For as long as I can remember I’ve been fascinated by the concept of Good and Evil. Watching movies and reading books as a child it seemed that there was an obvious difference between the two. That even when it was less convenient and took more work, the smarter choice was always the Moral one. As obvious as this difference seemed though, the more people I asked, the more I realized that almost everyone had a different definition of what Goodness was. This struck me as troublesome. For the difference between the two was dramatic, and the consequences of justifying your actions in a way that did or didn’t align with someone else’s definition, could mean the difference between war and peace, between life and death (an early hint).
As I grew up, I learned more about the Evil and chaos of the world. From climate change, to pollution, to nuclear war; there seemed to be no shortage of existential threats that this planet was facing. I wasn’t cynical, but these problems obviously weren’t just going to disappear overnight, and no one person could solve it all. The point remained as I grew older and more aware of the stakes, that humanity seemed fixed on an unfavorable trajectory. That something needed to change for Life to sustain itself through our future. That for humanity to collaborate more rationally and effectively through our most urgent challenges, some common ground on the question “What is Goodness?”, was needed to unite our understanding and hope for the world.
Desperate for this answer I set off on a philosophical journey to uncover the truth of this great mystery, to discover the right order of words which would finally explain this millennia old question. To give humanity a fighting chance at working together, to maybe, just maybe find the right motivation to redeem ourselves for all of the harm that we’ve caused this planet- and for all the harm that we’ve caused each other. And this past April as I continued to chip away at this great mystery, I was struck by a fortunate series of clues that at last brought me to an answer that I found satisfying. An answer that cleared up the confusion of what I could reliably call “Goodness” and an answer which at last might prove that there was an up and a down in the moral realm.
Here is my attempt to answer the question of Goof and Evil. To put to rest The moral question once and for all. If it is wrong, please tear it apart mercilessly- I welcome the challenge. If it is right, let it guide humanity forward through our current shortcomings and most pressing issues. Putting to rest once and for all the ignorance behind our struggles for Goodness. Let truth, sanity, and connection come from this explanation of ourselves. Let Evil never again seem seductive or justifiable,
Let Goodness win for eternity...
The idea that morality could be universal is by no means a new concept. From Moses’ Commandments to Kant’s Categorial Imperatives, the framing of morality has primarily been that of a deontological, or rules based system. Where the determination of your moral worth was dependent on how strictly you could follow whatever set of rules you or someone else defined as being “Good”. While being a step forward from lawlessness, this framework had obvious logical flaws that presented just as many questions as answers.
It wasn’t until Bentham’s Utilitarianism in 1861 that a competing school of thought to Deontology was born which rivaled rule based morality, Consequentialism. This shifted the moral framework from an obedience to a calculation based system, where morally “Good” actions were ones which maximized or minimized the outcome (the consequence) of specific variables. In Bentham’s case the variable offered was pleasure, proposing the idea that Goodness could be defined as maximizing pleasure for the greatest number. This was a clear breakthrough in the evolution of moral understanding, solving some of the logical inconsistencies of a universal rules system and opening the door to a more flexible and dynamic moral framework. Utilitarianism had clearly solved some of deontology’s most glaring issues (covered in Sec. 4), and yet the proposed variables seemed to bring their own inconsistencies and problematic notions.
Along with these competing frameworks, in 1859 Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”. This work identified the phenomenon of evolution while describing the possibility that morality may be fundamentally connected with our innate desire of survival(SOURCE). Thus the seed became planted that within our existing frameworks, there might exist a principle of survival in our moral reasoning. Effectively also introducing the potential connection between the newly discovered laws of ecology, biology, and evolution with the concept of morality.
In the late 1950’s another huge philosophical breakthrough was made by the philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky with the proposition of Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar is a theory that describes the presence of “invariable fixed structures” within our brain which allow the human phenomenon of language and grammar to exist. This theory radically shifted our perception of language and universal principles, and thus Chomsky was popularly declared the “Father of Modern Linguistics”. Chomsky reasoned based off of his logic, that an invariable fixed structure might not be isolated to just our language faculty. That in all humans, mathematics and morality must also possess a similar innate structure. From this reasoning Chomsky coined what he called Universal Generative Morality, proposing that similar to language, an innate fixed structure governed our moral judgment (Source).
This was another huge step forward in the evolution of moral theory, bringing more credibility to the possibility of a Universal Moral framework which transcended sociopolitical lines and was embedded in each of our DNA. And while different philosophers and scientists would go on to explore Chomsky’s idea, trying to propose the right framework and rule set that could reliably explain a universal moral phenomenon, no major breakthroughs were made to bring this idea to light.
Inspired by these frameworks and the possibility of a Universal Morality, I present this work as an attempt to provide the definitive framework and principles under which not only the human innate phenomenon of morality may be explained, but also the basis of a universal moral force beyond humanity’s existence.
This is Universal Moral Theory.
After being presented with the idea that morality was connected to Survival, I began to realize that Moral Goodness was actually advantageous to it. That having moral people around you meant that you were physically safer than being in the presence of immoral people. This was an important, but not groundbreaking discovery. It wasn’t until an incident on a bus that I uncovered the key principle to this Theory.
On the bus there was a man with turrets who was shouting profanities at no one in particular. It made others uncomfortable but was obviously not within his realm of cognitive control. Across from him was a violent man who became disturbed by the profanity, and began shouting back at the man with turrets, threatening to hurt him unless he “Shut Up”. As the man remained unable to keep himself quiet, a close quarters brawl seemed imminent on the tightly packed bus. As the disturbed stranger began to step forward to silence the man with turrets, I spoke up (somewhat shakily, looking the man in the eye) to say “That’s not a fair fight”.
The stranger proceeded to ignore the man with turrets and turn his aggression towards me. Choosing to disengage I said “sure thing” and moved myself to another section of the bus. The violent stranger proceed to make a couple more threats, but the intervention had worked and the situation had been successfully de-escalated. I rode on to my stop and was heading to the connecting line, when I was stopped by a woman who had apparently been on that bus. She was an older woman with a crucifix around her neck and she told me emotionally that I was a “Good Man”.
This made me curious. Why did she believe this was true? She’d only known me from that one action and nothing else. So I returned to the idea of “S” when analyzing what could have led her to believe this. When it finally struck me- my intervention had not just increased the likelihood of Survival for the man with turrets. I had also effectively increased it for everyone on that bus who threatened to become pulled into a violent physical conflict in the bus’ close quarters. Morality it dawned on me, was intertwined with Survival of the group.
This insight was my key to unlocking a new framework for describing the moral phenomenon, and still it presented new questions such as how Survival was evaluated, and in what way did one identify with a group. So I continued on this quest by taking long walks and challenging every idea here that I had gathered. Building slowly but surely a framework around this insight. Arriving finally at the answer and theory I now pose here. UMT: Morality is a Calculation based on you and your primary group's survival.
I present no challenge to Darwin’s evolutionary principle and rationality. There are libraries of information and evidence available to speak to the phenomenon of evolution. In establishing universal principles which occur independently of human existence, evolution is one such observable phenomenon. Evolution as describes the process of adaptation and biological change overtime, clearly applies not just to humanity’s development but also that of other species. Demonstrating that any form of life as we define it- is oriented to survival. That observable to all life at a fundamental level, is the desire of Life and Survival.
The issue with the a Generative Moral framework as Chomsky has proposed, is that it assumes that morality, like language, possesses numerous fixed emotional principles (e.g. empathy and cooperation are good, while apathy and conflict are bad). This language-like framework essentially tries to biologically integrate and simplify what Aristotle had done thousands of years prior by laying out an extensive virtue system which could describe the value of moral actions, and which actions corresponded to positive outcomes. In essence Chomsky’s framework was again reverting back to the rationality of a deontological system where rules instead of a calculation ruled all. It failed also to identify what underlying principle (Survivial) was at work which consistently leads different cultures and groups to possess differing moral perceptions and judgments. Not integrating evolutionary logic to connect morality to our ecological systems, and explain why other species (such as dolphins or elephants) possess empathy and what might be described as moral agency.
Combining Kant’s Categorical Imperatives with religious commandment systems or tablet laws from ancient civilizations (because in essence they are the same framework), we can revisit the classic counter argument to only living in accordance to strict moral rules: What if a man with an axe knocked on your door in the middle of the night, ready to chop off your head, asking if you or your loved ones are home? Would it be immoral to lie by not coming forward to announce that any of you were in fact home and unarmed (should the attacker ask)? Or to not treat this individual as you would a neighbor, by offering for them to come inside and drink some tea? Of course not. There is clearly a rational basis to not follow strict ethical rules when it can keep yourself and others alive. Demonstrating that 1. Survival must be the motivating force and reason why a moral rule can become flexible, and 2. that following strict categorical imperatives for every single situation is not rational.
If that same axe wielding individual had showed up to the door with a life saving medicine for you, we would converesely consider that individual to be morally Good. This demonstrates Bentham’s point, that when evaluating a moral dilemma we must be making a calculation. That a moral decision is made in the context of a specific situation, and based upon the conditions of the situation there may be justification to not act in strict accordance with universal rules, but with maximizing the likelihood of an outcome. While a calculation like this may be related to strict ethical principles (such as keeping yourself and others alive), the method of achieving these outcomes through strict rules may not always be possible.
To further drive in the point, imagine a kidnapped individual stealing a kidnapper’s keys to unlock their chains. Now Kant would consider even this immoral because stealing is not something that you would want anyone to do, and yet doing this would clearly be morally justifiable as it minimizes the chance of an outcome which would lead to the trapped person’s unjust demise. In fact by stealing those keys that individual could (hypothetically), be in a situation where to save a burning building full of children and puppies- they must steal the keys and subdue the kidnapper. You may clearly try to live a life that doesn’t involve stealing or hurting others, and yet to not steal in this situation where there is the opportunity to save innocent lives from an Evil action, would make you partially responsible for not saving that building of defenseless Life, should you have the opportunity to. Relying on fixed rules that don’t positively effect the Survival of Life, such as stealing tools for escape in situations where you’ll be saving a Life, therefore demonstrates the absurdity of adhering to any strict type of deontological system, morality therefore must be calculation based.
If this is the case, then returning to the framework proposed by Bentham, morality can’t simply be an issue of pain and pleasure. What of the runner who experiences pain but satisfaction when running a victorious marathon, or the woman who gives birth to a beautiful healthy child after going through the pain of childbirth? Are those actions to be considered immoral simply by virtue of the lack of pleasure? Certainly not, this dichotomy is just as irrational as if it were happiness or sadness, contentedness or dissatisfaction- the only framework which might rationally fit with a moral instinct is Life and Death.
Though if morality is a calculation for Life and Death, then what is the framework of this calculation?
In each moral calculation there is an evaluation made based on the intention and effect of an action. If one person hurt someone else when they were trying to help them, that is evaluated differently than if that person was trying to hurt someone else and accidentally helped them. The difference of intention demonstrates the moral nature of the individual and how they might behave again in similar situations. Now of course who that “someone” being helped or hurt is, is also significant to the calculation, for they themselves possess their own intentions, moral nature, and therefore predictable patterns. By highlighting these invariable elements of a moral judgment it is possible to more clearly define a moral calculation framework, and therefore analyze what features are inherent to a moral calculation.
Each moral calculation relies on prediction. And while there are enough points to be made about the objective structure and nature of prediction to create a whole other paper entirely, for the sake of simplicity I will contextualize the general role of predictions just to the framework of a moral calculation. A prediction I propose, may be defined as: The anticipation of a condition or outcome. In the case of a moral calculation, the condition most often refers to the intention, while the outcome most often refers to the effect of an action. Survival has already been argued to be the principle that these evaluations are oriented to, so it is left to a prediction to estimate whether (given someone’s best available information and reasoning skills), that an action a) possesses a morally good or bad intention and b) has or will have a morally positive or negative outcome.
Predictions are guesses made through the use of our assumptions (“knowledge”) and logical reasoning. When making a moral judgment both on a situation which has happened and that which has not happened, we are making a prediction as to what the anticipated effects will be in response to the changing condition (action). Predictions in this way are not solely confined to the future, but any type of situation with an outcome which is not fully known to us.
To demonstrate let’s take the example of a wasp hive being removed from a local property. When deciding whether an exterminator should be called to remove the wasp hive, the owners are making a moral calculation (the survival of themselves, the wasps, and the local ecosystem). If the prediction made in this situation based on the available information and perspective, is that by removing this hive the owners will increase the safety of their family, pets, and invited guests- then it follows that this hive’s removal will be considered morally justifiable by the owners. However if it is revealed to them (by the exterminator or a local ecologist), that the hive is an integral part of the local ecosystem and removing it will threaten to cause substantial harm in other ways (e.g. leading an invasive species of flies to multiply at a dangerous rate) it would follow from this that preservation of the hive would instead be considered the more morally rational decision.
So what is the right answer in this example or other ones? Well there isn’t one. For who’s to say that by preserving that hive a local doctor who is incredibly allergic to wasp stings, couldn’t one day by chance be walking by and get stung and die, leaving other community members vulnerable and without healthcare. This line of hypothetical reasoning and guessing could go on infinitely in every direction. For predictions can only anticipate outcomes, they cannot 100% guarantee them. When considering any type of prediction there are always factors and unforeseen circumstances which will impact the reliability of the prediction. Forecasting the weather is such an example of how regardless of all of our best technology and techniques, we cannot guarantee a completely accurate prediction 100% of the time. Moral judgments/predictions are very much the same. Regardless of how sure we are of the outcome and Survival ramifications of an action, we cannot say for certain that every action will reliably lead to a more morally positive or negative outcome.
Now it doesn’t follow from this that this we shouldn’t try to make morally positive calculations, three day weather forecasts after all are still accurate 90% of the time. By using probability to the best of our ability, it is only logical that those with a morally good intention will act in ways which will predictably lead to morally positive outcomes. When holding ourselves accountable, it is only reasonable to do so for the predictable consequences of our actions. When making a moral calculation intention and effect combined with a prediction, therefore inform our moral judgment. We evaluate both the intention and outcome of a moral action separately, using prediction to determine the moral nature of the acting party, as well as the likely moral ramifications of their action.
Now that a clear moral framework has been established, how about we take a look at some examples.
Outside of the retooling of existing concepts and frameworks, it has primarily been through the use of deductive reasoning that I have built the framework and proof for this Theory. Much of the proof (like in any proof from math or physics) depend on the reviewer to possess the ability to deduce accurate answers from inaccurate answers. 2+2 = 4 not just because a teacher has told you so, but because this is something you can confirm using your own deductive abilities (e.g. if I had a bowl of two apples and added two more, there would logically be four apples total). The purpose of presenting the Survival calculation framework in this way is to bring awareness to how intuitive these answers become (similar to adding together 2+2) when we are aware of the framework and language we already utilize for moral judgments.
Of course different calculations provide different levels of complexity, and moral calculations can become extremely complicated. Therefore the moral scenarios/examples provided are incredibly simple- akin to elementary math problems, demonstrating the basic outline of this proposed framework. I present this theory to everyone in plain language because I do not believe that you need a PHD level moral philosophy degree to reason through the examples provided here. The use of instinct and logic are the tools which we already use to engage with moral dilemmas. As predictions and the analysis of intention and effect have been proposed as the basis of moral judgments, it may be helpful to try contextualize them within the framework of moral calculations through the following examples.
Proof #1: The Shooter Scenarios
Consider these three scenarios that describe a moral judgment related to the survival of a “G” (Trigger Warning: Gun Violence). In each scenario a shooter will be shooting into a crowd of 20 people that you L most in the W (your P G) In scenario #1 10 of these people are killed by the shooter. In scenario #2 2 people are killed. In scenario #3, 0 are killed.
If you were to rank these scenarios morally, in order from the Least Good to the Most Good Outcome, how would you rank them?
The only variable separating each of these scenarios is Survival, and yet it should be clear that ranking them is quite easy. This demonstrates again that Survival is the primary principle with which moral actions are judged by. Now, imagine that in scenario 2 the two people present are strangers, not associated with your group. It is revealed that those two people were strapped with bombs on their chest and would have detonated their equipment, killing the remaining 18 of your loved ones, were they not killed right then and there. Does this now affect the ranking of these scenarios? Of course it does, for the intention and predictable outcome both radically shift the nature of the moral action.
Proof #2: Desert Thirst
Consider in this scenario that you and a small group of loved ones are wandering alone in a desert, dehydrated and on the brink of death. Finally you all wander upon a giant pitcher filled with water, enough to quench all of your group’s thirst and survive at least another day. When without warning, a stranger hurries over and knocks the glass out of your hand- breaking the pitcher and spilling all of the remaining water onto the sand. Without knowing this stranger’s full intention, how would a rational person immediately interpret this action? Even most moral relativists would have to agree that this action wasn’t very saint-like. This stranger (based off of the available information), would quickly be judged as an Evil actor.
That is until it is revealed by the stranger that the water, was almost certainly poisoned by a local tribe who despises the presence of wanderers. Immediately, this stranger’s action is redeemed and our judgment of their moral character is flipped to be Good. That is… until it then discovered that this act was a plot to gain the trust of you and your group, so that you could then be led to another place where you would be killed and your organs harvested. Once again, the change of intention and predictable outcomes dramatically changes the judgement of this person’s moral character.
How quickly these moral judgements can shift from one conclusion to another, points to the obvious determining factor present, Survival of you and your group. It can once again only be reasonably inferred from this proof, that Survival, you, and your group are inseparable from morality.
Proof #3: Red Team, Blue Team
If you are not yet convinced of the framework, mechanism, and variables I’ve proposed, consider one last scenario. Imagine that you are apart of a group called the Red Team. You and your group are isolated from any other dangerous lifeforms/predators. As far as you know, you and your group are the only humans on Earth. Your group has enough to eat, not a surplus, but enough to ensure that your group can sustain itself through the near future. That is, until one member, let’s refer to them as “O”, begins taking more than their usual rations. There is no one else around who “O” could be sharing with, so “O” is seemingly acting in their own self interest. For in this act, the specific rations which govern the Survival of your group are now threatened. Putting you and all of your loved ones at risk of starvation in the near future. Based only on the available information, how would you and all the members of the Red Team morally judge the actions of “O”?
Imagine now that you are apart of an entirely different group, this time called the Blue Team, still filled with other people and family that you love dearly. In this scenario, the Red Team has recently been struggling to find food. And on top of this, your mother has fallen ill- making her especially vulnerable to dying. Almost all hope seems to be lost until one day you come across a stranger during a foraging expedition. You introduce yourself and the danger your mother is facing with the lack of food, asking if there is anything the stranger can do to help. The stranger seems hesitant, but agrees to return with food for your mother. The stranger does this everyday until your mother is successfully nurtured back to full health. Based on the available information, how would you and the Blue Team judge the moral character of this stranger and their actions?
Now, assume that the stranger and "O" are the same person. Does it become clear that based on the perspective of Survival relative to you and your group that the judgment of a moral action (that which impacts the Survival of another Life-form) is made? In one scenario, analyzed from two different perspectives, the moral action of one person, takes on a completely different nature. This is at its core, how conflict arises and persists across different groups. One will always morally judge an action relative to how that action impacts their group and their own survival. As long as you determine another individual or group to be in opposition to your own, then any action taken against them which protects you and your g’s Survival, appears justifiable.
And yet- as mentioned earlier, M is not relative. There may be a universality to its existence that is both ingrained in and independent of human existence. This and more will be revealed, in Part II…
Part II Coming Soon...
Part II Coming Soon...
Part II Coming Soon...
Part II Coming Soon...
Part II Coming Soon...
1 Chomsky, N. (2016). What kind of creatures are we? Columbia University Press
2 Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray.111