Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
Post 29.04/15/2018
BothAnd Morality
Moral Reality or Relativity?
For centuries, philosophers have debated whether morality is innate in humans, or a cultural construct, or a divine gift. Those who believe a moral sense is divine, also think that people cannot be good without faith in God. Like Adam & Eve, they would lack the unique human ability to discern good from evil. But does it really matter which god you believe in? Since billions of people have managed to live together in relative peace, despite praying to different gods, I'll assume that faith in a specific god is not a pre-requisite for behaving ethically toward humans1. Of course, that practical assessment leaves open the question whether a certain belief system, in a specific god-model, is necessary for sainthood, or for entrance into heaven. But, I'll ignore that moot point for now.
Those who think a basic moral sense is inherent in all social animals are Moral Realists. So, they assume that humans can build upon that foundation, with scientific methods, to learn more about how societies actually work, and what actions lead to good or bad outcomes. Ancient religions developed theories of ethical principles from their limited perspectives, but historical records of centuries of social experiments, and modern empirical methods allow us to discover broader & deeper patterns in human behavior. With that sociological & psychological information, we can draw better conclusions about what works and what doesn't, what's moral, and what's not. But enlightenment era philosopher, David Hume, cautioned that rational inferences from observations of "what is", are still mere opinions about what we "ought" to do. He called that the "naturalistic fallacy". But, in business and politics, we make those pragmatic judgments all the time, without looking to a higher authority for a "thus saith the Lord".
Other thinkers object that ethical rules are not objective realities out there in nature, to be discovered by scientists. Instead, moral belief systems are necessarily somewhat arbitrary man-made rules & regulations. "Moral Relativists" point out that our judgments are more like "moral emotions", than scientific data. Psychologist Douglas Navarick asserts that emotionally caring about moral norms is what appears to create the impression that right and wrong are real, something more than mere social conventions. Which is true, and may be why rulers & religions must inculcate feelings of fear & duty to make their arbitrary rules seem incontrovertible. But modern democratic societies can't rely on fear of supernatural consequences to enforce their legal opinions of what's good for the group.
Since evolution seems to have equipped us with "selfish genes", we must develop our altruistic impulses to overcome that me-first inclination. Fortunately, Nature gives us motives for both Me and Us morality. But when faced with an either/or dilemma, we must have some way to choose the right thing to do. That's why most religions learned early-on that a super-natural authority with absolute rules is the best tie-breaker. However, complex modern societies are too multi-cultural to bow to any single deity or ethical tradition. Which is why the Enformationism theory assumes that we still need a supreme court to set an unconditional standard for truth and goodness2. Whether such a super-human entity exists or not, it will be useful to use the concept as a working hypothesis, as we work-out our petty differences here below.
Post 29 continued . . . click Next
Quantum theory is relativistic & probabilistic, whereas Newton's theories were absolute & predictable. Newton's worldview was on the macro scale of the naked eye, assisted by weak technologies. QT goes beyond the limitations of human senses, into the micro and cosmic scales of reality. There, we see intimations of ultimate reality, but only via mentally constructed models (theories).
Observing a quantum system requires acting upon it, which triggers a reaction. Hence, observation is inter-action, a new relationship. Quantum systems interact with each other randomly, hence the total system is neutralized, canceled out, for the moment. But human probes come from outside the system in question. So the observation is intentional, and the reaction is meaningful.
1. Moral Law : Legal definitions of morality tend to fall into two distinct categories : sins against a specific culture’s deity, and offenses against people in general. The latter is sometimes subdivided into treatment of certain classes of people, such as gentiles or slaves. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-similarities-and-differences-between-the-10-Commandments-the-Code-of-Hammurabi-the-Vedas-the-Egyptian-Negative-Confessions-and-the-Book-of-Change
2. Supreme Standards : In reality, all things are relative, but in morality, some absolute archetype has always been resorted to, as a court of last resort, when personal opinions are in conflict. Those ideal truths are still human interpret-ations, but they serve as the collective wisdom of a group. Just as we like to believe that there is a perfect Truth or absolute Justice, we can use the notion of an Ideal Judge as a model for humans to aspire to. For my worldview, the G*D concept serves as the archetype of all archetypes. Voltaire : “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
NEXT
BACK
Forum
