Chapter 10.                                      (continued) 

One way or another, changes keep happening in every human culture, whether the changes originate from within or without. But changes in ways of living aren’t always accompanied by people hurting and killing each other. And given that in the end we all must answer with our cultural codes and morés to the same physical reality, there may even be reason to hope that peace-loving people, if they can become wise and motivated enough, may prove fitter for long-term survival than are the warmongers. From these and many other observations of the open-mindedness, adaptability, and improvisational capacities found in major segments of all societies, we can draw hope for peace.

However, further discussion of whether war can be avoided or at least reduced in destructiveness and duration is premature at this point. Even this most pressing and distressing of issues must be subsumed under our discussion of world views, a discussion which is yet to come in my argument. But a few words on the larger picture are appropriate here.

In an objective analysis, even though all values are tentative for humans, no values should be called arbitrary. Our world, including the parts of it that we make, is always changing, so our values must also. But new, different values and morés are not arbitrary—that is, they are not all of equal merit, because they do not all lead to the same survival odds for a nation or the human species. Some new values and the morés they foster work well, some badly. Some are moving society in an unhealthy direction entirely.

Values have consequences too crucial for those values to be described by a term as casual-sounding as arbitrary. The whole point of formulating a universal moral code would be to guide us all so we can clearly see the changes in the patterns of energy flow emerging in our environment and devise new ways of living that will give our species the best chances of surviving over the long term, and, hopefully, moving out into the cosmos. 

   

Clever strategies for survival pay attention to the energy patterns of the earth. Are the algae in the Indian Ocean multiplying, trapping solar energy? Are the forests doing particularly well this year in Central America? Is the soil left by the volcanic eruption two years ago in Indonesia particularly fertile? Are the crops all dying in the East African drought? Is the soil eroding in North America even faster this year than it was last? Is North Sea oil running out? Can our new dynamo tap the tidal power in the Bay of Fundy?

If we’re rational, we note and exploit energy supply opportunities and remedy energy supply problems out of choice, not by luck. (Energy in all forms, but we need to remind ourselves that food is our most basic source of energy.) We have to learn to live consciously and by reason; this means that we have to work out a moral code that is rational. If we’re rational, we note and exploit opportunities and remedy problems out of choice, not by luck. I repeat: we must create and learn to live by a moral code that is rational – founded in reason and evidence. If we don’t devise a code of values that proves both rational and easy to use, then combining the lessons of history and the trends of technology tells us vividly that we are going to scorch or poison our planet—or both.

As stated above, the variety of morés and value systems of our societies has led some social scientists and philosophers to suggest that every system of values is correct in its own cultural context, and none is correct in any ultimate, objective sense. But this is a false, dangerous conclusion to draw. These people have the best of intentions: they want to encourage us all to feel tolerant toward one another’s cultures and to get along. However, their moral code is not assertive enough. If it can be said to aim at all, it aims to fill the gap left after they have deconstructed all existing moral codes. That task does not repeat and does not terminate. Busy work. Not good enough. 

Humans need strong, affirmative guidelines to live by. What the moral relativists seem to be aiming to produce is a cynical outlook that is above critique because in the realm of morals, it affirms nothing and therefore cannot be critiqued. But real humans have to make decisions in real life. We need a global model of what is right, one that has a sense of direction and purpose. In the analogous situation for scientists themselves, they couldn’t undertake research without models and theories that guide them to plan their experiments and studies. Without models to guide his research, a scientist would be a buffoon wandering through rooms full of gauges, beakers, and computers, with no clue as to his purpose there.

Moral relativism leads to a practical consequence of resigning this planet to the bullies. When the tolerant citizens can say only what they are against and never what they are for, the bullies with their “will to power” (Nietzsche’s term) will sway the masses and get their way—by trickery, promises, threats, or blood. The Western Allies in the 1930's did not call themselves moral relativists, but the moral relativist way of thinking was already loose in the West, and the consequence was that most of the leaders of the nations that might have stopped Hitler and Mussolini had no stomach for such action. In fact, many prominent citizens in the West admired the fascist states and leaders and said so openly. (Even Franklin Roosevelt said he was impressed by what Mussolini was accomplishing in Italy.³⁾ The consequence of these leaders’ confusion and indecision was WWII with the deaths of fifty-five million people. Parallel situations abound in the history texts right into our own time.

                                 

                                                                                 Benito Mussolini

The practical problem for the moral relativists of the West is that, while they may see morals as being relative, other nations’ cultures are programming their citizens to believe they must spread their culture until it encompasses all of humanity and that democracy is a dangerous delusion. Their belief system tells them to conquer or eliminate 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 have discussions of our options at all. 

In coming chapters, I will discuss more fully why pluralistic democracy really is, for humans, a more rational, strategic social design than 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 should only be considered acceptable 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. Harmonizing them all—peacefully—is what will be required of us if we are going to keep our democracies. The huge task of understanding, handling, and maximizing our infinite potential is terrifying. Traditional ways are so much more comforting. But the depth of our fear is just a measure of how free we really are. It’s up to us.

However, we can already see that some values don’t work. In today’s world, values that teach citizens the virtues of militarism - or alternatively of moral inertia - are 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 - or the law if all else fails - the integration of adversarial cultures could take place. The parties would cease to be adversaries because they would be one culture. The theory is sound. We could build one world—beautiful, vigorous, evolving, and peaceful.

   

                              Artist’s conception of a utopian future (park inside a space station)

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 are implicit in its world view. Now we can move on—by small steps and gradual degrees—to examine whether any single world view, along with its concomitant sets of values and morés, can be shown by logic and evidence to be so clearly connected to the deep principles of physical 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.