In coming chapters, I will discuss more fully why pluralistic democracy really is, for humans, a more rational, strategic social design than 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 cultures and 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 and probably, if we are going to survive. The huge task of understanding, handling, and maximizing our species’ infinite potential is terrifying. Falling back on traditional ways is 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 xenophobic 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 international law, if all else fails - the integration of cultures could take place. The theory is sound. The parties would cease to be adversaries because they would be one culture. We could build one human culture —beautiful, vigorous, evolving, and peaceful.

   

    Artist’s conception of a park area inside a space station (credit: Wikimedia Commons) 

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, and we have dealt with the war digression. Now we can move on—by small steps and gradual degrees—to examine what a single world view, along with its concomitant sets of values and morés, would look like and whether such a view 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.