Chocolatarianism: the only rational foundation for ethics

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.