One of the many problems humanity faces in modern times is the fact we have no agreed upon moral philosophy or outlook. Some groups of humans look to religious constructs to determine their moral reality. While others use philosophical thought or human made laws to guide moral actions. There does seem to be a base evolutionary capability that all human beings share for certain moral behavior. In Robert Sapolsky’s book Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst he explains how our brains are evolutionarily primed to divide other humans into groups of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Those we decide that are in the us category are subjected to more kind behavior than those we put into the them category.
Some of the problems that arise from a scattered moral landscape are moral relativism, conflict over contrasting moral beliefs, and general apathy when it comes to considering morality at all. Moral relativism arises when one group of humans tolerates abhorrent behavior from another group of human beings simply because they see morality as relative to context and circumstance. Conflict over contrasting moral beliefs can range from benign political discourse to outright violence. In the United States this can be seen with issues such as abortion or gay marriage. While a general moral apathy within a society can lead to dangerous political and cultural trends - like the political rise of autocrats like President Donald Trump.
The question that arises is whether it will ever be possible to have a relatively clear moral framework that all human beings can agree on. In the past I wondered if consciousness itself could be used as a universal moral axiom. This would be similar to Martin Luther King Jr’s moral outlook. Yet instead of using the Christian conception of God as the foundation, we would substitute a modern conception of human consciousness. But recently I have been wondering if there was another way to imagine a universal moral outlook. What if by seeing the world as it actually is, you could deduce a morality that had universal application.
By ‘seeing the world as it actually is’ I’m referencing the nature of our reality, and our place in it. In a philosophical sense, I suppose this would be establishing a metaphysical framework that would in turn inform ethical and moral considerations. While this thought process is pretty standard for moral thought; the execution is what matters most. For if the metaphysics are misconceived, then the morality that emerges will most likely be flawed and misguided.
In trying to see reality for what it is, a good place to start is the idea of free will. Free will in this case means an entity that is a self-causing, totally independent actor that determines everything they do - or don’t do. Many human beings believe in this notion of free will, which leads them to be hard on themselves, and hard on others. After all, if individuals are singularly responsible for everything they do, then a moral framework that prioritized individual punishment would seem correct and justified. Yet the reality is that this view of free will, and the resulting moral outlook is an example of flawed metaphysics producing a flawed morality.
The truth is, we do not have free will if it is defined as described in the previous paragraph. We do not choose when or where we enter this reality; nor do we choose the traits instilled in us by our parents. We do not choose the environment we grow up in, which in turn determines how our brains develop through childhood and adolescence. We cannot control the countless thoughts that bubble into our minds each day. Nor can we separate ourselves from the millions of years of evolution that have wired us to respond in certain ways to external stimuli - which of course we have no control over either.
Arguments can be made that our ability to develop mental habits like discipline or emotional detachment is an act of free will. Yet when this line of thinking is examined, it cannot be denied that these supposed acts of free will are themselves determined by factors beyond our control. The makeup of an individual's brain, and the environment around them determine their ability to develop traits like discipline or detachment. And as mentioned before, none of us were able to control how our brain developed, or the environment that shaped us.
A recognition of our absence of free will has important moral implications. The absence of free will provides real world justification for moral sentiments like empathy, forgiveness, and understanding. This in turn creates a foundation for actions that help the poor, the homeless, the drug addicted, or the mentally ill. On an individual level, we become less judgmental of others when they act in ways of which we disapprove. At a societal level, we can begin to see criminal justice policies like mass incarceration as punitive and amoral.
Seeing the world as a place of dynamic determinism commands a morality that is powered by compassion. When we begin to see the world this way, we begin to see the people around us as interdependent, embedded beings. We begin to see them not as autonomous pieces moving across some vast game board. But as semi-amorphous constructs immersed within a vast sea of flowing liquid. When we can detach, and see this for what it is, the suffering of others becomes an automatic trigger for our own compassion.
The concept of interdependent embeddedness is discussed greatly in Buddhist thought, and by scholars like Jay Garfield of Smith College. It also leads to the second aspect of our reality that upon recognition can provide a universal moral foundation. This is the lack of, or the non-existence of what we as human beings think of as ‘the self’. A belief in the self aligns with a belief in free will. The nature of our consciousness makes us believe we are singular autonomous entities moving around the world. In some religious thought, the self is known as ‘the soul’, or some kind of invisible essence. Yet if we really examine things, we will see there is no self to be found.
As embedded, interdependent beings, ‘who we are’ isn’t just one singular thing that exists in some place we can locate. As human beings, we change over time. None of us are the same person at 10 years old, 30 years old, or 60 years old. This fact would seem inconsistent with any notion of an unchanging self. Nor is any one physical part of us, ‘our self’. It’s gruesome to think about, but if all your body parts were disassembled, none of those individual parts would be you. We only exist when our individual parts are assembled in a certain manner.
One could argue this assemblage is ‘the self’. Yet the identity of this assemblage itself is determined by the context outside of it. Our identities are determined by where we are in the world, and those around us. For example, if someone is poor in a country because of the nature of that country's currency, they might be rich if they move to another country where their original currency is worth more. On this planet we are considered human beings, yet if we were able to venture to another solar system with intelligent life, they would see us as alien visitors. The point is that we are not singular, non changing selves. Rather that we are interdependent, embedded beings whose identities are constantly in flux.
A belief in the self leads to moral actions centered around egotism, and greed. After all, you cannot have grandiose self importance, or self indulgence without believing there is a self to be fed. This of course leads to the pernicious effects of unfettered capitalism. Where excessive consumption, excessive selfishness, and excessive money making dominate the human mind - and moral decision making. A belief in the self also makes it easier for the human mind to see other human beings as separate and different. This paves the way for the worst of human actions like violence, subjugation, war, and genocide.
Yet when we recognize there is really no ‘us’ per say; we begin to see a wider moral landscape. Our moral horizons begin to become universal, considerate of others, and considerate of the impacts of wider systems. We begin to see how the fates of others are tied to our own; and we begin to think less of our own selfish interests. This can provide moral justification for specific things like environmental policy, or universal healthcare. Yet in a general sense it provides a foundation for a universal morality that sees the interconnectedness of all human beings. One that espouses respect for others, compassion, friendship, understanding, and the alleviation of suffering.
The third and final aspect of our reality we need to recognize is tied to our false notion of the self. It has to do with our perceptions in general, or the nature of our consciousness. We evolved over millions of years as a species not to see reality for what it is, but to maximize our ability to survive and reproduce. This has been described by University of California professor Donald Hoffman as ‘Fitness Beats Truth’. The consequence of this, especially in modern life, is that very often our false perceptions lead to bad moral outcomes.
Racism, genocide, and xenophobia all exist downstream from false perceptions about race, ethnicity, and identity. Our species evolved to be suspicious of those that were different from us, or those who were not a part of ‘our group’. This was likely a product of resource or territorial competition between bands of early humans. Yet while this part of our evolutionary programming might have been useful 400,000 years ago, it causes nothing but problems in modern times.
These false perceptions happen when humans reify the part of their mind that highlights the identity of others via evolutionary prompts. It is through this reification, or blind acceptance, that hateful ideologies and discrimination emerge. Yet if we are able to recognize this false perception, and look beyond it, we can see reality for what it is. We can see that the secondary qualities that define human beings are mostly products of our minds. This then reveals the true nature of the people we come into contact with everyday. That we are all members of the same species, with the same basic nature, and the same basic feelings.
This leads to justification for moral sentiments like friendship, cooperation, and brotherhood. After all, if we are all members of the same human family, and our differences are largely perceptual and superficial; then we should see all others as a part of our ‘in group’. In addition, by removing false perceptions from our social equation, we remove the impetus for hate and intolerance. The absence of such amorality carries with it positive moral outcomes like tolerance and understanding. For tolerance and intolerance are bound opposites - when one enters, the other retreats.
It is much easier to write or speak about the true nature of our reality than to stay consciously aware of it. Our default setting of consciousness is designed to convince us we are independent, self caused agents that need to be wary of those that are different from us. From this perspective, moral reasoning needs something externally created. Whether it’s a religion, a law, or a philosophy. Considering the scattered, digitally watered down (and atomized) nature of modern times, it’s no accident that there is no universal moral center for human beings to revolve around.
Yet if there was a way to guide human minds to a place where they could begin to recognize reality for what it actually is, a universal morality could fall into place. For it would be derived from the nature of our existence, not some flawed or arbitrary human construct. How such a mass awakening could ever happen is the million dollar question of course. Yet if we are ever to move past tribal conflict, hatred, and violence as a species, we will need to discover a moral framework that unites us. Until then, we will continue to pick and choose moral sentiments that divide us; and reify false perceptions about ourselves, and others.
