Talk:Developing A Universal Religion/Solving Problems/Moral Problems

A revision to the module, proposed 14:29, December 26, 2006, has been moved to this discussion page. David Hockey 13:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Moral problems can emerge from any environment—home, family, business, social, medical, and so on, and may look like a pysical or mathematical problem but moral problems have a reality of their own.

Human beings can experience reality beyond physical phenomenon. Much of human experience is not an issue of mathematical perfection. Much of human experience eludes scientific analysis. Much of human experienced is not physical or mathematical.

Justice and fairness, for example, escape scientific analysis and yet most humans have a sense of fairness and justice. Dissimilar cultures (western vis-à-vis eastern) still have “morals” and “ethics” related to humans killing each other, marriage, reproduction, trade, transportation, barter, theft, agreements, language and symbols, and all forms of interpersonal relationships.

Humans have the ability to create a reality psychologically. It is called metaphor. Metaphor is not studied by science and yet it is a powerful human function. In its simplest form metaphor can predicate the existence of a force or posit a form of being (such as accountant or King) upon another human. Hence, in the Magna Carta is the statement “I, John, by grace of God, King, …” But since John is just another human, this kingness is a purely metaphoric process .. a human creation. Nevertheless, the process makes John king and he has almost infinite power over other humans within his realm. He has the power of life and of economics, marriage, reproduction, trade, transportation, barter, theft, agreements, symbols, and all forms of interperaonal relationships all by operation of a collective human will or metaphor.

Human leaders can be irrational. Leaders such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, various kings and czars have been observed by millions to be irrational and to have imposed a quality of irrational being upon millions of other humans (creating irrational societies). Such irrationality defies science or mathematics. It could be called an exception but irrationality is concrete reality for entire cultures (nations and even beyond national limits).

Irrational and illogical human behavior exists and is real, has effect and is caused and yet it defies mathematical or scientific analysis. Pseudo-science such as psychology and sociology attempts to explain irrational and illogical human behavior using “scientific method” but scientific method fails to reduce observed human phenomenon to mathematical or scientific models.

Human behavior is concrete, exists, can be observed and be relatively widespread and yet it can defy scientific explanation. Animals are not rational and seem not to have the same sense of fairness and justics as humans but do not engage in irrational behaivor, and have behaviors more readily explained in terms of survival.

If the difference between human behavior and animal behavior is rationality, then it may be the very rational nature of human beings that brings on irrational (and immoral) behavior. The very same qualities that enable humans to study math and physical phenomenon can enable humans to be irrational, unjust, immoral and to defie scientific and mathematical unexplaination.

Scientists and mathematicians can be irrational as often and to the extremes of any human. Thus rationality and intellect have no affect in making human behavior rational. There are many popular books and plays about “mad scientists,” e.g., “Frankenstein.” An insane Unabomber was a mathematician and scientist and claimed a moral justification for his irrational and immoral acts. Some of the most intelligent humans (including scientists and mathematicians) are also irrational and immoral.

Human behavior has altered the physcial earth to the extent that threatens life forms of earth. Human behavior is therefore an observable concrete phenomenon and yet it paradoxically defies mathematical and scientific analysis. Human intelligence, using science and mathematics, has contructed infrastructure that depends upon converting fossil fuels into energy. The same process produces excess “greenhouse” gases that threaten to alter global temperatures and modify the life supporting nature of planet earth.

Moral problems can thus emerge from any human environment: home, family, business, social, medical, mathematical and scientific. Moral problems, like any problem, are circumstances that need to be resolved. Resolving a moral problem does not necessarily resolve underlying problems or problems that were created as a consequence of a moral problem.

Moral problems ask the mind to decide which solutions are “right” and which are “wrong.” But it also asks humans to make choices about their behavior which are morally right. The rightness and wrongness of a solution is not based upon mathematical and scientific analysis but upon human metaphor, a sense of justice and ethics and cultural values.

Which behaviors might be deemed to be “good” rather than “bad” cannot be resolved with mathematics or scienfic method. For example, if global warming were calculated to make earth incapable of supporting life within 400 to 500 years and it were entirely the consequence of human infrastructure, then a purely rational solutions (supported by inductive reasoning and mathematical deduction) would force human beings to stop activities which increase global warming and do activities which reduce it.

Clearly that solution would be impossible. Too many cultures (eastern, western, northern, southern) would refuse to alter their behavior and allow the process to contnue even if it were proved to be life terminating. This has already been observed and documented in such areas as harvesting trees, fishing, reckless use of nuclear energy, and increased conversion of fossil fuels.

Moral problems do not remain within the mind, therefore, but become their own reality beyond the physical and mathematical world. But science and mathematics have almost no ability to address moral problems.

Moral problems are the subject of human institutions such as cultures, religions and legal systems. And yet those systems are themselves corrupted by immoral human influences. Justice can thus be purchased in most human institutions and irrational tyranny can result.

Even when there are flags that states, “Beware—Moral Problem!” difficulties may arise, and solutions may evlude us.

In almost every human decions there is a moral decision, and moral decision can be difficult.

Moral problems are not similar to mathematical or scientific problems. Moral problems ask the mind to choose (not merely to decide) which solutions are “right” rather than “wrong,” and which behaviours might be deemed to be “good” rather than “bad.” Human beings choose wrong behaviors as often (or more often) than right behaviors in spite of awareness of the moral wrongness. Murder, assault, theft, fraud, deception, recklessness are a choise regardless of the known immorality of the choice.

When a human entity (person, family, community, nation) chooses immoral behaviors it knowingly elects the consequences that follow. They may therefore be held accountable for moral choices. Human institutions thus have the power to determine the morality of choices and to impose punishments upon humans who choose immoral behavior.

Human institutions include "justice" systems that examine behaviors and impose objectively applied punishments. Human institutions include social and religious punishments for lesser transgressions.

The revision, dated 14:29, December 26, 2006, misses the points being made in the original discussion. Moral problems are identical to practical problems in that: 1. Both arise from an “environment.” 2. This “environment” contains solutions to the problem being investigated. 3. And, seeking an appropriate “goal” or “purpose” in that “environment” may solve the problem. Rational thinkers solve both practical and moral problems by: 4. Learning the “environment’s” properties. 5. Using this knowledge to select the most suitable solution. 6. And, applying this knowledge to reach the chosen goal or purpose. To solve practical problems, one must understand and apply the practical properties of the “real” environment. To solve moral problems, one must understand and apply the “moral” environment. However, moral environments are inventions, and the “moral” environment being considered is different from one individual to another. (Each individual invents their “moral” environment from his/her past experiences, education, physiology, etc.) Religions try to solve “moral” problems by offering a set of moral codes that “fit” the moral “environment” they favour. If we do not try to understand how “moral” problems are formed, then we will never be able to form a “unified” moral code, and, I fear, never be able to build a civilised world. David Hockey 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think that the proposed amendment should be moved to the discussion page, rather than replace the original text. May I do that? David Hockey 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)