(Grampa softly playing guitar. Enter Josh, William, and Liam)

Grampa: Hello, you guys. This is a nice surprise.

William: Iambic pentameter. Well, I know you do things like that on purpose.

Grampa: I do confess, sometimes I really do. It’s only done to get a smile from you.

Josh: Nay, no poetry. We want philosophy. It sharpens our appetite for lunch.

Grampa: Well, sit down then. I promise to stay as focused as I can.

Liam: No, no sympathy nonsense. You’re going to outlive us all. You get all the sleep you want.

Grampa: Partying again, were we, Liam?

Josh: No going off on sidetracks. We’ve only got an hour at lunch and there are some things I need to ask you.

G: Ask away.

J: Alright. You remember where we left off in our discussion of Logic and Math. We decided that we have to be very careful about how we fill in the terms in our syllogisms and formulas. So how do we fill them in? What terms do we put into our syllogisms? If we're being thoughtful, I mean. 

G: We use science pretty much all of the time nowadays. And rightly so. Other ways of creating terms have led us into some ridiculous discussions in the past. Not us in this room, but humans in general, I mean.

W: The way people in the Middle Ages used to argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

                                   

G: Yes. Mad as it seems to us now, they really did argue about that one back then.

J: But to the point. So you’re saying now the most reliable logic uses categories that we’ve learned about from heaps of observations of the world? From science.  

G: And even then, they’re gambles, and the reasoning we do with them and the conclusions we reach are gambles. The terms can be naming tempting illusions.  

J: Alright. I’m with you so far. But how would you ever get to a code of right and wrong, a moral code for people to live by, from such a view of the world.

W: Now you’re talking, Josh. That's the one that scares me. The more I read, the more I see that the scientists of the past and the ones today …they’ve been kind of useless in telling anyone about what should be. They can talk about what is, but they can’t …no, they won’t …talk about what should be. If a grad student goes into this line of research or that one, they can tell him, “Here are the kinds of tests you’ll have to do to test your model of reality.” But they refuse to say whether he should go into that line of research. Or some other one. Or just wander the world and play guitar. Why choose any option over any other?

L: Or he could box instead.

J: The tough guy.

L: (joking) Put the gloves on! C’mon. I still owe you from when we were kids.

W: Oh, stop it you two. C’mon, Grampa. Is there a way to even start to make up a code of right and wrong that is based in science?

G: (sighing) This discussion may take more than a lunch hour, lads.

J: Well, at least start on the job. We’ll keep coming back till you’re sure it’s done.

G: Alright. Here’s where we begin. We’re going to find that moral values are just very general principles that are intended to guide behavior -- how people act and talk, day by day, in real life. To be scientific about making a code of behavior -- a really open and free code, but a code nonetheless -- we’ll want to make our moral principles match the way the world works. That’s how morality could connect to reality. That project would give us a scientific path to a code of right and wrong.

J: Alright. I think I’m still with you there. So what are the relevant principles in reality that a moral code would have to be built on? Or be built in response to? Whichever expression is better. Values have to set us up -- have to program us, I should say -- so that we deal with the universe we live in, right?  

G: Yes. Now you’re getting it.

L: Ah, the suspense. Just tell us. It can’t be that complicated.

W: Let him take his time. You know what he’s like.

J: No, I’m not going to get impatient. I can see that this is tough stuff to explain. So …anyway, Grampa, what are the principles in reality that our moral code is going to have to be designed to handle? Or program us to handle, I should say.

G: Now we’re getting into things that I’m still exploring. I’ll admit that right off.

L: Yeah, but you’ve been exploring them for fifty years.

G: (laughs) Longer.

W: What …since you were a kid?

J: Don’t get him off on a tangent. Come on. Principles of reality that are relevant to how we construct a moral code. What are they?

G: There are two as far as I can tell. One comes from thermodynamics and the other from quantum theory.

J: …and the first is …?

G: Adversity. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says energy is always flowing downhill. The universe is burning out. The degree of burnt outness of the universe is always increasing. One day the stars will all be burnt out and crumbled to dust and the warmth in that dust will have fizzled out of the particles and the universe will be an empty space frozen to absolute zero. All motion will have ceased.  

J: This is my stuff. Entropy. So far so good. So what does entropy have to do with morality?

G: On the ordinary scale of everyday life, we just know entropy as the general hardness of life. Life is uphill. Everything put together, sooner or later falls apart. And we’d be dead in the womb if we weren’t programmed to swim back into the natural flow of the universe.

J: That makes sense. We’re programmed by our genetic code to fight for life.

G: All living things are, Josh. But humans are also programmed by their cultures. We learn to be human. Being human, the way we usually think of human, doesn’t come to us from our genes. Or not much. Raised away from other humans, a baby becomes a dysfunctional mess. Raised by dogs, the kid becomes a humanoid dog.

W: What? You mean such things have happened?

G: I’m afraid so. Rarely, but they have happened.

L: No, stay on point here, Grampa. I’m following so far. So in our cultural codes, our programming …whatever you want to call it …what principles or values are programmed into kids to make them fit to face entropy? To make the whole tribe fit to deal with entropy?

G: This is straight Wendellianism, you realize?

J: We wouldn’t be here if  …ah, so it’s your own idea. So what? Just tell us.

G: We program kids with courage. The principle that tells them that all through life, it’s going to be hard and they’ve got to keep going back into the fray. Into the current of the real world. They need to be ready to swim mostly upstream.

W: Yeah, but that’s why some young guys like Josh’s friend Vince die young. He was so full of …I don’t know how to say …he so much wanted to prove himself … that’s why he was always taking crazy chances. Sooner or later, his courage was going to put him in harm’s way. And it did.

J: Wo, William. Personal example. But …I guess basically you’re right. Courage alone would just get a lot of us young guys killed. In fact, sometimes it does.

G: And young girls too, Josh. They’ve been getting steadily wilder, more reckless, in my estimation anyway, since the 1960’s. There were always a few such girls, but now they seem to be more the rule than the exception.

L: Yes, but let’s stay on point here. How do we make a moral code that won’t get more of us killed? Obviously, most of us do learn to be careful as well as brave.

G: Wisdom, Liam. It balances courage. I mean we teach the kids to value wisdom, judgement …whatever term works best for you. But yes, they have to grasp that raw courage …throwing yourself into impossible situations …that’s foolish.  

W: Risk, but risk strategically. Pick your battles.  

G: Nice word choices. Yes. That’s what we try to teach the kids is right and good.
  

J: We’re pretty far into speculation here, you know. Do you have some evidence to back up this theory?

G: Well, courage and wisdom are taught in some forms in every culture that we know of. The clearest evidence, it seems to me, is in the myths of the world. All of them contain characters who are young and brave and then other characters that are old and wise. And the young need the old in order to achieve the successful completion of their quest or mission or adventure.

W: This part I get. In Greek myth, Jason needs Chiron. So does Achilles.

L: And Perseus and Theseus also need him.

W: Liam. You surprise me.

L: Oh, don’t be sarcastic. Jocks can be scholars too.

J: Stay on point, you two. And Odin needed Mimir and Arthur needed Merlin.

L: Hey, and Luke Skywalker needs Yoda!

G: Yes, Liam. A sharp example.

J: But we still don’t have a set of actions that we can easily describe, or imprint, or program. Nothing like a complete code to operate under and leave no times of indecision in the individual or the community.

G: (smiling) That’s right.

J: You old fox! There’s more here, isn’t there?

G: Let’s just say that’s enough for today. I want this much to really sink in.

L: And my energy level is sinking too. When’s lunch?

W: No, let’s stick with this.

J: No, Will, Liam’s right this time. Let’s eat. Grampa’s running out of energy too.

W: Okay. We’ll cook. Chana masala?

L: Yes. And beer.

G: Go to it lads. You know where everything is. I have something to look up for a minute or two.