Moral Clarity vs. Moral Certainty: A Foreign Policy Dialogue - Pt.1

Lately, I've wondered if our country, even our entire species, is adrift. As we fight a war of theoretical "good vs. evil" in Iraq, we find ourselves in a mire of uncertain values and questionable tradition. Although our leaders assure us of the inviolability of our fight, we as a nation relentlessly question our own priorities and motivations, as we should. In the next couple of posts, I will explore the concepts of good and evil and in doing so I will attempt to find some tools that can help us discover some meaning in a world inundated by conflicting ideas of right and wrong.

As science and technology have pushed back the veil of ignorance, our concepts of "sacred" "good" and "truth" are constantly challenged. It is easy to wonder if our daily efforts, as individuals or as a nation, are attached to any meaningful goal. Am I, are you, are "we" moving in the right direction, and what does that mean anyway? Do we live in a universe of absolute good & evil that we choose to ignore at our peril? Or are good and evil oversimplified, man-made concepts for which we waste our time & energy? Is there an adequate measure to inform our choices and decisions? This elusive yard stick has been sought ever since humanity discerned that it could discern. We call this concept Morality.

Morality can be defined as an ethical motive, or a motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. But really, this definition just confuses the issue even more. Who's idea of right or wrong? Is morality an individual choice, or is it a universal constant that we as individuals choose to adhere to in a greater or lesser extent than those around us? From what source do our ideas of right or wrong derive?

The traditional answer has been of course religion. The idea that a deity hands down cosmic edicts to his creation by which we must rule ourselves is common to nearly every culture throughout the history of mankind. Although this view is still held by many, as is their right, my discussion, which will span at least a few posts, regards the moral direction of our nation & world within the sphere of foreign policy. Therefore, as America is not a Theocracy, this religious "yard stick" is, by definition, a poor tool to employ when determining our nations moral focus. Additionally, the use of religious dogma as a moral compass was anathema to the founders of our nation. I'll touch on this more in a later post.

What about "Common Sense"? Can we trust our instincts, our conscience, our innate sense of right and wrong to lead us in the right direction? For centuries, entire cultures have killed each other in wars fought by intelligent people, and in which each side was thoroughly convinced of their moral authority. In our country today, we cannot come to a consensus regarding the comparative values of a human fetus or a spotted owl. So tell me, how common is common sense. I have to believe that there is a better guide for moral judgment.

Biological necessity is another "system" that has been employed when determining right from wrong. Consider the idea that our universe rewards "right" choices and punishes "wrong". Although this is peripherally related to the concept of evolution, evolution is not what I refer to here. Rather, I am talking about the simple idea of cause and effect on a historic scale. If culture X develops, over time, the moral concept that random murder is a noble action, they would not survive; instead, they would simply kill each other off. If culture Y declares that incest is "sinful", and culture Z does not, then Y has a better chance of producing genetically viable offspring, and therefore of survival. It is interesting to look at the many sins defined by the the various religions of the world, and to then determine the biological basis for each.

So what is the ultimate foundation for our morality? Is it a constant or is it a cultural variable? Do absolute good and evil even exist in any meaningful way? Unfortunately there is no clear demonstrable answer. However, if we analyze the many available methods of determining right from wrong, from faith to logic, or even that small voice in our heads called conscience, we may reasonably conclude that the principals good and evil are similar to if not synonymous with the eternal concepts of order and chaos. "Good" things make our lives & societies more orderly and allow us to thrive. "Evil" things breed disorder and make our lives & societies more difficult to manage. Perhaps we understand this on a primal level. Perhaps we can use this "yard stick" of order vs. chaos to find some answers.

To be continued ...

Related Posts: The Values Devide - Authoritarianism, Morality Is Subjective -Origins

Astronomers see the Big Bang in action

"Recently, NASA astronomers announced new evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, which states that the universe was once subatomic in size and, in only one trillionth of a second, expanded to astronomical proportions."

I have a few thoughts on this story.

First, if the universe was sub-atomic in scale at the moment of the Big Bang, then we must conclude that quantum effects ruled at the beginning of the universe, and not the laws of physics that we observe at our larger scale. On the quantum level, the laws of physics break down and quantum bodies are ruled by probability. For more information, ask your local nerd.

Second, if quantum effects were the rule at the moment of origin, then the universe must have existed initially as an infinite set of possibilities, rather than a simple "seed" from which our universe has grown.

Third, if the Big Bang proceeded from a "fuzzy" cloud of initial states, then the universe as we experience it, must be just one of an infinite set of possible universes that sprang from the same quantum cloud. The news story says that the universe, "in only one trillionth of a second, expanded to astronomical proportions." Another way to say this is that there is no way to pinpoint one singularity at the moment of origin. I'll try to explain this more in a later post, but briefly, look at the illustration above. The "truncated" flat portion of the cone should come to a point if there existed a specific "time and place" of origin. Instead, you see the beginning of the universe depicted as a large "circle" of possible initial states.

Fourth, if our consciousness can actively "select" individual realities from a set of possible quantum states (see previous entry), then perhaps we do not exist in one single universe, but rather we are continually traversing infinite probable universes. We simply are not equipped to understand or perceive the constant quantum shifts that we experience.

Fifth, no. I have not been smoking anything.

MIT Prof Says Universe Is 'Large Quantum Computer', and Yes. I'm a nerd.

For those of you out there who are seeking a meaning to life, read this story.

MIT Prof Says Universe Is 'Large Quantum Computer'

When your done reading, consider this;

If the universe is a huge computing system (I reject the notion of a giant computer as it is too biased by our own current level of technology, I like "Mind" better), then what is the role of consciousness? Is self awareness an intrinsic component of this system? Is the "Soul" part of the circuit?

Did you know that we humans can effect change on a quantum level, just by observing quantum processes? It's true. The very act of human observation "selects" for a specific outcome, completely devoid of any physical interaction. Just ask my good buddy Albert Einstein.

Are we fragments of the Mind working out a larger destiny? Who knows. Just a question.

read more | digg story

I've Got Some Serious Questions About This "Life" Stuff

First, a few lines from one of my favorite essays:

"How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people -- first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. The ideals that have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth.

My political ideal is democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized. I am quite aware that for any organization to reach its goals, one man must do the thinking and directing and generally bear the responsibility. But the led must not be coerced, they must be able to choose their leader. In my opinion, an autocratic system of coercion soon degenerates; force attracts men of low morality... The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the political state, but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime, while the herd as such remains dull in thought and dull in feeling.

This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor... This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."



Albert Einstein

Read more at www.aip.org/history/ein...


Now for a few questions. I offer these up for discussion, although there are no obvious answers. I certainly have none and am truly interested in exploring these ideas with an open mind.



1) Is the struggle to survive, as an organism and as a species, our most primal and inescapable implulse, acting as the driving force behind such other base instincts as eating and procreating?

2) Is it true, as seems to be demonstrated by biology, history, psychology, etc. that all animals, including we humans, are not only capable, but biologocally programmed for violence, given proper stimulus?

3) If we understand, as an individuals or as a collective groups, i.e. a nation, that we may someday face agression, do we then not have a biological and socialogical obligation to prepare for and employ a forceful defense?

4) Is war a sociological extrapolation of individual humans primary impulses i.e. violence bred by hunger, oppression, etc.?

5) Is war inescapable? Period.

6) Can mankind, as an evolved intelligence, choose behaviors that run counter to apparent biological implulse?

7) Can humanity someday put an end to war, hunger, disease etc. by force of will and application of intelligent social engineering?



8) In Desolation Angels, Jack Kerouac speaks of the Holy Primative, a figure representing mans place midway between beasts and gods. Will we ever split the angel from the animal and achieve the utopian dream?

I don't know, but it's worth discussing.