Physics-based Ethics 4/26/18

            (Note: Since 2012, I have continually revised this essay, adapted from Albert Einstein two years after his letter informing President Roosevelt about Hitler's work to develop the atomic bomb. His thoughts are critical to the argument and much warmer than my writing, so please do not miss the quotation marks. Einstein does not use examples, so I have added some to attempt answers I wish he could be here to supply. This is a revision from the past title, "The Ethics of Physics," which expressed reverse order.)

          Humankind employs a process for understanding, which applies in both physics and ethics.[1] In different space-times, humankind as well as each person seeks comprehension of “relations which are thought to exist independently.”[2] For examples, extraterrestrial life either exists or not, regardless of humankind’s apprehensions. Behaving so as to attract appreciation is more productive than hate, regardless of the culture. Humankind's understanding progresses, while each newborn is ignorant. In other words, future newborns face more discovered-objective-truth. If they develop fidelity to the-objective-truth, they may live at the leading edge of both technology and civic morality.

          In physics, statements of comprehension may be cosmic discoveries, for example, that the universe is expanding. Also, there are factual equations, as in elementary mathematics:  2+2 = 4, as 2 apples plus 2 oranges equals 4 fruit. Contrary statements, like 2+2 = 5,[3] (or 2 = 3), occur in games and art, for example, to metaphorically express the illusion that team effort exceeds the sum of members’ contributions.

          Comprehension is not “supposed to” apply in the intellectual world or civic world, such as ethics.  Cultures have developed religions to attempt to appropriate the benefits of human experience as morality, but some religious morals seem dysfunctional in civic connections and transactions. Note: civic citizens are moral when in the woods, or at sea, or in space, just as certainly as when in the city. Physics-based ethics seems a better option for civic morality, because it applies to every person, without regard for personal religious hopes. For example, a typhoon knows no favorite persons. 
          Benefiting from physics seems the basis of civic morality. For example, consider the conflicting 1+1 = 1; as in my god[4] plus your god = your god or my part of the summation is zero: my 1 = our 0. Together we consider: Is your god our god? But we enjoy that we each have unique views of our differing experiences and hopes yet learned to appreciate each other as each of us is: civically collaborative. We agree that 1+1 = 2 or 1 = 1. Each of our gods differs but we don’t question each other’s pursuit of private liberty.

But there must be civic justice. The Dali Lama said, I think erroneously, “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.”[5] In human relations, reciprocity often fails; the Dali himself is a forced exile, because a forceful people took land he occupied. I doubt the Dali perceives he has experienced civic justice. Perhaps he is appealing to people's nobler motives without appreciating human capacity to wait for the-objective-truth.

          Comprehensions have a common characteristic: each comprehension is “’true or false’ [or 'uncertain'] (adequate or inadequate or unknown) . . . reaction . . . is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [or we don't know].” [6] I added acceptance of the unknown. Thus, each understanding may be valued: true or false or unknown. Because we appreciate each other despite our differing opinions about gods or none, we are able to strive together to understand the-objective-truth; that is, reality, or what-is. 
          Yet, even as we admit that some things neither of us knows, we each maintain personal hopes. With candid attitudes, two people may happily discuss whether supernatural “soul” is real or imaginary. I prefer to think my body and mind constitute my person, and there is no associated supernatural being. But I readily admit I don’t know: in other words, my focus on person rather than soul could be wrong. But such considerations are private and do not impact civic needs. My person (life) is more important to me than my soul (afterdeath), but I would not impose that commitment on even one other person. Individuals have the authority and power to decide for themselves.

          The process for understanding “has a further characteristic.” The noble work toward comprehension does not express emotions. “For the [searcher], there is only ‘being,’ but no wishing”; no praising; no believing[7]; no agendum; no competition; no ideology; no religion; no hoping; no pride; no contradiction; no goal beyond comprehension. Each individual who seeks understanding perseveringly rejects coercion from anyone, ancient or contemporary, yet also behaves so as to not coerce anyone or indoctrinate himself or herself. When we recognize self-persuasion, we stop; we strive to discover self-contradiction and eliminate it. I've muddied so much it is worth repeating Einstein’s simple statement, “there is only ‘being’ but no wishing.”
          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 [ethics] 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, social cooperation 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. “Cooperation, 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 collaborative autonomy which implies complete integrity; rejects fear and embraces empathy for other persons and self; has too much humility to lie; is authentic.

          Thus, it seems the process for understanding can apply to ethics. “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 behavior that warrants appreciation to overcome hatred. People are civically connected and therefore may expect each other to positively communicate. “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 and unprofitably rejected.

          “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.” Humankind has accumulated experiences from more than 100 billion lives over two million years, even though our mitochondrial-DNA connectivity extends back only 0.2 million years. The leading edge of ethics marches today on the minds of seven billion people, faster than ever before in history.

          For an individual to learn ethics is a daunting quest, because humans are born totally uninformed and there is so much to learn. Nevertheless, each person, after becoming basically informed (typically in about twenty years) 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. Anyone who squanders their life for either personal appetite (perhaps dying young) or an ideology (perhaps dying immature) usually misses the chance for self-discovery. Whether missing self-discovery is good or bad I do not know but doubt it is good.

          “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.[8]
           These principles expressed by Albert Einstein can be used by a people to establish civic morality, whereas religious morals are based on opinion and can never be resolved without physics-based ethics.

Addendum

          Einstein’s discussion, I believe, was for the cooperatively autonomous audience, for most of whom even “white lies” merely prolong the inevitable submission to the-objective-truth. Even 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 and comfortable.” A child’s innocence can be transitioned without mendacity.[9] For example, a child who has the personal autonomy to ask if Santa is real gains confidence to hear something like: Yes: Santa is a metaphor--an annual reminder for each person to offer authentic good will toward all civic people all the time.

          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. Usually, an enemy has ample personal authority and power to crush falsehood. Gullibility is a deadly error left out of the seven deadly sins, for self-evident reasons. It takes understanding and humility for a person to overcome personal gullibility---hubris.

Applications

            I have not had the pleasure of discussing applications of Einstein’s theory beyond his example respecting lying. Most people readily agree that civic people do not lie to each other, because they cooperate for solutions to civic problems.

          We wish to establish physics-based ethics for negotiating civic morality, keeping private the opportunity for each person to pursue comfort in the face of the unknowns like the gods---whether their personal liberty is served by religion or not. Physics-based ethics is a part of a theory for justice of by and for a civic people. So, when my opinion seems to conflict with your wishes, realize 1) there has been no candid discussion toward compromise, 2) the object of negotiation is endorsement by a civic people, not necessarily restriction of individuals (people behave as they wish), and 3) I write my opinion, not knowing the-objective-truth.

            First, a process by which humans may establish physics-based ethics needs to be known and cultivated. A rudimentary process has the following five steps:

          •      Understand the physics of a civic issue

          •      Personally act according to the understanding

          •      Civically and civilly endorse the understanding (by agreement and by socialization or legislation)

          •      Remain alert for change in the understanding

          •      With new understanding amend any civic order.

For example, many children experience spitting into the wind and 1) would never try it again, 2) would not encourage another person to try it and 3) imagine that throwing sand into the wind would be worse. The physics of this ethic is so obvious no one analyses it: it is tacitly understood, and no laws are required for general adoption of the ethic: don’t spit into the wind. However, if the CDC announced a study, with evidence that some patients’ Ebola infected spit, upon exposure to outside air, may instantaneously, autogenously vaccinate the patient, Ebola patients might spit into the wind. In other words, the laws of physics control rational thought.

          This example seems far-fetched but illustrates the essential elements for beneficial living in a world in which physics is both continuously emerging, continually discovered, and used beneficially. A people must 1) candidly understand the physics of each civic issue, 2) use Einstein’s “‘being’ but no wishing”, 3) publicly share trust and commitment, and 4) be alert to new information that demands change.

Copyright:  July 12, 2012. Phillip R. Beaver, author and creator, updated April 26, 2017.  Copy only with permission. (Adapted from “The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics.” Einstein: Out of My Later Years. Pages 114-115)

---

[1] Adapting Albert Einstein’s 1941 speech, “The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics.” Starting at http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/, but corrected to the referenced book. (The online version has a couple minor errors.)

[2] In the body of the essay, quotation marks refer to Einstein’s essay. Toward the end, his passages are extensive. There are no quotations of Einstein in the addendum. I like his conversational style and mimicked it. I wish he used more examples.

[3] Online at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5 .

[4] I do not know if anything controls the origins and progress of reality and avoid pretense by using “god” instead of terms commonly taken for granted. My expression, god, may be read with an interrogatory inflection. In this way, the reader may sense the humility I intend.

[5] Online at either stateofweb.blogspot.com/ or slideshare.net/ohteikbin/the-best-religion .

[6] “I do not know,” is an assertion that requires humility, integrity, and fidelity, applying in each instance to both the-objective-truth and the self. In other words, when you do the work to reach understanding but cannot draw a conclusion, you admit to yourself, “I do not know,” thereby avoiding contradiction. Admitting to self can be difficult when the question is, “Is there a god?”

[7] Phil Beaver has a policy against believing. I prefer to wait for discovery and understanding of the-objective-truth.

[8] The-objective truth-is the reality that yields to neither faith nor hope nor reason nor force nor words. I trust in and am committed to the-objective-truth much of which is undiscovered and some of which is known.

[9] I was prompted to post this essay after reading and commenting on Shirley S. Wang's article, "Clues to Teaching Young Children to Tell the Truth," June 30, 2014, at online.wsj.com/articles/clues-to-teaching-young-children-to-tell-the-truth-1404167647?tesla=y .

[10] “Where slavery is still practiced”: online at www.religioustolerance.org/sla_world.htm .

[11] Atlantic slave trade, online at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#European_participation_in_the_slave_trade .

[12] Quakers: online at abolition.nypl.org/essays/abolition/2/

[13] Thomas Paine.  Online at declaringamerica.com/paine-african-slavery-in-america-1775/ .

[14] South Carolina. Online at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp / .

[15] Lincoln. Online at www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges.htm .

[16] Southern University. Online at www.subr.edu/index.cfm/newsroom/detail/739 .

[17] DNA. Online at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve .

[18] Skin color. Online at evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/140305_skincolor .

[19] I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s statement that a house divided must fall.

[20] Michael Polanyi in Personal Knowledge, 1958, seems to assert that worshipping his god liberates him from his perceptions. Responsible, personal, private liberation seems to be a good for anyone.

[21] Physics & Ethics. Online at www.peep.ac.uk/content/618.0.html .