The core of the problem for the moral relativists of the West is that, while they may see morals as being relative, other nations’ cultures may be programming their citizens to believe they must spread their culture until it encompasses all of humanity, and to believe that democracy is a dangerous delusion. Their belief system tells them that they conquer or eliminate altogether the other cultures of the world. And aggressive, self-righteous cultures have always existed. Democracies have to be motivated to face them if we are to have a world in which we can discuss any options at all. In coming chapters, I will discuss more fully why pluralistic democracy really is, for humans, a more rational, strategic, long-term social design than aggressive, xenophobic totalitarianism. For now, let’s return to developing the main argument.

We have to build a far more assertive code than moral relativism offers. Furthermore, such a code will only be acceptable to most people in today’s science-driven world if it integrates and harmonizes our world view—that is, our best models of reality—with the code itself until they are one cognitive entity. Even under this constraint, many different morés are possible, and many of those could be used to equip human society to flourish. Integrating and harmonizing them all—peacefully—is what will be required of us if we are going to keep our democracies. It’s up to us.

However, some values clearly don’t work. In today’s world, values that teach citizens the virtues of war or, alternatively, of moral inertia are among the least survival oriented. Thus, I must reaffirm: we have to find that third way. Not a return to one of the traditional moral codes, but not moral relativism either. Reason is our one way out of this dilemma.

A universal moral code would not end the diversity of cultures on this planet; it would simply provide a means by which people could settle disputes between their cultures without having to go to war. Through art, sport, commerce, intermarriage, and other nonviolent means, in a few generations the integration of adversarial cultures could take place. The theory is sound. It is possible for us to build one world—beautiful, vigorous, evolving, and peaceful.

  

                                               Artist’s conception of a utopian future

For now, however, we must return to our main line of thought.

We have arrived at the step in our reasoning showing that all of a society’s morés and approved behaviors are implicit in its world view. Now we can move on—still by small steps and gradual degrees—to examine the question of whether any world view, along with its concomitant sets of values, morés, and behaviors, can be shown by logic and evidence to be so directly derived from the deep principles of material reality that it deserves to be adopted by the entire human race as a beginning point for a new moral system.

 Notes

1. Layne Cameron, Nora Lewin, “Social Status Has Impact on Overall Health of Mammals,” Michigan State University Today, March 12, 2015. http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/social-status-has-impact-on-overall-health-of-mammals/?utm_source=weekly-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=standard-promo&utm_content=image.

2. Dr. Stephen J. Cimbala, “War-Fighting Deterrence: Forces and Doctrines in U.S. Policy,” Air & Space Power Journal (May–June, 1983). http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/may-jun/cimbala.htm.

3. “Benito Mussolini,” Wikiquote, the Free Quote Compendium. Accessed April 21, 2015. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini.