System #18: Universal Morality

What denotes good from bad? We all would have a different answer to that question, yet in most cases the frameworks that we would use to answer that question would come down to two things; religion, or government. Doctrine, or laws. In essence, what denotes good or bad is based on the belief associated with the things we hold to have authority over us. If you believe you're going to hell for an action, that action would be thought of as wrong...no matter what you felt. However, if you were told you were going to jail for something you did that was actually considered good within your religion (or spiritual practice); your two authorities would collide. Which one would you follow? Government or God?

I believe, however, that the universe has underlying rules that we (just like everything else) evolved within. These rules, when understood, allow us to navigate life irrespective of religion, or government. Irrespective of doctrine or laws. This morality applies to all.

What is Morality?

Morality is known as the "quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct." Therefore, any theory of morality would have to be able to express as clearly as possible what constitutes a good or right action and what constitutes a bad, or wrong action. Since a part of my theory involves statistics and probabilities, my theory, may subtly fail in this aspect but it should actually help align us nonetheless.

Morality is known as the "quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct."

Through daydreaming, it came to my attention that morality, in a sense, is fluid. By that I mean that what seems wrong to some, might seem right to others. We, therefore, need a theory of morality that takes into account and explains morality in all its contexts. A theory that works for the entirety of existence. What's good and right for humans, as well as for any other sentient life.

Culture and Emotions

Let's take a look at an example to ground our thinking. Imagine you live in a society where human sacrifices are a thing, maybe in a place akin to Aztec times. While human sacrifices, to us, might be deemed 100% immoral, these sacrifices are done to appease their gods, and in that sense are culturally acceptable, maybe even, culturally necessary as who knows what could happen if the gods weren't appeased. Not only that, being the sacrifice is also something that people strive for in search of purpose, ever-lasting life, and honor.

Culture and society, are one piece of the puzzle. The other piece lies with how we've been wired throughout our evolution. The pieces of us that have been bound to emotions like justice, revenge, shame, sorrow, pride, happiness, fear, etc. These pieces are the parts of us that still might feel sorrow when our son is chosen as the sacrifice, no matter how proud and happy we are for him. These emotions are the little itch that make us search for a better way. Slowly, as truth challenges our beliefs, it gives way to new temporary truths. These "truths" create a new equilibrium.

What? What are we talking about with equilibriums and all? I thought we were talking about Aztecs. Okay, fair, let's return to our example for a moment: Imagine what happens once the societal veil gets broken and people start to doubt that these human sacrifices actually are doing any good. Human emotions take over. Now that the rewards (honor, purpose, and ever-lasting life) are in doubt, we are not as easily able to override our human emotions. People start contesting human sacrifices, and maybe in the interim, use their slaves or captives instead. These emotions slowly or radically lead a cultural change which ultimately leads to a new equilibrium, and a new "morality." Another new rightness.

Therefore, a morality has to account for both the society that a being lives within as well as their internal compass; we'll call these culture and emotions going forward. Societies, and cultures, and therefore, moral codes that do not cater to our in-built emotions will always ultimately collapse. To that end, any society, culture, or moral code built on deceit or lies will ultimately be uncovered resulting in its eventual collapse. These lies, however bad we make them out to be, have realistically built empires, and left their mark on the world, both big and small.

Game Theory

We've looked at the collective aspect of morality, now let's take a look at a more personal version. Imagine that your neighbor steals from you. It's a great move for him in the short run since he'll have loads a cash to create the future that he wants. Unfortunately, we are a social species, and a species who retaliates; what you claim as yours, you will go to "war" for. That money that was stolen didn't come for free, it came connected with invisible strings. Now your neighbor, while he benefits from having more money, has to contend with you, and your network looking for your lost money. He may also have lost many allies, or trading partners with this action as the story is disseminated and allegiances are form. He has, unfortunately, created a down draft in his life.

Now imagine another scenario where your neighbor, seeing you down on your luck, helps you repair your house. His kindness, while not intentionally coming with strings attached, does actually come with invisible strings. For, should he ever need help in the future, you would be inclined to hear him out, at the very least. He would, therefore, have created an updraft in his life.

I believe that it's through these types of interactions that our emotions were created. It's through navigating our survival with other intelligent beings that we've had to unconsciously take into account Game Theory. We've had to build attachments, and dependencies, which are based in vulnerability. While vulnerability breeds vulnerability, it also can attract exploitation. Exploitation brings wealth, and power but breeds resistance. Resistance builds until a new order is created. A new equilibrium. Like a large complex game of Rock, Paper, Scissors.

As our intelligence got more complex, the game got more complex

As our intelligence got more complex, the game got more complex. While we may have started out thinking about this dance in the present (ie. are they a threat? Can I win this engagement?), as our intelligence progressed, we became able to dream up and "see" the impact that our current actions could have on future scenarios (ie. can I win all future engagements?). This new capability is what allows us to see the implications of our actions (or lock us within a cage built within our own imagination).

Game Theory, put simply, is the study of strategic interactions where individuals or groups make decisions that affect one another. The outcome depends on the choices of all participants and each participant, or player chooses a strategy to maximize their own outcomes based on the likely decisions of others.

A New Theory of Morality

My theory is simple. Within a context of Game Theory; good, or right actions create an updraft in your life (a stream of potential future blessings), reinforcing and creating stability. Bad, or wrong actions, create a downdraft in your life (a stream of potentially unwanted consequences), reinforcing and creating instability. Things that are stable last, things that are unstable ultimately always collapse.

When you've prompted others to search you out to do you harm by virtue of an act against them, you've created a downdraft in your life. If you've prompted others to look out for you in an attempt to secure, repay, or repair a relationship with you, you've potentially created an updraft in your life. These drafts, as you may imagine, I think of as winds. You could be running with the wind at your back, which carries you as soon as you stumble. Or you could be fighting it, each step could be a struggle, and as soon as you falter, it becomes difficult to stand back up. Each decision builds that wind up in either direction.

This is why, in many cultures, after hurting a relationship, you are told to seek reconciliation. This act confronts the head winds. Once dealt with, potentially restores some wind at your back.

The 10 Commandments

Let's put this to the test by taking a look at the most widely accepted doctrine of morality in the Western world, the 10 Commandments. At first glance, it may not be clear, but all of these are aimed at creating a more stable future:

1. "You shall have no other gods before Me"
2. "You shall not make for yourself an idol"
3. "You shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain"
4. "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy"
5. "Honor your father and mother"
6. "You shall not murder"
7. "You shall not commit adultery"
8. "You shall not steal"
9. "You shall not commit false testimony against your neighbor"
10. "You shall not covet"

These Ten Commandments are divided into two pairs of fives. The first five deal with the vertical (heavenly) aspect of relationships which I'll discuss in another article (since that'll be a huge distraction to this one), and the second pair of five (6-10) deal with the horizontal (earthly) aspects of relationship. These horizontal aspects (as well as the vertical) all have the effect of guiding us in avoiding the creation of downdrafts in our lives. Each of them avoids injuring your relationships, keeping people from retaliating, and affecting your standing in society. Put in a simpler way, these Commandments would be deemed morally good within our new theory. There are, however, some nuances that we'll look at a bit later.

Lions and Gazelles

Strangely, and remarkably, this theory doesn't just apply to humans. It can work for any conscious being. Let's take a look at the relationship between a lion and a gazelle. Is a lion killing a gazelle morally wrong? So many moralities have just stopped at explaining human morality, but as mentioned previously, any explanation that can't account for EVERY type of situation can't actually be the truth. Lions and gazelles have their own morality, however, it always follows our same basic rule.

Good, or right actions create an updraft in your life, reinforcing stability. Bad, or wrong actions, create a downdraft in your life, reinforcing instability.

Since gazelles could never affect a lion's future by retaliating, a lion killing a gazelle will never be morally wrong since it would never negatively affect a lions future. If anything, it would make it more stable (ie. food, nourishment, etc.). The only thing related to murder that could be considered morally wrong for a lion would be if it kills all the gazelles since that might make it harder for him to survive (though nature has placed some guardrails on this).

Prima Nocturne

I used to think there was this horrible law in England called Prima Nocturne, where the king asserts the right to sleep with a vassals' bride after the first night of marriage. This idea was popularized by the movie, Braveheart, where it's reestablished by the English king in an effort oppress the Scots. However, as I attempted to validate this idea during the writing of this piece, I found out it was simply an exaggeration of wedding taxes.

In its stead, however, we can imagine a mob or gang controlled city block. Each month the mob/gang comes to seek protection money from the businesses it protects. In some cases, the store owners might be grateful for the protection, because maybe the gang actually is protecting them from a ton of trouble. Maybe the gang is doing what the police in that town cannot. Maybe that gang is benevolent and is made up of relatives and family members to our store owner. Like a local militia, they are simply looking out for him. This would be a stable system...for a time.

However, imagine what happens once the threat dies down. Maybe our militia gets power hungry, or without knowing anything else to do but use its power, continues to extort money from the store owner. Just as you might imagine a lion could from a gazelle. They would, however, now become the threat. As the threat, their power could only be kept with fear, coercion and control.

Fear, coercion, and control only work until they don't. Again, what you control, controls you.

Fear, coercion, and control only work until they don't. Again, what you control, controls you. Our store owner, and the others, might go along with it for a while, but they would grumble. They would express their dissatisfaction amongst each other. They would steep the next generation in their groveling. They would, like gazelles, physically mind their own business. However, their words, unbeknownst to them, would beckon to them someone with the courage to do something. They would create a lion, a redeemer. Someone in a position to care more about fixing the problem than their own life. Their redeemer would be prompted to action. That action, or a barrage of them would ultimately breed the gangs demise. Fear, coercion, and control can never create long lasting stability.

Community

Another aspect to think about is the concept of community. So far, this morality seems somewhat individualistic. Good and bad is dictated by the updrafts or downdrafts you create in your life and helping others is done because it benefits you. While that seems shallow, it is true that helping others benefits you...even when it seems like it doesn't. The interesting part about this morality is that there's a cap to the amount of selfishness it can prompt.

If you are the most well-off person in your town by virtue of being selfish, your whole community is sprinkled with people who would seek to create a downdraft in your life. On the other hand, if you are the least well-off person of everyone you know and you gave sacrificially to help them achieve their success, you are surrounded by updrafts. You actively want everyone around you to be doing really well so that by virtue of association, you too can do really well. Building up your community, therefore, can have drastic effects on your life and the life of your progeny.

Some Hard Thoughts

In this theory, the morality of actions isn't absolute. That is to say, one action doesn't always lead to one result. They depend on the interconnection of actors within the field of the action. In short, they rely on Game Theory.

Commandments like "You shall not steal" are actually only suggestions as, theoretically, it could be the case where one steals and does not create a down draft in their life. The chances of that, however, are quite small. For example, even if no one knew, or was around to see it. Or even if no one tracked that item. You would still have to be able to contend with your own guilt, and your new-found proclivity for theft. This proclivity would increase your chances of getting caught. Breaking these Commandments, therefore, is risky. And in most cases would not be worth the risk as we are generally not smart enough to be able to understand the implications of our actions and their far reaching consequences. We aren't usually able to see all the ripples created by an action.

Nevertheless, assuming that all of those aspects were accounted for, and nullified; one could make the argument that stealing had created an updraft in your life. A similar argument can be had for most things we consider wrong; risk can bring success, but it can much more easily bring disaster. Risky decisions and actions are by definition not stable.

In this theory, the morality of actions isn't absolute. That is to say, one action doesn't always lead to one result. They depend on the interconnection of actors within the field of the action.

Suffering

It should be noted that this morality also applies to things we may currently find trivial, or without morality (amoral). Take the concept of watching TV, or going to the gym. Both of these are trivially accepted as fine, but if good actions create an updraft in your life and bad actions create a downdraft, I could make the argument that watching TV is, depending on the intention, morally wrong.

When's the last time you've been bored? When's the last time you learned a new skill? When's the last time you just created something...instead of consuming it (ex. food, videos, apps, information)? We're so used to consuming as a culture that the idea that we have any power to create paralyzes our mind. "I could never do that," we tell ourselves. When we habitually turn on the TV and allow ourselves the comfort of watching someone else's creations we subtly create a downdraft in our lives. The energy that we have is wasted by living vicariously through others.

On the opposite side, we have the idea of exercising, or "going to the gym" as it's known today. Since our body is anti-fragile, the more we use it, the stronger we get. That strength, that vitality, makes our future struggles easier. Therefore, going to the gym creates an updraft in your life.

Suffering, however, is a concept deserving of its own article. Stay tuned.

Conclusion

Even with its impressive ability to slice through our mundane lives. This morality, unfortunately, is too mentally strenuous for most people to filter all their decisions through. It could never really serve as a pocket sized guidance system to navigate your life. It can, however, be very useful for reflections.

Thankfully we've been handed down wisdom (such as the Ten Commandments) that already have played out the implications of our most common actions and already categorized them into good and bad. These shortcuts allow us to live our lives rightly. However, these are merely shortcuts and should never be misconstrued with the truth underlying their righteousness.

I hope that you've been able to see a picture of a morality that doesn't actually require God, but pays homage to him. A morality that spans the entirety of conscious interactions, human or otherwise, and effortlessly describes them all. One that selfishly attempts to create a more stable future by helping those around you, and submitting to the forces that have and do shape us.