Morality
B.W. Wojciechowski, June 2024
The word Morality recalls a host of strictures and advice, but few give much thought to the basis of the concept. Some take Morality as being based on the word of God, but He only proclaimed ten commandments. Most of the Morality that dominates societies had evolved by thinkers and ideologues, often starting with an expansion of the Ten Commandments. But for most people, the very definition of Morality is not clear. Much smoke pervades the air when Morality is being debated among scholars. For example:
“Moral systems are interlocking sets of
values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies,
and evolved psychological mechanisms
that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest
and make cooperative societies possible.”
Jonathan David Haidt, American Social Psychologist, 1963-
It’s time to clear the air. The morality of the West is becoming questionable.
Fundamental Moralities
I understand the Morality of society as the fundamental social contract between citizens. On top of this, and based on the accepted Morality, comes a constitution. Taking a somewhat broader view, I propose that two kinds of moralities pervade our existence.
The Morality of Nature and the Moralities of Societies.
Begin by defining the principal goal of Morality: it is the furthering of the success of the entity espousing that specific Morality. Each Morality is a code of behavior that an entity uses as a guide to enhance success in its ongoing activities and to ensure its future.
The same Morality does not apply to all natural events and beings. It is greatly influenced by the level of awareness of the society that adopts a given Morality. The inorganic part of nature has no identifiable Morality. “Que sera, sera.” We can safely say that nothing cerebral guides events in the inorganic part of nature. Mountains rise, stars assemble, and rain falls, but all of that is based on the probability of events occurring randomly under the influence of the 26 universal parameters. The one place where inorganic morality is about to become a fundamental issue in human affairs is the future of Artificial (inorganic) Intelligence and the Morality of Robots that use it.
The picture changes dramatically the moment we enter the realm of organic beings. Even the most mindless organic creatures seem to have a goal for their activities. Perhaps the most noticeable is the tendency of biological organisms to try and fill all the habitable space where they can thrive. Their Morality is based on their struggle with circumstances and opponents to master all the available ecology.
Since there are often competing life forms the most common guiding principle, the fundamental Moral is “kill or be killed.” However, even at this low level of comprehension, there is wisdom in cooperation, there is symbiosis. Many organisms have decided that “live and let live” is a good strategy. Symbiosis is a long-term interaction between organisms of different species. There are many types of symbiosis, but an example may be useful. Algae and Coral live in a symbiotic relationship. Algae provide Coral with nutrients, while Coral protects Algae from predators and holds it up in proximity to sunlight. What made them arrive at this laudable cooperation without a brain is interesting.
Other beneficial developments can lead to success. The beauty, aroma, color, and sugary syrups of flowers, and less spectacular biologicals, attract insects. A symbiotic life cycle develops when the cooperating organisms depend on it for their very survival. Insects feed on the syrup and inadvertently pollinate the flowers with pollen from flowers they previously visited. But why are flowers so beautiful and aromatic in the aesthetics of humans? Surely bees do not have a sense of beauty the way we do. Perhaps flowers would be just as successful with sugary syrup alone, Why the beauty? It’s a puzzle.
And then, there is usually a sense of community in bees, ants, and other minor intellects in nature. It is displayed in the defense of their nesting sites and the protection of important members of the community, e.g., the Queen Bee. In many of these cases, there is an inbred, “traditional,” hierarchy filling community duties and responsibilities. In such cases, we see the influence of thought and purpose. A more complex Morality is involved because of society’s complexity. The hive-defending troops of bees will sustain casualties, but Long Live the Queen Bee! The troops obey a compelling Morality that makes them give their lives to protect their community. This kind of Morality is inherent even in simple organisms, do not be surprised when we find it in humans.
The leap from insects to mammals is big, and the evolution of ever more complex societies is followed by increasingly nuanced Morality. The reasons are clear. As social life becomes more complex Morality has to accommodate an increasing number of influences. However, the principle remains unchanged; social Mores must serve to defend and improve the welfare of the communities involved. If they fail to do this, they become a drag and a danger to progress and survival. A Morality that promotes cherished wishes while debilitating society is dangerously silly.
Let us see if this view of Morality holds as we climb the pinnacles of mammalian societies. The buffalo have survived only because we offered them a symbiotic relationship with their major predator, humans. So species survival can be an issue in the realm of human Morality. Climate is also a concern. Humanity has, willy-nilly, accepted the custody of our environment as an obligation, but is this a winning strategy? Can we do all that may be required? Can we agree on what is the Moral issue here? Are herds of Bison in the plains of the West a plus in the success of US society? How? As we are the pinnacle of mammal social organization let us see how our Morality should look if we are to prosper and survive.
Human Morality
Throughout history, our Morality vis-a-vis our world has been that of unapologetic users. We denuded Scotland and other regions of ancient forests to build wooden ships. We did not give any thought to the consequences which would change these parts of the world for centuries. We killed the passenger pigeon species to the point of extinction just to shoot them en mass as they migrated, not to eat them but to enjoy killing them. Today we kill hundreds of thousands of birds using windmills to generate electricity. Our relationship with our ecology is long and shameful. However, by and large, it followed the biblical dictum
God said to them,
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth,
and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky
and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Respect,-For-Environment
Well, we did that, but this permission makes no mention of making sure that we do not abuse the resources or that they will be able to continue to serve our needs. Now that we have multiplied beyond any need or biblical expectation, we have to restate this permission. Here is a modern version of this permit.
“Be fruitful and multiply. Take care of the home I gave you.
Do not subdue the Earth, delight in its treasures.
Rule wisely over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky,
and every living thing on Earth.
Be a wise steward of all of Earth’s bounty.
Only then Earth will provide you with sustenance.
Biblical scholars might argue with the wording, but I think they will agree that this version sums up God’s intention applicable to our modern times.
How are We Doing
Not so well. Our Morality is increasingly viewed through the prism of feelings, not reality. Our societies are based on ideology and sentiment, reality is rarely invoked. Some claim that obeying reality without an input of sentiment is immoral. We tailor our social Mores on fond wishes or base desires, neglecting the inexorable laws of nature. Is there a price to pay for this? Yes, our very existence. If we do not breed, we will become extinct. Is there a solution? Perhaps.
Before I delve into the future that may be before us, I want to focus your attention on what I see as an unavoidable reality we face.
If we survive as a species,
it will only be thanks to Robotics and Artificial Intelligence.
We must make sure our Robots obey a Morality that does us good.
Unless one accepts this as a premise, I doubt humanity will survive. We have gained too much control of our Earth while showing a lamentable disregard for reality and a dangerous tendency to govern using the unsubstantiated principles of ever-changing ideologies. Foolishness can drive us out of existence. We have abandoned the principles of beneficial Morality. Morality is no longer designed to strengthen and protect us; it is an inhomogeneous blend of dreams, schemes, ideology, invented rights, and distorted principles from ancient times.
Let us go back and define what Morality is, always. See how well we are doing in following these principles.
1. Morality is a code of behavior that enhances the success of a society.
2. Morality must suit the needs of society. It is not an ideology.
3. Before Morality can evolve, the needs of a society must be understood.
4. Members of a society may have preferences, but needs should dominate Morality.
5. Moral principles must be cost-effective if they are to be included in a Moral code.
6. Principles that do not foster material progress should not enter the Moral code.
7. All members of society must obey the established public Morality.
8. Ancient Moralities need to be re-examined. (See a pertinent paragraph above.)
9. A Moral code should be the basis of the judicial system. Start with new precedents.
10. A Moral code should not promote dreams, schemes, and hopes. Ideologies do that.
Things can change, including Morals. Most Morals are robust, but technology can require modification as time goes on. When Morals begin to fail, they can be abused by those who find Moral chicanery useful. We are at this stage now. Take the dictum: “Thou shalt not kill.” Let us examine how this is applied today.
We kill enemy soldiers and civilians in war. The more the better. We also calmly kill criminals using adjudicated death sentences and variegated means. But for some reason, in this case, “The less the better.” Now what is the Moral sense in that? Wars are strictly the result of some authority starting it. Even revolutions are started by the top echelons of something.
In these mass-slaughter exercises; innocents die by chance. Things come to a bloody mess due to a failure of negotiations, hereditary loathing, and other failings of societies, and their leaders. We should rise above territorial disputes, leaving the Morality of noxious weeds to enjoy them. But we still settle international disputes in the old-fashioned way: kill or be killed. Can we do better, or at least find a convincing way of looking for a better solution?
And while we slaughter masses of innocents in armed conflicts why do we shy away from justifiably killing dangerous members of society? What is the benefit to society of housing, guarding, and feeding an identified dangerous member of society? What Moral principle would encourage us to divert limited public resources to such an unrewarding use?
Another example is the way that common resources are managed by central authorities to limit the freedom of individuals. Distorted science can be used to promote government power, not individual freedoms. The Covid-19 episode cost Western societies a lot. Many lives were lost or distorted, not only due to the disease but also due to government policies. The education of children was handled with utmost stupidity. Hundreds of thousands of future citizens have suffered harm which will be hard to undo. Why? Because sensible policies were ignored as the government forcibly assumed unprecedented authority over its citizens. The government is happy to claim they saved us all. But citizens lost much respect for their governments, largely because they came to see that governments can resort to overreach to increase their power. That rang many an alarm bell.
In both these cases a Morality that would let us “bite the bullet” would have served us better. Sending men with a future to possible death or injury in combat is harmful to society. War is a solution we should avoid. Executing dangerous individuals who have harmed members of society is a cost-effective and rational way of “weeding” society to control damage. Ask yourself, which kind of killing is Moral?
Controlling a pandemic by protecting the elderly may have been fine but denying much less infectable children their education was demonstrably counterproductive. Those who concocted this idea, with no scientific grounds to back it up, should be prosecuted for their ignorance and callous immorality in exercising power. I wrote an essay on how we should have proceeded. It may be worth reading it, though it’s too late to undo the damage done. You can find it in Medium under my name and the title “COVID-19 Isolation Policies that Make Sense.”
Morality is the basis for assuring success in societies.
If it does not do that, society is doomed.
