One Process for Understanding Both Physical
Laws and Ethical Laws[i]
Humankind
employs a process for understanding, which applies in both physics and ethics. Both
humankind and each person seek comprehension of relations which are thought to
exist independently from the researcher. For examples, extraterrestrial life
either exists or not, regardless of humankind’s apprehensions, and mutual
appreciation is more satisfying than hate, regardless of the culture.
In physics,
statements of comprehension may be cosmic discoveries, for example, that the
universe seems expanding. There are equations, as in elementary mathematics: 2+2 = 4. In physics, 2 apples plus 2 oranges
equals 4 fruit. Contrary statements, like 2+2 = 5 (2 = 3), occur in art or
games. For example, to metaphorically express the illusion that team effort
exceeds the sum of members’ contributions. The facts of physics contradict the metaphor,
yet humans empower each other.
Comprehension
is not “supposed to” apply in the intellectual world or social world, such as
ethics, but does. For example, consider the conflicting 1+1 = 1 that is common
in competition for dominant opinion, as in my God plus your God = my God. In
other words one party’s part of the summation is zero: 1 = 0. Together we consider:
Is your God our God? But we recall that we each have unique views of our
differing traditions or associations or privacy, yet appreciate each other as
we are. We agree that 1+1 = 2 or 1 = 1. On the other hand, the Dali Lama, I
think erroneously, said,
The law of action and reaction is not exclusively for
physics. It is also of human relations.
If I act with goodness, I will receive goodness. If I act
with evil, I will get evil.[ii]
However, in
human relations, reciprocity often fails; the Dali himself is a forced exile. Thus, comprehensions have a common characteristic: each
comprehension is true, false or uncertain; adequate, inadequate or unknown. In
other words, each understanding may be expressed, either true or false or no
one knows. Because we appreciate each other despite our differing usage of “God,”
we are willing to collaborate to understand the-objective-truth.[iii]
Yet, even as we admit that some things we do not know, we each maintain our
hopes about our God or none.
The process
for understanding has a further characteristic. The noble work toward comprehension
does not express emotions. For the researcher, there is only being, but no
wishing; no praising; no agenda; no ideology; no pride; no contradiction; no
goal beyond comprehension. Each individual who seeks understanding
perseveringly rejects coercion from anyone, yet also behaves so as to not
coerce anyone. When we recognize self-persuasion, we stop; we strive to
discover self-contradiction and eliminate it. Guided by understanding, we need
not respond to doctrine, like, “’Thou shalt not lie.’”
Yet, we do
not feel at all that it is meaningless to ask such questions as: Why should we
not lie? We feel that such questions are meaningful because in all ethical considerations
some premises are tacitly taken for granted. We then feel satisfied when
we succeed in tracing back the ethical directive in question to these basic
premises. In the case of lying this might perhaps be done like this: Lying
destroys confidence in the statements of other people. Without such confidence,
collaboration is made impossible or at least difficult. For example, after the
lie, the liar may fear future dialogue with the deceived party, who, in turn,
may sense the liar’s apprehension. Or, judging from his own behavior, the liar
may suspect the deceived party is also a liar. Collaboration, however, is
essential to make human life possible, even worthy of appreciation. Thus, our commitment,
we shall not lie, has been traced back to the demands: Human life shall be
preserved and pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible. The just
person gravitates toward personal autonomy and collaborative autonomy yet
complete integrity; rejects fear, and embraces empathy for other persons and
self. Liars separate themselves from a willing people.
Thus, it
seems the process for understanding can
apply to ethics. Quoting Einstein, “Ethical directives can be made rational and
coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge. If we can agree on some
fundamental ethical propositions, then other propositions can be derived from
them, provided that the original premises are stated with sufficient precision.”
For example, persons expect appreciation
to overcome hatred. “Such ethical premises play a similar role in ethics, to
that played by axioms in mathematics.”
“But what is
the origin of such ethical axioms? Are they arbitrary? Are they based on mere
authority? Do they stem from [humankind’s experiences], and are they
conditioned by such experiences?”
“For pure
logic all axioms seem arbitrary, including the axioms of ethics. But they are
by no means arbitrary from a psychological and genetic point of view. They are
derived from our inborn tendencies to avoid pain and annihilation and from the
accumulated . . . reaction[s] of individuals to the behavior[s] of their
neighbors.” Just as physics exists and can only be discovered, ethics exists
and can only be discovered. Just as physics may be vainly denied, ethics may be
unjustly denied.
“It is the
privilege of [humankind’s] ethical genius . . . to advance ethical axioms which
are so comprehensive and so well founded that [persons accept] them as grounded
in the vast mass of their individual . . . experiences,” the accumulation of
experiences from more than 100 billion lives over some two million years. For
an individual to learn ethics is a daunting quest, because humans are born
totally uniformed. Nevertheless, each person, after becoming basically
informed, has the potential to enjoy some sixty years to psychologically mature
and to help fulfill and expand the ethical axioms of humankind. The gift of life
presents the opportunity and potentials for joy.
“Ethical
axioms are found and tested not very differently from” the physical axioms. [Understanding]
is what stands the test of experience” and approaches the-objective-truth.
Addendum
Perhaps Einstein’s
discussion was for a cooperative audience, in which case even “white lies”
merely prolong the inevitable submission to the-objective-truth. The cancer
patient’s question, “Am I going to die,” may be answerable, for example, “We’re
going to do everything we can to prevent it,” or, “In time, yes, but we are
going to work toward keeping you alive.” Even a child’s innocence can be
transitioned without mendacity. For example, a child wise enough to ask if
Santa is real gains confidence to hear something like, “Yes: Santa is a
metaphor--an annual reminder for each person to maintain good will toward all
people.”
The need to
deceive the enemy is obvious. However, the deceit must be carefully crafted and
executed; obvious deviations from established principles will be accepted by
only the most uninformed or gullible person. Gullibility is a deadly error left
out of the seven deadly sins, for self-evident reasons; a good shield is
humility.
Copyright: July 12, 2012. Phillip R. Beaver, revised July
13, 2017. Copy only with permission. (Adapted from Albert Einstein: Out of My Later Years, pp. 114-115)
[i]
Adapting Albert Einstein’s 1941
speech, “The Laws of Science and The
Laws of Ethics.” Starting at samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/, but corrected to the referenced book. I am not
careful with quotation marks, especially in the early part of the essay.
[iii]
The-objective-truth, both the undiscovered and the understood, exists and can
only be discovered by humankind. Human actions may influence events, but the
consequences conform to the-objective-truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment