Long time in the making, metaphorically speaking, since these ideas predate the creation of the blog, but I have only set aside the time and effort to tackle them now. As the title says, I want to talk a little about some purely theoretical aspects of life and our view on it as a species.
To keep up with my habit of establishing a common ground before exposing my ideas, I present you with Socrates Jones. Yes, it’s a flash game. I won’t have a discussion, go play it. It’s short, and even if you are not good at gaming or have the habit, it’s still a good read and a very much worthwhile way to spend an evening. This post will still be here when you come back.
From now on, I’ll assume you did play the game through. Only warning, I won’t take any manner of care regarding spoilers and such, and while it might be possible to understand what I will talk about subsequently without having played, the information contained in the game would certainly be helpful to that end.
So, the origin of morality. It’s very nature. What is moral, anyway? Jones does a really good job at introducing the subject, and at tackling some of the more prominent views that have been presented across the ages. But the game lacks in one thing; while it does entice us to seek our own answers, it does not allow us to expose them for another’s analysis.
It’s not the game’s fault. Discussion is one of the few things that are still beyond our grasp at emulating in the form of a game. As it stands, I give it full marks. It’s a wonderful game and deserves the love, hence using it as a premise. Anyhow, into the meat of the problem…
What is the source of morality?
Hobbes started so well… But sadly, the Natural State is not as described by him. To start from Pixel’s baseline, morality is not tangible, it doesn’t exist as a thing. It can’t be measured, contained, distributed or manipulated in any way.
But don’t we all have a moral compass? What’s a good thing to do and what’s not a good thing to do? There lies the answer. Keep in mind that I defend morality as something that is not a “thing”. It does not exist on it’s own regardless of another factor.
Let’s go back to gaming. Could we play a game of Tic-tac-toe? Well, we surely could. But it’d be boring; ending in a draw and whatnot. Why a draw? Because I know how to play it. Therefore, by mathematical demonstration, whether I play it first or second, I can ensure a draw due to how the game rules and board behave.
And then, with those two pieces, I have the baseline of my theory. Sure, it needs several steps to connect the two fundamental blocks, but we’ll go through them.
In a limited environment, such as a simple game of tic-tac-toe, where all variables are known and controllable there’s no dilemma or decision. For that simple example, it’s a fairly simple case of math. There is no conflict and no decision. Make note of those two key words.
Moral issues come into play when asked to make a decision that regards unknown variables. Thus, morality only exists in relation to said issues, it doesn’t exist in a void. Take Death. For the sake of this presentation, I’ll establish that Death is to be avoided. Thus, Death is bad. Let’s leave the discussion about Death to another time, but for now, our single major guideline is “Don’t die” and leave it at that.
Some interesting thought experiments resort to giving a no-win scenario where one is asked to choose the lesser of the evils, meaningful being the reason as to why one choose a path over another path, more so than what the choice itself was. From the frying pan to the fire, or facing sticks or stones. Things like that.
Now, where a situation involves Death, the major goal is, therefore, to avoid it. Take the two cases:
A – A young male is hit in the chest with a knife. You have a car and the time it would take to get him into a surgery room is less than the time it will take for him to bleed out.
B – A young male is hit in the chest with a knife. You have a car, but no idea where is the closest hospital.
Similar, aren’t they? But isn’t A substantially straightforward? You, much like in the tic-tac-toe board, know the variables in play. But in B case, wouldn’t you still try to take him somewhere for help? Or perhaps you would call for someone else more familiar with the area to take him?
That’s where morality comes into play. It’ll give you a weight, a guideline and beacon to what’s widely accepted as the good outcome. In this case, avoid Death. Thus, when it comes to the B case, it’s clear that you are expected to help him, but the method you choose as your attempt is not clear. You could attempt several things. If you take one path, you relinquish another, and, contrary to A, you don’t have the certainty of the outcome.
Then you make a moral choice: What is my best attempt? What is most likely to succeed? What will I be able to look back and say I did the right thing even if he doesn’t make it? Those are moral questions, and that which you know is what determines your choices when answering them.
That is my thesis. Knowledge is the source of Morality. The guidelines to that which is good depend on the paths we, as a species, know to reach said good.
The paths we know may change. What we deem good may change. But the foundation remains. And history gives us several examples.
For instance, a plagued young in a medieval feud. The youth suffers, is unable to work and wailed by pains and might even spread the disease to others, condemning dozens more. There is no cure to the illness, for all you know, it’s a curse from a neighboring demon. Wouldn’t it be far more merciful to let him rest? Regardless of what’s on the other side of life, you end the suffering from now and protect all others. It’s not an easy choice, in the sense that you take the risks of not knowing what expects humans after death, but the youth will die one way or another. It’s possible to see why such choices were made in the past.
But take that into the present, with all our fancy computers and robots and microscopes. Where medicine evolves every day and by means of the internet we can essentially create a hive mind to create solutions and find cures… Even if the youth’s disease is one that has no known cure now, a cure could be discovered in the next hours. Perhaps it already was, and the only reason we, as a species don’t know it yet, is because the individual that found it is typing it as you read this. Would you sacrifice the ill in such a world? I didn’t think you would.
It’s not so much that the morality beneath the choice changed, but the knowledge we have in each scenario differ. That makes us change our actions according to what we know in order to achieve the best possible outcome.
Knowledge as the source of morality raises several implications, however.
First of which, with omniscience there is no morality. Perfect knowledge allows decisions that lead to the desired outcome without fail, thus, there is no dilemma and, as such, no need for a beacon or guideline.
Second, morality is born from sentience. Black holes and stars and supernovas just follow their physical nature, it’s not as if the sun chooses if it’ll be hot, that’s merely the cause-and-effect chain of the universe following it’s path. Even if we don’t fully understand it, nature is not subject to morality. It merely is.
Third, as a tie in with both first and second, it defines us as both sentient and flawed. We can observe, we can act, and in doing so we make choices. But our understanding is not yet enough to make choices that will always yield the best results.
There is a lot more I could say, more examples I could give. But for now, this should suffice to start a dialog. If you would like to discuss the subject at all.
An odd place to sleep 