There’s some paradoxical element in human nature that simultaneously drives us toward ultimate failure and gives us hope in dire situations. It’s this dual character of humanity that most theories of ethics tend to lay aside. Many schools of ethics separate these two traits and deign one the “innate” quality and one the “trained” quality, making a determination on humanity’s in-born value of good or evil. However, true universal ethics must consider both of these qualities, or any theory of right- or wrong-action will inevitably be lopsided and biased. If we take into account that humans are born naturally both “evil” and “good,” then it’s quite easy to see how we, as a civilization, can thrust our culture into space with hopes for the future while destroying our own planet with our detritus and waste. So, we must consider this doom and hope to be part of ethics – “right action” must be just as justifiable and condemned as “wrong action.” Inevitably, an Apocalyptic Ethics emerges.
Confronted with the problem of global warming (working logically under the assumption that global warming is in fact evident and true), multiple existing systems of ethics offer straight-forward reasoning for what is the ethically correct way to fix the problem. Utilitarianism will state that civilization and society must work to save humanity and the world. That we (Americans) ought to burden the labor of finding a solution because we are perhaps the best equipped to do so, and we should happily assume this burden even if it harms us, for it will bring the greatest good for the greatest people. The categorical imperative would command every living, self-aware human to immediately halt any action harmful to the environment. If it is the best thing for me, as an individual, to do, then it is the rule that we all should live by. Quite simply, the ends are evident but the logical means and methods differ. However, existing ethical schemes all call for the same thing: the reduction of waste, one way or another, by one group or another.
Humans are not so apt to living up to such ideals. We are lazy, selfish, and partly innately evil with our transference – somebody else will stop polluting; leave it to the hippies. The solution cannot be evident, but we will refuse to act until the situation is at its most dire and there is no longer an option. We will refuse to act until we can refuse and delay no longer. Only then will we find that spark of innovation and vigor that will save us and vault us forward as a people. This is the fundamental principle of Apocalyptic Ethics: that whichever creates the direst situation to necessitate innovation and vigor of the group is the correct action of the individual.
NYC, 2035(ish)
Apocalyptic Ethics posits that the solution to global warming is the continued ignorance of its heralds – that by further destroying what we have, we will be forced into a state where innovation, creation, and vigor are necessary for the continued existence of the human race. Historical examples of Apocalyptic Ethics already exist. Before joining the fight in World War I, America waited until Germany had conquered enough of Europe to make it clear that if resistance was not bolstered, Germany’s place as the dominant power on Earth would be all but assured. This was an action born of necessity. Further back, America refused to solve its regional tax, trade, and labor disputes until the final hour where vigor of the country was necessitated to maintain a complete union. Great triumph is born not out of careful, calculated scales of right and wrong. Nor is it born out of maxims and universal decrees of action. Salvation of humanity comes logically from its own self-inflicted doom. So then, the ethical “right” action of any individual is to more quickly bring about this salvation through continued “evil” action. Good is born of evil.