As part of my esthetic philosophy, I make the arguement implied in my title.

Dramaturgic students know that "hubris" is "the sin of pride", which betrayed so many ancient Greek heroes -- Theseus, Oedipus, Antigone, etc. Some of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies are HUBRIC: "Coriolanus", "Julius Caesar", "Anthony and Cleopatra", "King Lear", "Othello".

The term gnostic denotes, for me, an elitist epistemology ("What and how do we know?"). You've heard of, say, the anti-Jewish Jew. The true gnostic is the anti-human human. He or she wishes to believe that he or she is a "citizen" of a cross-stellar empire, so that LOVE AND COMITY ARE NOT TO BE FOUND IN THIS WORLD! (Gnosticism is also associated historically with the "Bogomile heresy", which argued that "our world is a mixture of light and darkness" and one can only tell what is "good" or "evil" by investigating. Thus, a mother might smother her infant by a pillow; then examine her feelings to decide whether this was "good" or "evil".) Briefly, a gnostic tragedy, such as "Tristan and Isolde" and Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" use melodramatic means to ensure that earthly conjugacy shall not last. (I owe this observation to Denis de Rougemont's "Love in the Western World", which characterizes "Tristan" and "Romeo" as gnostic in motivation and notes that Verona, Italy (the site of "Romeo and Juliet"), was a "hotbed" of gnosticism in the Renaissance period.

The term "deontic" means "I must", and deontic logic is concerned with what motivates human behavior. I argue that Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is a puzzle unless you realize that its protagonist, Hamlet, is torn between two conflicting deontics: MORALITY and ETHICS. It is MORAL TO KILL KING CLAUDIUS -- EVEN AT HIS PRAYERS(!) -- BECAUSE THIS WOULD RAISE THE MORALE OF THE TRIBE WHEN THE TRIBE BECOMES AWARE OF HIS PERFIDY (AS TOLD BY THE PLAY'S "DEEP-THROAT", THE GHOST). But IT IS NOT ETHICAL TO KILL CLAUDIUS!!! This CONFLICT -- and this ALONE -- EXPLAINS WHY HAMLET TEMPORIZES UNTIL HIS ONLY RECOURSE IS TO "BRING DOWN THE TEMPLE"!

Please understand. I'm not taking sides merely because I think "ethical" is "nicer". And "nicer" would not explain why I think that ethics deserves a primary place in a program devoted to stating and implementing mathematical philosophy. Rather, the ethical viewpoint provides me with excellent opportunities for articulating MADMATH strategies -- which cannot be done with the moral veiwpoint.

For example, I can use deontic logic ("loaded" for my ethical thesis) and the cognitive viewpoint to PROGRAM ETHICIST ARGUMENTS AND TEST COMPLIANCE WITH THEM. This demonstrates the precision possible with my ethical thesis, as contrasted with the lack of precision in Coles and other moralists, who (well-meaning!) leave themselves open to con artists and "behavioral lawyers". (To object to my procedure is to argue with that Moses was "out-of-line"!)