More accurately, I exist; I’m not too sure about your existence. Funny that. Although he was not the first, Descartes explains it rather convincingly and, more importantly, simply, in his Meditations. The main thrust of the argument is simply thus: that the only thing I can possibly be sure of is my own existence; all of my perceptions of the world are merely that, perceptions, easily manipulated biological and physical functions, completely open to deception.

Talk about harsh. All that you have worked to achieve, all those you have met, those you have loved, hated, feared, may not exist. All that you have learned, all that you believe, all that you think you know could be merely that, a thought, substanceless and inconsequential. Bummer.

So what’s the point? Well just because I’m not sure you exist, doesn’t mean you don’t right? Should I act only on my behalf, ignoring others to help only the me that I’m sure of? What if you do exist and I have wronged you? Thus morality is born. There are many stances to take, but the driving force of all the various schools of morality is pleasure. How to create, minimize, maximize, spread, and sustain pleasure define ethics, the practical side of morals.

There are two main schools of morality, Utilitarianism and Deontology. Utilitarianism concerns itself with the outcome of an action, that if more good than ill came out of an action, it was the right thing to do. Deontology places right and wrong on the purpose of an action, if you intended good or ill, not on the outcome.

What now? Lets take a step back and review, I am sure I exist, but am not sure if you do. Back to pleasure. Sounds nice huh? Who deserves to be happy, me or you? There are two ways to look at this, either A) I’m the only one I’m sure exists, therefore I should work toward my own happiness, or B) on the off chance that you do exist, I should make you happy. Should I love myself or others? Hmm, tough call.

For example, lets say I club my neighbor to death with a broken chair leg, just because I don’t like the color of his eyes. As it turns out he is later found to be a brutal murderer with no less than 37 victims, with four more locked up in the basement. So the outcome is this, Mr. Murderer is dead, four people saved, me in jail. That makes -2 (me and the murderer) and +4 (the saved victims) as well as any other victims he would killed in the future. So did I do the right thing in brutally murdering a person who did nothing wrong against me and, as far as I knew, against any other person. Utilitarians would say yes, I saved many lives and did the right thing. Deontologists would say no, that I did nothing more than savagely murder another, only coincidentally saving many. Again, another tough call.

Good job, you just got a C in Intro Philosophy. Congrats. What now? What should you do with your newfound knowledge of the universe? Tear it down. All that you hold dear, and all that you don’t, take it down. That which you love or hate, your mother, your husband, your children, your god, your nation, tear it down. Burn everything that isn’t YOU. Then remember that that’s ALL you can possibly be sure of. Now start rebuilding yourself, starting with that. The morals and ethics will come once you are comfortable with that fact. It’ll all fall into place once you truly accept that simple fact. Try not to lose too much sleep, and sorry for angering/disappointing your parents/friends/clergy/god/nation.