Morality

Philosophical ramblings




Home



Conversations


Physics causes morality.

Physics creates systems of reference (for the contained subjects), that is, a common ground, not morality.



Reality implies morality. It is a logical concept, having nothing to do with flapping tongues and lips.

The "imply" path is preferred by those who want to insinuate the idea that Nature is logic and thus whatever-they-consider-moral is somehow the only "correct" sequence of events for humans to use; everything else is just... faulty Nature / humans.

But crime is also derived from (or is implied by ;) Reality. Reality has no preference over either moral or crime because they mean nothing to it: they are just events.

In contrast, we, humans, have a bias, Life (because we are alive), and thus we avoid Death. This is why we care about moral, not because moral is special to Reality: crime leads to death of humans.

Morality does not precede Reality; it arises later from it, as a particular case, a context. There is nothing special into infinity which would specifically cause morality (or anything) because anything can be born out of infinity. 0 is not more special to infinity than 1 or 2 or 3 or... Any of these cases is just a possibility.

Anyway, morality is a human point of view on whatever hurts their lives (, or whatever people believe hurts their lives). It's like saying "The number 72323948294 is The Righteous One". From a human point of view, that is righteous to say if all the other numbers would cause people to die.



No man is an island. Therefore we all need to cooperate with those around us. In order to obtain cooperation we must "do unto others as we would have them do unto us". Isn't that behavior commonly called "morality"?

Yes, but what makes humans call that morality? What is the mental process which makes humans assert morality?

It's this:

  • Humans are alive, a state which is the opposite of death. (Living creatures are alive because they fight for their lives.)

  • Crime (= the opposite of morality) leads people to death.

  • No human can physically know the results of his actions.

  • Some humans don't care about the results of their actions.

It is that simple. No thousands years old, thousands pages long manuscripts about what Reality is, are necessary.



Give your opinion on a particular moral issue. Is it moral to have sex with 15 years old girls?

A man's attraction to girls of X years old is how his mind reacts to biological stimuli, stimuli which have evolved as methods which increase the chances of the human species to live on through reproduction. (If this behavior would have been uncommon to humans then the human species would have been extinct by now, so it has nothing to do with a Big Brain which chooses to "evolve" things.)

The reason why a man is attracted to girls which look like X years old, is not because they look like X years old, but because the man's brain perceives (through visual, auditive and olfactory senses) that those girls are at the height of their reproductive development stage.

All this sequence of events is not an opinion. It is behavior, a behavior which is statistically relevant to the human species.

The fact that a man does not want to have sex with girls younger than X years is because there is no biological drive to do so. The drive is missing because having sex with such girls would harm their mental development, harm which would catastrophically decrease their chances of survival and their chances of giving birth and raising offspring which would have better chances of survival then them. If that would happen regularly, the human species would have been extinct by now.



You're avoiding to answer my question.

No. I'm avoiding to respond to your question the way you want me to: emotionally.

Instead, I'm constructing a logical argument, based on biological facts. I'm explaining how things are, not how I or you want them to be.



You're telling me "morality derives from reality", so how does morality derive from reality in this specific case?

There is Infinity in Space and Time. It can contain anything, so it's useless to ask why certain things happen in our space bubble: it's just a probability manifesting in a finite space (and time).

Various events happen randomly. Some of them, in the Infinity, happen in successions which humans will later call hierarchic or stable. Humans are thus born. Humans call the events which led to their birth, laws of Nature. These events / laws will be categorized by humans according the their influence over what humans call brain: gravity, electro-magnetism, life, death, DNA, etc.

All these events are of random sequence in Infinity. However, humans have no understanding of what probability is and thus they believe that their existence is axiomatic, that is, it is implied (= it is axiomatic / given / implied) even before Reality starts manifesting.

"Morality" is not just a simple word. It is a simple word which humans use in their context. Each human grows in a specific context which shapes the way in which that human processes the information he receives from the environment. A human can extract the essence of all this information and use one word to name it, like "morality". No human can transfer all his knowledge by using a simple word.

Most other humans will generally understand the meaning because they have the same general context, they have the same biological and environmental foundation. Each fact a human has lived and can talk about is an experience which has statistical relevance to the behavior of the human species, meaning that most other people would generally grasp the essence of the expressed experience.

Even if the behavior of humans has changed over millennia, that was due to changes in the environment, not in their biological structure.



So biologically you want a root (hello, Aussies!) but "MORALLY" your internal head narrative says "I'm not supposed to do that, I won't do it."

Both "choices" are driven by biology. Some people say that a man's choice to not have sex with a 5 years old girl (I used 5 instead of 15 to make my point crystal clear because this way there is no age buffer - like in 15...16...) is driven by moral.

But here is the catch: that moral exists (, is claimed, is asserted) because there is a biological motivation to NOT have sex with a 5 years old (, and I explained the biological cause previously).

So, what I am saying is that the choice to not have sex with a 5 years old is not moral-pulled-out-of-someone's-arse, but it is biology (Nature's laws) which built the human brain in a way which increases the chances of survival of the human species.

But humans want control and thus they can't conceive that they are driven by Nature... and there is no way in hell they can change that... unless they want to DIE! People simple want to be the ones who control Nature, otherwise they feel like they are on shaky grounds, they feel like Nature or the other people could change its / their rules the next second, and thus they want to create absolute rules. People want to be rulers, The Rulers of the Universe (, fact which actually also increases the chances of survival).

O course, people can't understand that changing Nature's laws would cause them to die. They simple believe that they are the cause of Reality, instead of understanding that they are the effect.

All Nature does is build living creatures so that they live as long as possible. Well, sure, that's false, because in fact there is just a huge amount of species, and only some survive, and they do so because they are adapted to the environment. In our case, in our physical context, the human species would get extinct if having sex with 5 year old would be common fact.



Here is a moral question: 26 adults A through Z are living in a town. Person K smashes person C in the face for no reason (K even admits there was no reason). Moral, question: do the other 25 gang up on K and punish him in some way? Yes or no?

Probably yes. And there is a biological motivation to do so: those 25 people's lives are threatened.

Now consider that K says "howdy" to C, instead of hitting him. The motivation for punishment doesn't exist in this example because saying "howdy" doesn't (seem) to threaten C's life. The brains of each member of the gang does not generate any signals that a human's life is in danger, nor does it generate empathy for a human in danger. The reason for this is that the chance of their survival doesn't decrease in this example.

In fact, in normal circumstances "howdy" is perceived as a form of peaceful communication, where both "peaceful" and "communication" are states and actions which create a bond between the group and another group (K in this case). This bond increases the chances of exchange of information or trade to happen. These things strengthen the newly formed group because the synergy of elements is greater than the sum of the elements.



You're simply stating that in your opinion "those people's lives are threatened." I could easily say "that is total nonsense. there is no evidence whatsoever suggesting that if one person punches someone once that person is then likely to punch other people. In fact all these reports actually show that people in the set "have punched someone once" are much less likely to then punch some other person. Hence, there is zero threat to anyone's life and zero biological motivation for punishment.

You could certainly say so, but most people would ignore that and continue to behave as I explained that their inner nature pushes them to. I am explaining why people behave as they do, in a statistically relevant context.

You want to show that Reality is not stable, but humans perceive Reality as stable, that is, a place where sequences of events repeat in space and time. Humans have a continuity in their perception. Events may be random, but they do happen again and again; they form patterns. This place is a statistically relevant context for human perception, which is all that matters for us humans.

In a stable context knowledge exists in the form of repeating sequences of events. If the sequences would not repeat themselves, there would be no way to say that a sequence of events would... repeat itself, hence there would be no knowledge.

However, I am trying to show that there is no absolute, that, for instance, humans behave the way they do because of the context they arise from. The human behavior and what humans "should" / "must" do does not precede Reality, but it arises from the existing context.



In each case, you tell me your opinion.

See, that's the whole point, you want me to tell you my opinion and than say "that's your opinion". You want me to use a very narrow context, me, to argue for human morality. But biology is a very large context, one which contains all living creatures.

My argument is based on knowledge, not opinion. It could be false knowledge, but it's certainly no opinion. Saying "that movie sucks" is an opinion. Humans perceive contexts of different sizes and name them differently.

The difference between me and the people who say "I am right and you are wrong" is that those people say things in order to control the choices of other people, whereas I am trying to explain why humans behave the way they do. I am not trying to say what they should do, but why they do it.



You're saying you "know" the answer to moral questions because morality arises from reality.

I do not know the answer to moral questions. I am not saying that I have no idea about what I would choose when faced with a context described by you, but I am saying that when people make the choices they do, they do it because their context pushes them to do so.

But I do know why people behave as they do.



Is one man having 4 wives moral?

Certainly, what people call moral and biology are not the same thing. This is because there is diversity (in the Universe and in a species) and also the higher consciousness (higher than for other known animals) of humans significantly alters their instincts, even to a point where humans disregard their instincts (fact which increases their chances to die, since they would act against their instincts).

But in any case, even though a marriage is an artificial creature, the human species is not monogamous for life, and only few species are. This in fact increases the chances of survival because the genes are spread easier.

But is interesting to see that humans also have principles, that is, they have ideas which are against their instincts, but for diversity. For instance, some people don't have sex until they marry (for various reasons), even though both physically and mentally they are prepared for many years.

Long story short, I think those men just want to have 4 women to screw any time they want, eh... which is all about biology.



Using your "morality arises from reality" viewpoint, it is clear that societies with patents utterly, totally, spectacularly out-do (in every possible measure) societies without patents.

No, it's no so. Using my viewpoint, it is statistically relevant that societies where people's claims are RESPECTED by other people are much wealthier than those where people's claims are disrespected. That is, cooperation in a way which is biologically profitable leads to wealth, whereas actions which lead to losses (= crime) leads to death.

You believe that patents are a cause for richness, whereas I believe richness is an effect of evolution of a society. Patents are an effect, not a cause. Societies where people's claims for IP are respected, are much richer compared to societies where people's claims for IP are disrespected.

By this I mean that a society is not rich because Asimov claims (well, he did anyway) legal property rights for his novels, but because millions of humans respect those claims by recognizing Asimov as the writer and pay him for his novels.



Should abortions be free or controlled? Are patents a good thing? Your line of thought simply shifts these questions from "are patents a good thing?" to "well, look at humans, and tell us if patents are a good thing."

It's more like this: I don't care what humans say is good or bad for other humans. But I am saying that biological losses lead to death, whereas biological profit lead to (more) life, regardless of what people claim with their moral. Thus, crime leads to death, peaceful cooperation leads to wealth. "Crime" and "cooperation" identify two opposite parts of Reality, parts which don't care what humans think of them, or how they name them.



Using your system you "just know" that in comparative societies where abortion is free versus controlled, the free ones do much better. Right?

No. I am saying that I know what pushes humans to assert this thing called morality. What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with good and bad, with right and wrong. What I am saying has to do with a sequence of events. These events are not moral. They simply are.

For instance, let's say all women would have abortions. At that point, the human species would get extinct. This is knowledge, not opinion.

Now let's say there would be no abortion at all because there is an organization which can detect every single impregnation of a woman and force those women to give birth. At that point, the human species would be in deep caca, meaning that the context would be poisonous for human life, and very close to extinction (if you can call living like worms a life).

I absolutely do not care about what people want me to believe is right or wrong, good or bad, about abortion or about its control. These are facts which have nothing to do with what humans believe. These facts are the result of a context which is much larger than human thinking, context which humans call "laws of Nature".



So you then saying "since morality arises from reality, thus, control of abortion is immoral"... is that what you are saying?

No. I am saying that people assert their moral because a threat against life exists. I am not saying anything about right and wrong, about good and bad. I am saying why moral exists, not what to do with it.



So for example, with abortions. Yes or no: do you think societies should restrict abortions?

There are two crimes here: killing fetuses and killing the spirit of humans. There is no solution to "the problem" because this human behavior is in line with the laws of this Universe.

They both lead to a destruction of the human species, but abortion is not important enough for me to act against those who have / make abortions, while those who control billions of humans are too powerful for me to act against them.



But why are they crimes? You are saying "they are immoral" right? How do you know they are immoral?

I am a living creature. My normal state is alive, the opposite of the state in which those two actions render a human, therefore both acts are criminal; my brain says so due to the built-in empathy.



Thus, tell me whether abortions should or should not be restricted, and why that is so based on your thinking.

You're asking me to agree with the use of monopolistic crime (= control of abortion) against individualistic crime (= abortion). I can assure you I'll do no such thing. Those who want to control billions of humans on this planet (and many others in the Universe) have to go to other people for support.



I am not sure how what you are saying helps answer any particular moral question which comes up.

It doesn't have to answer any. I don't intend to condition other people to follow my moral, thus I have no intention of telling them how I react so that they could copy my behavior. I prefer to let people act according to their nature instead of mine.







License | Contact