A Brief Schematic of Morality, Prioritizing Moral Reason

by Don Robertson, The American Philosopher

1/12/07

Within the body of this short work, I will provide a system of prioritizing moral reason. The schematic of morality I provide here is not a complete schematic. I do not attempt to answer every moral question. It is surely the road map however, a basis to a veritable understanding how and why, prioritizing morality is both a sound concept and necessary to the maintenance of our humanness.

Within this work you will find some examples; examples that are used to impel the reader to begin to consider how without such a schematic understanding of morality, moral judgments are rendered unintuitive and nonsensical. I further provide this schematic of moral reasoning so that humanity can finally embark upon a path toward some semblance of civilization. We have not been, and could not be civilized without an orderly understanding of morality. We are barbarians.

I begin with the basic building block of all Western philosophy, the cogito, Descartes', Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore, I am. While this is not an utterly unquestionable statement as it secures for each of us individually the sureness of our existence, it is the best yet provided and likely none better will be found. And while the cogito could be doubted by the determinists, by their asserting we think that we think, but really only think nothing more than that which is predetermined by our individual conditions, if this is true, then there is no reason for any moral judgment, decision or for even asserting humanness.

The determinists' argument about fate ruling the Universe is best defeated by acknowledging that with every choice, there is an infinite choice, for which no causality could possibly exert the strength required to continue to force our hand as we act. We do have free will, if we know how to use it.

From the cogito, we arrive at our existence, which is reasonably sure. Our existence is good. Life is good. And without being able to be sure of anything else, we must assume all else can only bear the illusion of goodness.

Until we improve upon that limited sureness provided by the cogito, carrying with us a commensurate sureness as is provided by the cogito about our existence, we cannot know morality, which we assume to be another good. That goodness we strive to embrace beyond our own existence is called morality.

We also can be reasonably sure we were not always here; we did not always exist; that we will not always be here, we will not always exist; and, that others will follow us here even after we are no longer. We are here, where others used to be, and others will follow us.
This might be an illusion, but again, without such an assumption our understanding of our existence fails, so we make this observational assumption based upon necessity.

We are here. Our lives are good, and they are temporary, having followed other lives, which in turn will be followed by other lives. The moral imperative thus arises seamlessly from the cogito.

The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.

The moral imperative says we have an obligation to those who will exist after us. That moral obligation is to ensure the continuity of their existence with ours. That is what we perceive as humanness and humanity, a collection of like beings spread over time. The moral imperative prioritizes and asserts as paramount our moral obligation to those in the future. The moral imperative is the basic building block of all morality. The moral imperative is a statement of our obligation to the continuity of life in the future, without which humanity as well as every individual life like our own would cease to exist.

The moral imperative is thus our first and foremost moral tenet. Stepping over the line drawn by the moral imperative is immoral in every instance. This is not to say such transgressions of morality do not happen, as they surely do. It is to say these transgressions are always immoral.

Considering the extent of the moral imperative, and our own existence, again, the comprehension of our existence given us by the cogito, we climb the ladder of moral priorities. We are forced to judge the quality of each of our individual lives. We do this so we can ensure we are not detracting from the future, and, so that those in the future might have lives as full or fuller than our own. This is what we are morally charged with protecting for the future by the moral imperative, that which provides the quality of our own lives.

The first quality-protection moral obligation we must provide the future includes the basics of life, air, water, food, and an environment that is generally amenable to future lives measured by our own necessities of life. These are the material necessities of sustenance, without which life in the future would be impossible. We have a primary moral obligation not to endanger these material necessities of life.

At the second tier of our assessment of the sustenance of life we have a known divergence. After we have ensured the necessities of life needed for sustenance, certain other considerations concerning sustenance of life in the future arise as secondarily important. These are collectively, limiting external dangers that could obliterate all humanity in the future. The divergence arises because there are both human-made and natural phenomenon that could obliterate all humanity in the future.

Of the natural phenomenon that could obliterate all humanity in the future, we have a limited-to-negligible ability to ameliorate these possibilities, and, in order to make any attempt to be in a position to avoid even the most moderate of natural planet-wide catastrophes, we might assume we need to be technologically adept.

According to the moral imperative, the first tier of moral requisites, in order to be technologically adept, and thus in a position to avoid even moderate natural planet-wide catastrophes, we must first be moral. Second, we must be intelligent enough to both safely develop and, to safely use these technologies in a manner such that they do not detract from the primary sustenance obligations or, give rise to those human-made phenomena that could obliterate all humanity in the future.

As we have not yet the capacity to act morally, humanity is fortunate that naturally occurring planet-wide catastrophes are rare enough that the likelihood they will occur only affects us in geologic and astronomic time scales. These natural dangers, while so far as we can tell do exist and, even likely exist yet undiscovered, they are relatively remote. These natural catastrophe considerations pale compared to the more dangerous possibility we might not pass to the future primary sustenance needs, or, that we might inflict upon humanity human-made planet-wide catastrophes that could end it all for humanity and close the door forever to those who would follow us in the future.

Empirical methodologies, our scientific methodological inventions ranging from physics, the political science, on to medicine and all other empirical studies have yet to be morally restrained by considerations that should dictate absolutely to these subordinate sciences. The common, but false, assertion is that the sciences are amoral. The implications of such an open and negligent immoralness in the application of empirical methodologies are so damning of our modernness, a common indictment presently causes humanity to accuse itself of incorrigibleness from one end of the globe to the other. This is the moral reality of our empirical modernity.

We are morally uncivilized from pole to pole and in every latitude between. We argue and war endlessly about that which we have no certain moral comprehension. All our governments, religions, every academic and all industrial studies contrary to the moral charge of humanity, are all purveyors of both immorality and the constant instigators of that which threatens all humanity's ultimate dissolution.

Due to the complexity of the physical world upon which we and the future rely, as well as our limited intelligence, we also must recognize our limited ability to presage both natural and human-made planet-wide catastrophes that could end it all for humanity. At this stage of humanity's moral development it is thus morally unconscionable to develop technologies that have the potential to end it all for humanity, even if they might have the chance to save humanity from some natural catastrophic phenomenon.

To make such a gamble without a schematic of moral priorities, increases the risk of closing the door to those who would follow us in the future is immoral. This is morally unacceptable. It is not a viable rationale to argue we must make an attempt to be prepared to address natural planet-wide catastrophes as long as we are endangered more by the technologies we wish to employ for this otherwise good and moral purpose. It might be moral to address these remote humanity-threatening natural catastrophes with technology, but certainly not before we have a good schematic basis for moral reasoning.

The purpose of this essay is to begin to establish some modest moral priorities for the first time in the history of humanity.

On the third tier of moralness in our assessment of our quality of life we have a massive divergence. Upon this third tier we find the multitudinous requirements of the Golden Rule, Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Note here how far up the ladder of moral responsibilities we have come. And note also how we arrive at the Golden Rule.

As a third tier moral rule, the Golden Rule arises because it is a secondary component of our quality of life. It is further only morally important because quality of life is what we have a moral obligation to insure for the future. The Golden Rule is only morally important if it is not contrary to the first tier, and the second tier of moral responsibilities. While important to the quality of life we wish to pass on to the future, the Golden Rule is simply not an imperative like the moral imperative of life. It is however a component of the quality of life we should strive to pass onto the future, though circumstances can and do often void the moralness of the obligations of the Golden Rule.

Let us assume there are but two adults, one male and one female, and one child left on the planet. The child has found itself stranded amidst a raging torrent in a flood in rapidly rising waters and out of all reasonable reach of the two adults. There is but a very slight chance the child could be saved by one of the adults should one of them make such an attempt. Is it moral to simply watch the child drown as it cries for help?

The moral imperative of life is paramount, and to risk the life of one of the adults would violate the moral imperative. So, even if there were forty children so stranded, all humanity would lose forever the door open to life should the attempt to save the children be unsuccessful. Such a choice made to make the gamble and attempt the rescue would be immoral.

As seemingly pointless as such a moral quandary might seem, it serves to raise the question, Is it ever moral to gamble the future of all humanity? The answer here according to the moral imperative of life is surely, no.

We are not through prioritizing based upon this question. The moral imperative also demands that we should not even detract from quality of the lives that will be possible in the future. So, we can ask, is it ever moral to gamble when the wager is quality of life in the future? And, here again, we find the moral imperative always says, no, not even if the odds in favor of such a gamble are a million to one. It is not moral to gamble the quality of life in the future.

This may seem hair-splitting, until we consider detractions made against the quality of life in the future are generally cumulative. We are not civilized as long as we are cumulatively adding to the detractions of life that we by our moral negligence impose upon those who will live in the future.

Right along side the Golden Rule, as a measure of our quality of life is the quality attribute we know as, diversity. Diversity enriches our experience by adding to its fullness. We have a moral duty to protect all diversity and preserve it for the future. However, just like the moral choice between the children caught in a flood, diversity must be sacrificed to the moral imperative that is paramount. These are third tier responsibilities.

So, let us put our moral prioritizing again to the test, but this time within the confines of the third tier. Supposing there exists in a remote region of India the last surviving pair of Bengal Tigers on earth. These tigers are preying upon Indian villagers. They are killing an average of ten villagers a month, including many children, their favorite of human prey. Would it be moral to kill these Bengal Tigers?

The answer is obviously, no. Third tier moral judgments take priority over the lives of these Indian villagers simply because of the irretrievable diversity the tigers provide, and, the Indian villagers can be moved out of harm's way.

Hindus hold that it is immoral to kill a fly or step upon an ant. This is however, a very tenuous assumption given the guideline of the moral imperative and the prioritizing that arises from it. Neither the diversity of ants or flies is likely to be affected by killing one here and there. There is possible an extension of the Golden Rule that can be extended by humans to ants and flies. It would be a detraction away from our own lives by being forever forbidden from treading upon the earth which seems to say, no, this would be a detraction from the lives of those in the future were they forced or even encouraged to live such lives.

Admittedly however, we have reached a fuzzy level of prioritizing morality when we cross the boundary and refuse to any other species the Golden Rule. In a perfect world, ants would not get under our feet, flies would not be so annoying as to get swatted, and Bengal Tigers would not eat humans, but the world is not perfect. The world is fuzzy; however the world is not as fuzzy as it would otherwise appear without a schematic for prioritizing moral reason.

Simply put, no one has the right to steal, gamble or cumulatively degrade the future for all those who might follow us into this world.

The Utilitarians held duty to the state to be among the highest of moral tenets. There is a fuzzy moral obligation to the state, which if contravened toward one side of the fuzziness can be held to be immoral. The duty to the state is subject to the limitations of the moral imperative, our obligation to the future.

Were a soldier asked to insert the authorizing key to unleash nuclear weapons enough to kill all humans on the planet, this would obviously be immoral regardless of the moral duty he feels toward obedience to the state. It would in fact be your moral obligation to stop this soldier regardless of what it took to stop him.

The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.

At the fourth tier of moral obligations to the future, we must address our freedoms and human rights. Our freedom is a component of the quality of our lives we should wish to pass onto the future. Note however again, how far up the ladder of moral priorities our freedoms and our human rights arise as a quality of our lives we should wish to pass onto the future. As a fourth tier obligation in the schematic of moral priorities, protecting our freedoms and human rights comes after the moral imperative, after protecting the future from natural and man-made catastrophes, and, after the Golden Rule and diversity. In fact, our freedoms are intimately tied to the Utilitarian idea of duty to the state.

Protecting our freedoms is too often the fuzzy hypocritical realm of political lies. Protecting or promoting freedoms and human rights are quite remotely removed from our primary moral obligations. No amount of moralizing can reason subverting our more prioritized moral goals for the illusive and altruistic goal of passing our freedoms and human rights on to the future.

Humanity has lived until now without a schematic of priorities for moral reason. Humanity has made many mistakes due to this ignorance. Humanity has seen moral reason itself be subverted.

In recent years we have been alarmed at the lack of ethics within our American businesses. Our political history is rife with immorality. This should be no less alarming than will be a better understanding concerning the extent of the moral deficit in all human organizations.

We are all moral barbarians today.

The philosophic lessons that have been learned and are taught by academics today are almost universally lessons in rhetoric. This is true because rhetoric sells. And, morality has been maligned with a minor and meager supporting role to that end.

Morality has been made an instrument in this orchestra of sales pitches. While rhetoric sells, philosophy is supposed to teach. What philosophy has to teach us about morality is that the sales pitch of rhetoric without a firm grasp of a schematic that prioritizes moral reason has almost invariably led to the immoral degradation of conditions for the future of humankind. This is why we wail about so many obvious immoral results.

Immoral choices are not difficult choices, as they have too often been portrayed in the past. Immoral choices are immoral choices. Immoral choices made because they were believed to be moral, or, because moral considerations were not considered, or understood, are still immoral choices.

If one Google-searches "the moral imperative", results find a host of rhetorical claims boasting moral imperativeness, none of which are moral imperatives, and most of which are immoral, if we morally weigh them and attempt to place them within the schematic of priorities for moral reasoning.

Claiming the moral high ground seems to have become an industry of mass deceit. This is far from surprising because our culture, while aware of moral notions, it is still barbaric and immoral from one end to the other. The rhetoric of ill-conceived notions of morality has a long history of being used to justify immoral societal gambles that wager the future. And, these gambles are made for only possible gains, or, simply to deceive.

The schematic of moral reasoning makes it clear; morality may be placed in classes of moral priorities. Such a prioritization of morality can also provide for clear moral reasoning that exposes and negates all of the false moral reasoning we hear and read today.
We must still however, be continually diligent by searching endlessly the effects of any justified action for immoral results.

Humanity now exists well beyond the realm of any sustainable moral paradigm. And, while we must look to our effect upon the future of humanity as our moral imperative, we must look to the past for models of sustainability we might strive to recapture to ensure a viable future for humanity.

The extent of the immoral nature of all our societal institutions is almost incomprehensible. But it is not incomprehensible. It is appalling, but not incomprehensible.

Even progress in the conventional sense of more growth is immoral for its negative effect upon the future.

Those who tout progress as growth are just so many Alexander’s beckoning again the Diogenes of our better selves to join them in their immoral madness bent on the violation of every moral tenet for personal gain. Life is too good to require any of us to subvert the future in an attempt to make it better for us today.

Now, as each day there are almost countless pages given to the Internet, and each of them in their own way will cause us to think, I will assert here that this short essay about the schematic of moral reasoning is more important than anything that has been written in more than a thousand years.

I am aware not everyone reading here will see it as such.

This short essay however, contains philosophic statements that are far more important than any scientific discovery ever made, any human rights assertion ever made, and more important than that of any religious revelation ever made. The importance of the content of this essay surpasses any other achievement of mankind to date.

For those few who do see meaning, I ask each of you to start asking those around you, especially those you individually respect for their judgment, and, likewise those in positions of authority. Ask them, what is morality, and how is it prioritized? The universal absence of their answers to either question will substantiate the great importance of what is said here. Again, it is more important than anything that has been written or said in well over a thousand years.

You can print this article out and give it to those you query about moralness, either before or after they are unable to answer these questions. If you are a student or a professor, you can print this article out and pin it up on the bulletin boards of your university department offices too. You won't get this kind of education there. At least you're not getting it there yet.

I have told you these things not because I am some kind of pompous jackass, a god, a pretender who would be a god or even any kind of genius. I have told you these things because I know them, and because it is my duty under the guidance of the moral imperative of life to ensure you know them too.