally abhorrent his actions were. You gotta be good to people, you have to engage them emotionally (trust me, this makes for better sex), and because 'more' isn't anywhere near as important as 'better', your pair bonding is a moral act. It condemns all sorts of instincively 'nasty' actions and lauds anything that allows people to become closer and more intimate, like playing good Jazz and mild psychoactives.
This also gets rid of all those petty semantic arguments that philosophers have, because if they annoy you you can just say that they're decreasing their chances of sleeping with you and are therefore being immoral.
Unfortunately though it makes little allowance for the broken-hearted. Under this system of morals, I, the originator of the system, am an extremely immoral person.
I think this theory is really a placeholder in my search for some human moral system that places great importance on closeness and honesty and self-determination etc etc without being as arbitrary as to just say that all those things are 'moral'. But more on that later.
Update, 28 September 2000:
It works, it works!