What if Ethics Does Not Exist?
What if Ethics Does Not Exist?
This provocative piece suggests that ethics has no meaning in absolute terms, but it is just a by-product of social activities. It also discusses some plausible practical consequences.
What are we talking about?
Since the ancient Greeks’ time, the field of ethics has involved systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers, politicians, activists, think-tankers and the like have long tried to justify where do moral principles come from, and how to apply them on controversial subjects. Central questions in the debate are if ethical principles can be objectively shared across mankind, and whether they exist at all. Far from being farfetched, these questions are relevant in defining our stance in front of moral dilemmas, in supporting dialectic arguments, and in shaping laws and rules of conducts that are based on “moral values”. In this article, I will try to challenge the very notion of ethical principles (intended as fundamental truths for a system of reasoning and belief). I will try a defense for the following idea: ethics is merely a label that models a set of marketing practices.

Step 1: Humans work with models
Most likely, the longest intellectual quest of humanity is that for Truth, some absolute concept that might explain all that is the universe. Likewise likely, human beings have never reached it – and, arguably, won’t ever do so.
“However, they managed to produce some reasoning constructs that can usually work as if they could be true. These constructs are usually called “models”. “
Scientific models are usually on the spotlight, but we might lump all descriptions of natural phenomena that rely on a set of language rules under the term “model”.
“Apple”, for instance, is a useful modelling concept: it saves time to demand for a roughly round-shaped, red (or whatever), kinda sweet, quite crunchy, edible … object. “Gravity” is another useful concept: it encompasses potential reasons why two bodies attract each other due to mass properties and provides an elegant formula predicting their future relative positions.
Step 2: Models survive history if they are useful
Unfortunately, there is no way to know a priori if a proposition is true or false; it can just be valid, that is, it might usefully describe certain aspects of observed phenomena.

“The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretation, described observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work”.
Of course, this applies to non-mathematical models too. The “Apple” model works as long as it lets us identify alike fruits and to easily discuss about them.
Usually, to verify that a model works is demanded to human communities, until a consensus is reached. A model might be substituted by another one, if the second better serves the scopes of the community. The Copernican system initially superseded the Tolemaic one thanks to its better predictions, until the community believed it was valid and eventually managed to make empirical observations by launching satellites.
To justify and debate the usefulness of models – thus guaranteeing their survival – various methods can be employed: looking at their elegance, testing their predictions, relying on other models that had historically held their ground, waiting until the departure of old models’ proponents.
Step 3: Ethics is a model that should be useful
As every other concept that summarizes beliefs and observations, “ethics” itself is none other than a model.
“In trying to justify the validity of the “ethics” concept, humans have first called upon God, then upon innate human goodness, then upon various reasoning principles.”
In short, they have used other models that were held important at different times, but there is no such a thing like an absolute and granitic ethics. Being a modelling idea, ethics does not really exist. It is a convention that, at a certain time and place, holds as if it was valid.
On the other hand, to proliferate for so many centuries, the “ethics” model should have been useful somehow.
“I would suggest that its [ethics] main use was the consolidation of trust.”
Trust among humans – even more if reciprocal – is a strong marketing asset: it is far easier to communicate, convince or lead fellows if trust is established. At the same time, trust is more likely established if the parties share, agree upon and respect certain sets of principles; and it is stronger if the parties feel like belonging to the same group that is identified by such sets of principles. If we label these sets of principles as “ethics”, they immediately identify the modelling foundation of a community. This way, we obtain a plausible scheme for the emergence of ethical ideas, which were later justified a posteriori.
Consequences
Can we go without ethics?
On the one hand, we have just demolished ethics as an objective and absolute construct. The research of an all-encompassing ethics would merely be an ill-posed question. In addition, this would weaken several justifications and dialectic attempts to conduct debates. On the other hand, what discussed above would stress the importance of having shared, conventionally defined sets of principia to guide and interpret moral behaviors; not because of some abstract “must”, but for very practical reasons.
“En passant, corporates as well might wish to comply to ethical standards not because of “greater goods”, but to strengthen trust with the population.”
Moreover, such a stance in front of ethical matters place responsibility on everybody:
“if philosophers, politicians, activists, think-tankers and the like are unable to discover correct ethical principles, it is the power and responsibility of every person to invent them – unless we prefer to delegate”
Conclusion
In this brief text, I have argued that ethics is merely a marketing model. Far from being complete, the reasoning might hopefully spark some interest and debate. Stripped from its aura of absoluteness, ethics becomes a matter of continuous conventions and agreements – and the responsibility to do so is ours.
Daniele Proverbio holds a PhD in computational sciences for systems biomedicine and complex systems as well as a MBA from Collège des Ingénieurs. He is currently affiliated with the University of Trento and follows scientific and applied mutidisciplinary projects focused on complex systems and AI. Daniele is the co-author of Swarm Ethics™ with Katja Rausch. He is a science divulger and a life enthusiast. In our first article of two, we have challenged traditional normativity and the linear perspective of classical Western ethics. In particular, we have concluded that the traditional bipolar category of descriptive and prescriptive norms needs to be augmented by a third category, syngnostic norms.