Skip to content

Chocolatarianism: the only rational foundation for ethics

Last updated on 6 Feb 2013

A while back I revealed unto you all the verity that is Chocoholism. This introduced the metaphysics and epistemology of the Endarkenment. However I have become aware that I have not yet passed onto you the ethical component of Endarkenment: Chocolatarianism.

In that post I said this:

The moral principle is to do nothing that can interfere with your own or others’ endarkenment. Taxing chocolate, for example, is an evil. Killing somebody is an evil, for it takes away from them the chance to enjoy more chocolate.

This needs to be expanded upon. Unlike some moral philosophies, such as virtue ethics or deontological ethics, acts are not made moral or immoral by the nature of the acts themselves. In some cases it might be important to lie so that another’s enjoyment of chocolate is not diminished by the greedy. In other cases lying might be the cause of that diminishment.

But unlike consequentialist ethics such as utilitarianism, Chocolatarianism is not about ranking acts so that a certain outcome will occur, nor does it have a singular preference ranking for acts. Chocolatarians allow that the world is a complex and often unpredictable place, and one does one’s duty simply by not impeding the chocolate-seeking behaviours of others. They may disagree with you on what the optimal strategies for achieving endarkenment may be, and you may both be wrong in point of fact, but so long as you do not impede their search for it, or they yours, moral optimality is attained.

The universality of the Chocolatarian principle can be seen if one asks of every act, “Will this negatively affect another’s search for chocolate?” No act is ever irrelevant because any act might so affect Endarkenment in some way, but then again, no acts are prohibited, enjoined upon people, or compulsory, because the act is a matter of one’s own honest reflective judgement. When you are able to evaluate every act in this way, you have achieved the first level of Endarkenment.

Nor is this a moral realism: no Chocolatarian thinks their moral values are real. The value of chocolate is, of course, real, but this is because it is a physiological fact, not a moral reality. Likewise, the Chocolatarian is not bound to be an error theorist either. If your search for Endarkenment is made easier or more reasonable on the assumption of the moral reality of your values and acts, then that is what you must accept.

Divine Command theory is out, because the gods, especially Xocolatl who gave us chocolate, are too busy seeking their own Endarkenment. They are simply too busy to be issuing commands to anyone (apart from a muttered “Find your own chocolate”) for them to play any role as the foundation for ethics.

Chocolatarianism is clearly an adult ethics. Children must be guided to understand their own interests in finding Endarkenment by those who are experienced in these matters, especially around the Holy Week of Eastre, when we celebrate chocolate. They need to know that they must not gorge themselves or they will suffer the Horrible Sugar High, and that they really should share with their parents to avoid that. Commentators are unclear on whether that is a moral ought.

Finally, this is not an ethical naturalism and as such does not fall prey to the so-called Naturalistic Fallacy. It is not in the nature of chocolate that it is the Good, because, quite simply, chocolate is not truly natural. For this I refer you back to the Chocoholist metaphysics, wherein chocolate is more than the sum of its flavours.

At last, moral philosophy is on a sound, and very tasty, footing.


  1. Susan Silberstein Susan Silberstein

    I did something ethical today, even though it was in aid of someone I despise. A few minutes ago, I ate biscotti dipped in dark chocolate. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

  2. DiscoveredJoys DiscoveredJoys

    The updated Epicurean counsels:

    1) Don’t fear God. He doesn’t want your chocolate.
    2) Don’t worry about death. Chocolate is for the here and now.
    3) Don’t fear pain. A piece of chocolate will help the medicine go down.
    4) Live simply. Selection boxes are a rip off.
    5) Pursue pleasure wisely. Too much chocolate will make you feel sick.
    6) Make friends and be a good friend. Share your chocolate and they will share theirs.
    7) Be honest in your business and private life. Don’t hide a secret chocolate stash.
    8) Avoid fame and political ambition, and white chocolate (which contains no chocolate)

    • Very nice. But of course these are just counsels, not canonical. There is no heresy in Chocolatarianism.

      • White Chocolate is neither.

        Therefore White Chocolate is heresy.

        • As we saw in the Chocoholism post, “And don’t get me started on White Chocolate, which is an abomination unto Xocolatl, the deity that gave chocolate to humanity”…

          But not because it is heresy; because it is an abomination. There’s no propositional content to our justified true disgust against white chocolate.

        • Agreed that it is an abomination, but I assert that it is also heresy when it is *called* chocolate (by heretics).

        • Why? I can call cardboard chocolate if I like. The only moral flaw arises when it deceives others and causes them to have fewer opportunities to enjoy chocolate because they are eating cardboard instead.

          There’s no heresy; just a failure decision and action. We are not tribalists, we chocoholists. Heresy is for tribalists. We are universalists who seek the Endarkenment of all.

        • Ah, I have been Endarkened by The Profit. I will seek to restrain my tribalist impulses in future.

        • There is no bright side of the moon, really. Matter of fact it’s all dark.

  3. mikespeir mikespeir

    If it doesn’t involve chocolate somehow, morality is way oversold.

    • I like the cut of your jib, sir. You are close to true Endarkenment.

  4. Marilyn Marilyn

    Endarkenment could it be an expression for -ignorance is bliss- and the chocolate bit is a way of helping you fall into that mould.

    • Not at all. As I esplained, the dark is the detail. Knowledge only comes of knowing the details. As Mies van der Rohe said, God [and the devil, and every other metaphor for knowledge] is in the details.

Comments are closed.