CopyRight @ 1996
Moral methods as known to present.
Moral methods in terms of biology.
In the Introduction at the beginning of this book, it was
said that this would be an attempt to view morality as a science.
Science can be observational or predictive. This view will both
observe, that is record and attempt to categorize, as well as
describe some predictive methods.
Moralities are described here as the learned survival
strategies that a specie can use. This will focus on human
moralities.
One way of looking at moralities would say that all the
knowledge that a human possesses contributes to their survival,
so everything known to humans is moral knowledge. This is such a
generality, that it rarely aids in understanding morality.
Instead, categories within morality are used to organize the
examination. While all science, technology, law, art, social
organization, religion and etcetera contribute to human survival,
morality, as it most concerns us and as it is discussed here, is
primarily related to our social and reproductive habits, just as
religion is. Ecology is normally based on energetics and
reproduction. It has already been said that for humans, belief
must be considered another basic topic. In the earlier chapters,
energetics was discussed and the conclusion was that resources
for survival could easily be met with almost exclusively present
technology, if "enough" high quality energy sources were
available. "Enough" is dependent on population number, which is a
whole other matter.
So from here on, morality primarily refers to rules and
habits related to social and reproductive habits, that is family
and community. This is also the commonest way that most people
think of morality anyway.
The better known moralities are referred to as religions.
Most art, science and technology was part of religion, but
separated as the innate conservatism of religion could not keep
up with the technical innovation of human history. Religious
conservatism is the reason it is still is a prime repository of
social and reproductive moral knowledge. Technology changes
rapidly, basic human survival strategies have not. This is
because human survival is based on the family and that has not
fundamentally changed.
One characteristic of religious moralities, is that they are
based on precedence and authority. They may give reasons for why
something is done, but more often, rules are followed because
either it is the way the ancestors did it or else God said to do
it this way. In terms of reproductive survival, doing something
the way your ancestors did something, makes a lot of sense. It
worked for them over generations. Innovation in biology, is
mainly done when it is necessary. Biology generally follows the
rule of that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. This is especially
true in genetic evolution, because changes that can lead to
progress are based on random mutation, the majority of which are
failures. Using a survival system that is based on past success
makes great sense, considering the risks involved any time a new
moral system is adopted.
So an objective of this examination of morality is to
examine existing moral systems by looking at the moral laws of
the system. They must be described in the context of their
sources, consequences, apparent logic that might have led to the
law and adaptability.
The other primary objective is to use what the science of
biology offers about survival to create a description of a moral
system that has laws based on reason and logic instead of
authority and precedence. For this system, the logic and
information leading to these rules must be laid out with the
rules as part of the moral system. A hypothesis of this system,
is that the system will work better for many people and have
more potential, if the reasons for the rules are understood, to
varying degrees, by those that use the system. This will allow
easier application, extensibility and adaptation of the system.
This view of a new moral system should look quite similar
to the moral systems husbanded by religions at present. This is
for a few reasons. The first is that present moral systems work
pretty darn good at present. The second and third reasons are
related. The second reason is that we do not have much to work
with in developing new social survival strategies. The third
reason is that there is inherently extreme risk to humans
modifying our moral system. The risk verses gain equation is
just way to high to promote a lot of change without compelling
reasons. Just because something appears like a good idea, it
will still have to be judged conservatively, over time, to avoid
the potential for dire consequences. On the other hand, change
is occurring at an accelerating rate. That, population growth,
communication, medicine and other factors are going to promote
changes that are going to encroach on the effectiveness and
practicality of our current moral systems. A moral view based on
biology has an ability to use the various tools of science to
analyze different models of morality and to look forward for new
models. The current precedence based moral systems must be
analyzed in terms that can be compared to a biological analysis
of morality. This must be the starting point of creating a
biological model of morality. Any future models of morality must
be based on past models. This is a feature of the conservatism
of biology.
Survival is the ultimate expression of conservatism.
So, this part of the book starts with looking at features of
existing moral systems and then looks at how they define a
biologically based moral system. This will lead to recognition
of errors and possible improvements. This information considered
in light of observable trends and changes in the present world,
can then suggest potential future moral methods. Part of what is
called future moral methods refers to what Chapter 5 described as
creating post tribal and post multi-tribal stratified societies.
Premises And Biases
Most of the time, science has little room for much bias.
When writing about social and human issues, any researcher is
pretty sure to have biases, simply because they are human and
also because the complexity of any human subject. There is a
bias simply because this is what the researcher made a choice
about what to investigate. Most of the time that does not hurt
the science, if the work can be scrutinized. In this case, the
subject is so complicated and so subject to bias, that it seems
appropriate to state the biases so as to show the context of the
research. This shows what has been explored and what has been
passed over for whatever reason. The effect of my biases has
been kept to a minimum by the use of an open mind and hopefully,
by the use of some of the scientific methods taught to me. Most
biases used here are to limit the subject matter to what is
considered the highest probabilities, greatest hazards and
greatest potentials. Many other avenues are mentioned, but not
explored.
Since much of this is a discussion of tribes and cultures,
it must be limited by both my knowledge and the availability of
information. Anything said here to be true for a tribe or
culture, may or may not be true for another culture, but the
underlying examination of human features must be applied to all
races and tribes. When all of these questions are chronicled for
all tribes and peoples, the descriptive aspect of the science of
morality will be nearly complete. Since the nature of evolution
is largely additive, for any traite, each tribe must be examined
in the context of "does this exist here or is there another
traite or method to do the same thing"? Anyway...
This is biased towards the needs of species survival. There
are many moral systems with varying consequences, potentials and
effectiveness, but this started out as a question of how could
humans achieve a long term stable ecology.
While it could be claimed that morality, having to do with
survival, has little to do with whether the individuals are happy
or not, this is biased towards making life pleasent as well.
The methods that are examined primarily revolve around
systems of child raising where the male extensively assists the
female in raising the young. Other methods are mentioned, but
not pursued. This method of examination would work in those
cases as well.
Another bias used as the basis of this study, is the
conclusion that cooperation is the basic strategy that humans
have used to get to this point. It is not the only one, but it
is the most important one to keep in mind. The analysis of
morality uses this premise, as do the projections of what a
biologically based morality must be.
An analysis of morality must be inclusive. No matter what
the biases of the study, other views cannot be ignored. They may
be chronicled and discarded, but never ignored, even if they are
judged to be ineffective as moral systems. There is a bias built
into using the term Moral System, that says that the system is
one that works. That helps in catagorizing and limiting the
domain of investigation, but it can also lead to missing
possibilitys, patterns, and dangers.
Back