Base your ethics on reducing suffering and seeking truth, not slogans
Ethics can feel like a shouting match, but beneath the noise there’s a workable anchor: reduce unnecessary suffering and tell the truth as best you can. This doesn’t require a special badge or a particular slogan. It asks for two muscles—empathy and evidence—that anyone can train. When you write a simple no‑harm rule and keep it visible, decisions get clearer. You won’t be perfect. You will be consistent.
Before a tough call at work, you pause to picture the most vulnerable person who will feel the outcome. A new policy saves time for the team, but it might quietly dump extra load on a part‑timer with no benefits. You jot that down and ask, “How could we reduce that suffering?” Maybe it’s a stipend or different scheduling. At home, you try the same drill before snapping a quick reply that would feel good now and sting later.
Then there’s truth. When a piece of evidence undercuts your favorite theory, it’s tempting to argue with the thermometer. Instead, you write a one‑line update: “I used to think X; now, given Y, I think Z.” You share it briefly with your team or family. It feels awkward at first. After a month, it feels clean.
Finally, you audit your moral circle. Who counts in your choices? Family, coworkers, strangers, animals, future people? You pick one small expansion: bike to the store, eat one plant‑based meal, check on the new neighbor, review a junior’s draft. Moral growth isn’t a speech, it’s a calendar entry.
This approach lines up with consequentialist ethics (focus on outcomes like suffering), emotional intelligence (empathy as a skill), and scientific thinking (beliefs updated by evidence). It avoids empty signaling by favoring testable actions and visible corrections. The result isn’t moral perfection, it’s moral traction—less harm, more honesty, week by week.
Write a short no‑harm rule where you’ll see it and use it to frame one choice this week. Before a tough decision, run the empathy drill—picture the most vulnerable person affected and ask how to reduce their suffering. When a fact challenges your view, draft a one‑line update and share it with the people it affects, then give yourself credit for changing your mind. Once a month, list who counts in your decisions and pick one small way to widen that circle. Keep it simple and repeatable. Put the first reminder on your phone now.
What You'll Achieve
Internally, you’ll feel more aligned and less defensive. Externally, you’ll make decisions that measurably reduce harm, update policies faster with new evidence, and widen the set of people your actions benefit.
Adopt a practical no‑harm code
Write your no‑harm rule
Define harm as unnecessary suffering to self or others. Keep it short: “Reduce suffering, tell the truth, revise when wrong.”
Run the empathy drill
Before tough choices, picture the most vulnerable affected person, then ask, “How does this increase or reduce suffering?”
Update beliefs with evidence
When facts change, write a one‑line update and share it. Reward yourself for corrections the way you’d reward a win.
Audit your moral circle monthly
List who counts in your decisions (family, coworkers, strangers, animals, future people). Note one way to widen the circle in a small, concrete way.
Reflection Questions
- Where did I last cause avoidable suffering, and what would I do differently now?
- What evidence would actually change my mind on a current belief?
- Who sits just outside my moral circle, and what is one way to include them?
- How can I reward myself or my team for honest updates?
Personalization Tips
- Team: Add a ‘suffering check’ line to decision docs and capture what evidence would change your mind.
- Family: Post a simple house code—reduce suffering, tell the truth—and celebrate moments you updated a belief.
21 Lessons for the 21st Century
Ready to Take Action?
Get the Mentorist app and turn insights like these into daily habits.