Ataraxism draws inspiration from various philosophical schools, including Stoicism, Epicureanism, Buddhism, and Pearcean suffering abolitionism. The term “ataraxia” is borrowed from Epicureanism and Stoicism, which taught that achieving ataraxia—psychological tranquility and freedom from intense suffering—was possible through their respective practices and teachings. Although these schools of thought advocated approaches and principles that conflicted in some ways, they also shared significant areas of overlap, such as emphasizing the importance of reason, and the importance of living wisely and ethically. Ataraxism also stresses the importance of these values. To learn more about our views please read on below, and visit our practical philosophy and ethics pages.
Ataraxism starts from two primary premises. First, that the best way to understand the world is through reason—which entails the integration of philosophical discourse and scientific investigation (following from principle #1 below); and, second, that universal liberation from involuntary intense suffering is of primary importance (following from principles 2 – 5 below).
The Core Principles of Ataraxism
Preface: A great deal of the inspiration for these core principles comes from David Pearce’s Hedonistic Imperative, W.D. Ross’s deontological pluralism, Albert Ellis’ writings on rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT), Peter Kropotkin’s Ethics, Arthur Schopenhauer’s The Basis of Morality, and Peter Singer’s writings on utilitarianism. Any linguistic or terminological commonalities in these principles will attest to this inspiration. A debt of gratitude and appreciation is owed to these individuals.
1. The rationalist principle
Our understanding of the world is most reliable when we have formed our views through applying reason and logical analysis to the best available evidence. Subjecting our views to critical discourse allows us to use the dialectical process to move further toward reliability. Following from this principle, we reject speculative metaphysics and ground our metaphysical views in the general consensus of science. In more specific epistemological terms, our view might be best described as a form of evidentialist reliabilism.
On the practical level, we are in agreement with the Stoic / REBT view that a great deal of our psychological suffering and strife is caused by irrational or self-defeating thinking.
2. The sentiocentric principle
The concept of value has no meaning outside of sentient experience, and we therefore hold that the only entities that matter, in terms of intrinsic value, are sentient beings.
We therefore consider sentience — that is, the condition of being capable of subjective experience, including the experience of pain or pleasure — to be a necessary and sufficient condition for moral standing, and the only legitimate criterion for direct moral standing.
Suffering is at the root of all ethical issues from the sentiosentric perspective, and since all sentient beings face the prospect of suffering in life, we therefore hold that intense involuntary suffering is the most significant of moral issues. Liberation from suffering, on our view, is paramount.
———————————–
From these two primary principles we derive further core principles. Based on a general philosophical consensus, we hold that all bare facts about the world (i.e., the facts which science uncovers) are value neutral—that is, they do not contain any sense of meaning that would guide or create purpose for the actions of rational agents. In recognition of this fact, we hold that rational agents must construct meaning and value from a consideration of these facts in combination with shared conscious experience (i.e., phenomenological intersubjectivity).
Ataraxism, therefore, seeks to ground our idea of right action on well-established science and universal preferences—that is, the most basic needs and desires of all sentient life. Considered on both the individual and social level, these are: living (or continuing to live while we still find life to be subjectively worth living), avoiding suffering, pursuing our idea of happiness, and—in the case of rational social beings—promoting justice (a systematic balance that maximizes liberty, fairness, and flourishing—as far as possible). These universal preferences can be used to develop a practical ethical framework.
3. The equal consideration principle
“No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—in so far as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being.” — Peter Singer, Animal Rights and Human Obligations
Our moral concern should extend to all entities capable of sentience—with those of roughly equal sentience given equal consideration.
Divorced from external circumstances that prevent the practical realization of justice (for a classical example, see the “state of nature“), there are no objective reasons to privilege one individual’s interests over another’s—if they are equally capable of sentient experience. The primary interest of every sentient being is to not suffer, and suffering is suffering—that is, suffering is of equal importance regardless of who is experiencing it. The concept of sentiocentrism and the principle of equal consideration of sentient creatures can be traced back to philosophies such as, Buddhism, Jainism, and Mohism, and to the early founders of utilitarianism—however, the primary inspiration for this principle is the work of Peter Singer (see equal consideration of interests, and his works Practical Ethics or Animal Liberation).
4. The principle of unconditional universal compassion
“Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.” — Arthur Schopenhauer
All sentient beings are concerned with preventing their own suffering, and many social animals also evolved an innate impulse to care (i.e., prevent suffering / promote happiness) for those in their group (see moral foundations theory). When we apply reason to this impulse, we will find that there are no sound justifications for why the care we hold for ourselves, and for those in our group, should not extend universally to all sentient beings—that is, when there are no practical obstacles preventing the extension of our aid. The practical considerations alluded to here may necessitate a higher prioritization for our own continued well-being and survival, and of those closest to us, in many circumstances—however, reason and compassion compels us to continually re-examine our circumstances and to extend our aid whenever possible.
In consideration of the fact that all sentient creatures experience suffering, or have the potential to experience suffering, we conclude that we should have moral concern or universal compassion for all sentient beings, and that this compassion should be unconditional—that is, we should have concern for the well-being of all individuals regardless of their identity or their actions.
We believe that the causes of antisocial behavior will eventually be understood by science, and we therefore view antisocial behavior not as “evil”, but as ignorance, misunderstanding, or as social pathology that is neurological or psychological in nature—all of which are potentially remediable. It must be noted, however, that unconditional universal compassion should not entail naiveté or unrealistic optimism about others’ predispositions. In many instances, individuals who exhibit a pattern of aggressive behavior must be removed from general society, so that they cannot continue to harm others. This, however, does not warrant that we return harm upon them.
While harmful behavior must be disincentivized, correction of harmful behavior should not be retributive or harsh (i.e., be likely to cause intense physical or psychological pain), and it must always aim at compassionate rehabilitation of the individual. As proponents of rational understanding and compassion, we categorically reject retributive punishment—or any sort of harm or violence that is not justifiably defensive in nature. When there is no other option but to remove an individual from society, we hold that we must always attempt to help or reform the person so that they may move toward greater prosociality and well-being (Ataraxists do not believe in giving up on anyone, however, we accept that our current level of understanding does not afford us the ability to be able to rehabilitate all individuals; we accept that some individuals must be indefinitely removed from environments where they can harm others—until there is strong evidence that they are unlikely to harm again).
It is often the case that those who harm others are suffering greatly and have been greatly harmed themselves—either by the actions of others or by the biological, psychological, or social circumstances they were born into. All individuals deserve compassion and kind treatment, regardless of their history. A rational understanding of the world engenders unconditional compassion—which in turn engenders peacefulness (vowing to avoid causing harm and to only use violence as a last resort in defense of self and others). As the proverb states, “To understand everything is to forgive everything.” If we could understand the circumstances, beliefs, and desires that give rise to an individual’s behavior, we would understand why they act as they do, and we would be able to see them with compassion.
5. The principle of universal solidarity
Genuine compassion implies commiseration and concern for the well-being of others—and this concern stimulates active compassion or, in other words, solidarity. In consideration of this fact, a commitment to solidarity should be seen as a corollary of universal unconditional compassion. The concept of solidarity is succinctly summarized by a popular labor union slogan: “An injury to one is an injury to all.” In other words, to stand in solidarity with others is to treat their interests as your own. Solidarity put into action manifests as mutual aid and beneficence.
In order to apply the principle of solidarity it is helpful to consider the golden rule—which is common to many of the world’s ethical doctrines and religions. The golden rule holds that we should desire for others what we desire for ourselves—in terms of general or basic desires. As stated in the principle of equal consideration and the principle of universal compassion, there are no sound ethical reasons to privilege our own well-being, or our own basic interests over those of others (however, there are practical reasons to place our own interests first in some situations; for instance, it is true that “one must take care of oneself before one can take care of others”).
On the most basic level we, as conscious beings, desire to continue living as long as we find life satisfying, to be free from suffering, to be treated fairly, and to have the freedom to pursue our idea of happiness or meaning. Our mission, then, is to develop the kind of society that strives to fulfill all of these interests for all sentient beings.