Physical Morals

Physical Morals

This topic is also covered in some videos on my YouTube channel.)

Preface

I would like to first state that this work is based on my personal understanding.  This is not intended as an authoritative piece of work.  It is more of a general outline which I hope will be useful to others.

Some people will question why a topic about physically defined morals is needed.  I see multiple reasons.  One reason is because too many people’s ethics are tied to supernatural beliefs.  Some even go as far as to say that morality requires religion.  But this is false.   There are lots of people who have a sense of ethics without religion.  Also, there are common morals across some quite different religions, which removes exclusivity from any 1 religion.  Another reason is that morals tied closely to supernatural beliefs are inconsistent and unstable.  A reason why some religions have a spectrum of people from fanatical killers to peaceful non-violent folks is because many religions’ scriptures support both.  For Christianity, some people claim that the old testament laws are superseded by Christ’s sacrifice while others point to his statements about all the old laws being valid.

A confusing factor is about post-religionist morals.  People who go through an “immoral” period after they leave a religion are used as evidence for the religious beliefs.  But I believe that this shows the opposite.  Using religion to teach morals is tenuous at best.  Not only are the old morals difficult to modernize with new knowledge (Religionists’ perspective on gays as example) but people sometimes have to regain ethical footing after leaving a belief system.  Ethics are more consistent over time and more easily maintained by people as their beliefs change if the ethics are grounded in the physical.  This is because the ethics are independent of the changing beliefs. Unethical behaviors not based in religion have little to hide from when the supernatural or god cards are not played.

I believe that humanity needs to wholly embrace ethics with physical origins. All religions have changed over time while most have internal conflicts.  Even the gods change over time, including the judeo christian ones (plural intended).  Additionally, the morals written down are those held by the authors at the time of the writings.  Regardless of what religionists claim, the morals in the texts of religions are based on people’s perceptions and information, often full of bias and inaccuracies.  As new information needs new ethics and understanding of behaviors becomes better, the ancient morals can’t keep up.  But physically based ethics can grow with modern understanding of things.  Physical ethics can use new knowledge to remove the harmful ethics and add new ones as needed.

So, how am I doing with regards to ethics.  In a way, I can be compared to how our societies are transitioning from supernatural authority to physical reality for ethics.  I was once a devout Christian.  I read the Bible from beginning to end 3 times by the time I was 17 years old.  But experiences in my late teens challenged my beliefs.  I struggled with attempts to believe in a god, the soul and so on for some time.  But I eventually realized that the only constant is the physical.  So I reoriented my perspective to a purely physical one.  Since my morality was so closely associated with the religion of my youth, I made some ethical mistakes.  The process is not complete.  But I strive to be a fully ethical person based on the physical model.  My biggest shortfall is in the personal category.  The personal ethics include balanced exercise and a healthy diet.  I’m still working on those things.

-----------------------------------------------

Although I will be discussing ethical categories, ethics in 1 category affect other categories.  For instance, how we treat ourselves can affect chemical states in the brain.  This, in turn, can affect our emotions which can then affect our social ethics.  Personal knowledge can also affect social ethics.  A lack of understanding as to why we react in certain ways can lead to behavioral patterns which negatively impact our social ethics.

PERSONAL ETHICS

How we treat ourselves

Three key ethics in this category are fitness, diet and self awareness.  Of these 3, I want to primarily discuss personal awareness.  Self awareness affects the fitness, diet and other personal ethics.  For example, I didn’t notice how much I was getting out of shape.  But self awareness affects the other ethical categories.  I can contrast 2 people who illustrate this.  One guy was quick to anger.  When people would point out that his anger seemed out of proportion, he would get angrier.  While I knew him, he never realized how his anger issues were due to something in him.  He believed that it was always the stupidity of others which sparked his anger.  Another guy had similar anger issues.  He said that he once tended to be angry all the time.  But he realized that his anger was not proportional to the stuff which angered him.  He sought psychological and medical help.  It was eventually found that there was a neurological cause to his rages which could be addressed with medication.  These are examples of how self awareness affects social ethics.  But self awareness is also socially useful for general purposes.  Being aware of the nature of our reactions helps us understand that our reactions may not match the stuff being reacted to.  For instance, some people tend to have more negative reactions to things which are different.  But an adequately self aware person will look at the differences independent of his or her reactions.  Good fitness and diet can have effects beyond the personal as well.  Fitness and diet can affect mood,  which then affects how others are treated.

SOCIAL ETHICS
How we treat others and their stuff

A physical starting point supports a more socially progressive approach to ethics.  We can examine differences based on their real effects on people.  Certain standards remain, such as avoidance of theft and violence.  But we can appreciate diversity more from a physical perspective.  We can distinguish between real harm from imaginary harm.  Our social ethics evolve as our understanding does.  And we do endeavor to understand.  We don’t assume that ancient restrictions  are valid just because they are still taught.  We don’t assume that our initial reactions are necessarily correct.  We emphasize empathy.  We look at our impact on others.  As a community of people, we sometimes have to alter what we want if it negatively impacts others.  But we don’t restrict other people’s wants if they have no negative impact.  

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

What we put into the air and water has consequences.  Those consequences require new ethics which we have been ill prepared to deal with.  It’s rather enlightening to read about environmental history.  Human difficulties with modifying behavior to ensure a healthy environment have existed since before written history.  But the environmental degradation was more localized than current times.  Since earth is a mostly closed system, the impacts are accumulating.  We’ve made corrections but we continue to make excuses for not being cleaner.  It doesn’t seem to matter that people’s health and lives are impacted.  Environmental ethics take a back seat to economics and convenience.  My physical perspective shows me that I need to do better at a personal level.  But the responsibility for keeping Earth a healthy place requires changes by all peoples, companies and countries.  We can rebuild a healthy environment.  We have the technology and knowledge. We have the capability to create environments which are better for the current and future generations.  But it requires more use of our cognitive abilities and more intellectual honesty.

COGNITIVE ETHICS

I believe that there are also cognitive ethics which affect all the rest.  This may seem obvious to some people.  But I believe that how we process information and understand things are factors which are hugely neglected.  I am an example.  I was raised in an environment which was rather intellectually stunted.  Religion was a factor in this.  But it went beyond that.  There were a lot of topics which I was misinformed about.  The adults did not intentionally deceive me.  They believed the things which they passed on.  And I was taught to take too much stuff at face value.  But there was also the “gut” mentality.  You’ve probably heard it.  “Go with your gut feelings”.  “First impressions are often right”.  And so on.  But I came to realize that misinformation breeds misinformation.  And there is no such thing as first impressions.  How we judge things are often based on a combination of past experiences, what we are taught and neurological factors.  I had kind of a personal cognitive revolution.  I learned to look a bit more thoroughly at things.  My opinions changed as I learned, as did my behaviors.  I am still working on these things.  But that is part of the point.  I acknowledge that my information is imperfect and my judgements may be flawed.  I, for one, am still endeavoring to do better, to be better, to ask questions and learn… to evolve.

I read some interesting points regarding intellectual honesty which fit my discoveries.

• One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assembled
• Be willing to acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases
• Be willing to acknowledge where your information is weak
• Be willing to acknowledge when you are wrong
• Be willing to realize when your opinions are colored by emotion
• Issues go beyond the individuals who are discussing them
• Be careful how you fill in the gaps
• Commit to critical thinking
• Be willing to look at ideas contrary to your own but be fact based