Source of Morality

Let’s first take a look at commonly relied upon sources and determine whether or not they make a good “Source of Morality”.

The Law

Whether or not something is Legal or Illegal is definitely not a good way to determine if something is Moral or Immoral. This is obvious.

Next?

What others are Doing?

Mob mentality is the most obvious proof that people don’t always make the best choices when they blindly follow the crowd.

If that isn’t enough, there’s also this simple Wisdom my Mother was fond of telling me.

One day I asked her:

“How do I know if something’s right or wrong?” -Me
“Google it?” -Her
“….are you shitting me?” – Me

Not the answer I was expecting, but it works for most cases!

For the other cases?

Unfortunately neither of these are helpeful for someone who is seeking the original Source of Morality… so lets move to the next idea.

God?

One question asked by many Theists during discussions on Morality is “Without God or Religion, where does morality come from?”

My question for them, is why do they think “God” gives us Morality?

If the above isn’t enough proof that God is not a good “Source” for Morality, consider the following.

The Dark Tetrad are the Psychological Traits possessed by those considered the most Evil. Serial killers and other down right nasty people.

Narcissism:

• Desire to be idolized and worshiped.
• Desire to come before all others (treated like Royalty).
• Portrays self as Perfect.
• Portrays self as a Hero (Savior) of those in need.
• Portrays self as the Victim of “Evil People” who Lie.

Machiavellianism:

• Selfishly motivated and desire for personal power.
• Cold and calculating with long term plans.
• Secretive, Paranoid and Ruthless.

Psychopathy:

• Fearless and Unafraid of all Threats.
• Views people as “things” they “own”.
• Controls them with threats or manipulation.
• Behaves as if their “Words create Reality”.

Sadism:

• Able to hurt others without remorse or guilt.
• Violence used to solve problems when other option exist.
• Derives pleasure from other’s pain.

Sound familiar?

The Lord / God of the Old Testament Bible if taken as a Source of Morality, would actually lead to the most Immoral and Evil people you can imagine.

People learn by your Example, not your Rules.

The Lord / God of the Bible teaches by Example to be a Psychopath, a Narcissist, Machiavellian and Sadist. This is as Immoral as you can get.

“God” in Human Form would look like…

So no, “God” is not a reasonable or desirable the Source of Morality.

Logical Analysis?

Note: This section is long, technical and boring. Feel free to skip to the next section.

I do believe that morality can be determined logically, the only question is context. This would be a “relative morality” however. So what are the possible contexts? I believe they break down into the following.

1. Moral with respect to the individual or entity.
2. Moral with respect to the family.
3. Moral with respect to the community.
4. Moral with respect to society.
5. Moral with respect to the species.
6. Moral with respect to life.

Each of these contexts has it’s own answers to the question of if an action should be considered moral. What context is applied, should be based on the capabilities of the individual performing the action, and the context is continually evolving. It also is completely different depending on the situation and individual who must make the decision.

The lowest evolved form would be morality based on the individual. The highest evolved, and what should be strived for is a morality with respect to life.

Contexts of Morality

1. Individual Context, the Amoral

An individual context is the lowest and base form of morality. An individual incapable of critical thinking, or evaluating their actions, is only concerned with it’s own survival, if even that. At this level no action can be considered immoral, as there is no awareness of the concept.

This level of morality exists for non-sentient beings, and is the one used by sentient beings without a conscience or any other more highly evolved morality. Plants, bacteria, viruses and any other life form. that has no attachment to it’s young or kin also falls into this category.

In humans, this is the morality exhibited by those with Dark Tetrad disorders. Even babies have shown their capability to understand morality in a more highly evolved way.¹

The logic of this context is as follows, and is a key point in the contextual basis of morality. Is it moral for a fire to kill a person “without cause”, where a cause is the normal context in which murder is made moral?

“Mu” is the appropriate answer for such a question. Mu is the missing ternary answer to our currently boolean “Yes/No” logic in English. It is the answer that represents “null”, “nothing”, or “not applicable”, if you follow the explanations given by Hofstadter. The question can be considered inappropriate, that a fire’s acts are not capable of having morality.

Mu is the answer to the trick question “Did you ever stop beating your wife”, assuming you never beat her, and that you even have a wife. To answer yes, logically, implies you at some point did beat your wife. To answer no, implies you still currently beat your wife. To answer “mu”, means the question is inappropriate, as it’s underlying assumptions are invalid.²

The desire to answer mu, or “morality is not applicable to fire”, is itself a notion that shows morality is contextual. It depends on the entity performing the action. A fire is incapable of being held to a more highly evolved code of morality than that of the individual context, and in the individual context, no acts are immoral.

To rise above the individual context, an entity must be capable of empathy or the desire to further the survival and interests of other entities rather than itself. The latter is why even though sociopaths can fall into this context, they do not have to. Though they lack empathic connections to attain a higher morality, they still have the capability to act morally in other regards relying on logic/reasoning.

2. Family Context

This is the context where any life form that raises it’s young to some degree, or exhibits pair bonding, but isn’t predisposed to assisting any others in it’s species. Hive species of insects display this type, and most species that have few offspring and form family units. This is most commonly recognized in mammalian species.

In the family context of morality, any act that promotes the success and welfare of the family is considered moral and righteous, and any act that inhibits the family’s progress is considered immoral. Because of this however, the question of what is or is not moral for human families, can be very heavily influenced by higher contexts of morality. If military service is respected and brings respect and standing in a community/society, then military service and killing enemies can be moral as it improves the families standing. However at higher levels such as species or life, this act would be entirely immoral.

The strongest example of this context of morality in humans, is the act of nepotism. Curiously, the act of nepotism is in conflict with both the individual context, and the more highly evolved contexts. If an individual employs a less qualified person for a job due to family relations over a more qualified person, they are sacrificing their own gain, and that of the community/society/species. Because of this, it is obvious they have a more highly evolved sense of morality than that of the individual context, but this is still a very primitive form of morality.

The individual context has no questions of what is moral or immoral, regardless of higher contexts, so this is the first level where morality can be ambiguous, showing even more favor in the support of contextual morality.

3. Community Context

This is a morality context common in mammal species. Any life form that forms communities where the individual will sacrifice itself or it’s family for the success of the community falls into this category. Herd species in which a member who sees a predator alerts the others and draws attention to themselves display a prime example of a moral act in this context.

In humans, this is the most regularly occurring form and context of morality, and for all species incapable of forming civilizations, this is typically the highest context of morality that can exist. The are some exceptions though. Two entities from different species capable of sacrificing for each other, exhibit the highest context of morality, morality with respect to life.

Ok enough of this long winded bullshit. It’s not simple enough.

Something Simpler Please?

For those who read between the lines of the Logical Analysis, you’ll notice an subtle pattern that hints at very simple underlying rule for Morality.

So what is the Source of Morality?

Empathy!

What does Empathy look like as a Rule?

The Golden Rule is the result of Empathy!

Unfortunately the Golden Rule assumes both people have the same perspective and cultural beliefs about the world. It also shows up in the various religions in a positive as well as negative version, rarely together.

These two problems can be easily corrected though with what can be referred to as the Platinum Rule:

Do and don’t do unto others as you would have them do and not do unto you, if you were them and they were you.

The addition of “if you were them and they were you” however does require more than Emotional Empathy however.

It also requires Cognitive Empathy.

If you can’t imagine what life is like for them (walk a mile in their shoes), and don’t try to imagine how difficult or impossible their problems are; then you are failing to show Cognitive Empathy.

You need to use both Cognitive and Emotional Empathy to truly use the Platinum Rule of Morality.

Without Emotional Empathy you will end up being Emotionally Abusive.

Without Cognitive Empathy your advice or solutions might not help and might even make someone’s situation even worse!

There’s nothing more painful than realizing you Hurt someone you Love in an attempt to Help them… because you didn’t understand their problem or how they felt about a situation.

Use Empathy to Understand.

Both Others and the Moral or “Right” thing to Do.

How do you know when to use Empathy?

Whenever your actions, choices or words affect any other form of Life.

Peace, Love, Unity, Respect ALL Life
We are PLURAL
One Truth, One Love
We are ONE

Notes

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57551557/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/?pageNum=2

[2] Ideas about Mu are from Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism <- Make use of this.

P.S. 7 Deadly Sins