Fundamental and Derived Choice
It may not have been discussed that ethics has its levels of choice.
We live in a three-dimensional world. The idea of ethics as a single dimension or choice between opposites is far too simple. We only need to listen to debates in parliament to despair.
Arising out of ethical chaos there are interrelated dimensions of values with their end-values for society, which includes the whole natural environment. We have a choice, or lack of independent choice, between those end-values.
But if, as I would have it, there is an end-value that can be described in general terms as altruistic, and other end-values that deviate from this. When we have ‘chosen’ this [and others otherwise] as our own society, there is then a secondary level of choice.
If we are or believe we are Altruists, then our choice within that concept, is also more than one dimension. But implicitly it has already rejected the fundamental end-values that are not altruistic. It is therefore a decision about what values and active behaviour is to be encouraged – what is to be proscribed or at least discouraged – and what can be tolerated while not accepting it as the norm.
If we merely believed in personal freedom, as a fundamental choice, then almost anything would be acceptable that does not deny us of life.
It is probably the alternatives to altruism that would make the whole world one, rather than see it as a community rising from the grass-roots.