Serialised book (with a progressively updated >>dashboard/ToC<< page). Part II: Philosophy of the Life Instinct

Book: Philosophy of Life Instinct: Chapter 23: Morality

Personal social values

Morality is our internal system of values and principles on what is right and wrong for social interaction. Moral beliefs affect several aspects of life, including behaviour, sexual conduct, food, and faith. We can have a moral stance on anything to do with other living beings, so its ambit is vast.

Our exploration needs to differentiate morality from ethics. We will understand the reason when we consider the origins and necessity of each. But, in short, we will take Ethics to be about externally imposed rules or guidelines on how to behave with others and society for the greater good. It is a framework we create with others. Our views on ethical matters are usually public. Ethics is limited in its scope to actions, especially those with a broad or severe impact. It is a subset of morality that creates and shapes it. We will study ethics in Chapter 24. We will take morality to be our personal internal compass for right and wrong, good and bad.

This chapter will consider the origins and sources of morality, clear moral laws, moral dilemmas and conflicts, morality in action, and the path to moral wisdom.

(Note: Some use the terms morals and ethics oppositely or even interchangeably. We need a framework of clear terms and semantics for our purposes and will adopt the one above.

Note: The law is a subset of ethics that institutionally applies external restrictions on specific social behaviours — individual (e.g., suicide as a crime against oneself, nature or God), social (e.g., stealing as a crime against others), and environmental (e.g., destroying protected forests as a crime against everyone. We will consider Ethics in Chapter 24.)

Origins of morality

As far as we know, the concepts of right and wrong exist only in humans, and perhaps to a small extent in some higher mammals. The differentiating characteristic of humanity is the higher intelligence we have. A crucial part of intelligence is the freedom of choice.

Chapter 6 explored how our Free Will originated from the Life Instinct as a mysterious, powerful, and defining capability in us. The freedom of choice it gives us is both a gift and a burden.

Harnessing the power of freedom needs a rules engine in the brain for making decisions. The brain follows this method to decide and act:

Information →analysis →pattern detection →rule →decision →action.

The rule step has the form: ‘If this, do that, else if another, do something else, and so on’. The rule is the key, but where does it come from? To understand this, we can recall our exploration of Chapter 9 on how our brain and peripheral nervous system perform autonomous and aware actions. Let’s recap.

• Autonomous actions are the basic actions and reactions required for our survival, growth, and reproduction. They exist in all life forms, and our physical needs give rise to them. For example, we must sweat when it is hot, eat when hungry, etc.
• Aware actions involve conscious thinking, and we use them for more advanced activities, especially those we have deliberately developed. Examples are religion, marriage and family, learning and education, work (including farming and industry), sports and games, government, and art. These developments immensely multiplied our physical powers. All of them are social and involve cooperation between humans. They give rise to communities, from families to nations.

(Given we have survived and done well, we can take it that the engine is essentially rational, with a consistent and predictable method of meeting our aims of survival, well-being, and reproductive success. Moreover, the outcomes are usually compatible with these goals. Still, the technique is often flawed in action and effect due to variations in our intelligence and inability to consider the big picture and broader side effects.)

Within the sphere of aware actions, two types of situations exist in our lives :

• Those where no other living thing is involved are easier for us as we work with ourselves and the inanimate world we feel free to use and exploit as we like (unless we overdo it and make it the second situation below). E.g., we need to enter a dark cave and work up the courage to do it. We need stones and smash a boulder to make some. We store some food for eating later.
• Those where other living things are involved have greater complexity as we deal with life, and it is precious to the other person, us, and the animal or plant involved. The relationship between us is also crucial, and we have to consider it.

The second situation is where morality comes in. Let us look at it more closely.

Fear or desire of some form drives all our activities. We are also social creatures and have worries and wants concerning others. They come from several emotional states that we experience and predict.

• Social fear underlying morality has roots in our need to avoid rejection, abandonment, loneliness, guilt, disrespect, etc.
• Social desire underlying morality comes from the need for love, empathy, sympathy, interest, attraction, companionship, care, sharing, support, etc.

At the same time, whether on our own or through others, we develop these four types of knowledge:

1. Knowing ourselves and what we need and want, e.g., food, money, shelter, commodities, healthcare, spouse, children, friends, etc.

2. Knowing other life forms or imagining their states, needs and wants. Our empathy and imagination tell us that other humans must feel pain, fear, interest, greed, etc., just like us. We extend this to animals in proportion to their genetic closeness to us.

3. Knowing our interdependencies with other living things. E.g., we need others for their physical strength, skill, knowledge, money, tools, company, support, etc. And that others are dependent on us too.

4. Knowing the social impact of our actions. E.g., if we don’t give back a borrowed tool, the lender will get upset, and we may not get it again.

The experience of our needs combines in our mind with the above knowledge (whether explicit or dim) to create moral positions that overcome our fears and meet our desires.

In effect, morality is a mechanism of survival through social cooperation.

Sources of moral values

How do mature moral rules get crystallised in our minds for reliable social beliefs, thoughts, and actions? Here are a few key sources.

1. Self-driven morality

We can form moral directives for ourselves, and many of us do so. If we manage to base them on fundamental and undeniable facts about ourselves, society, and the world, they can be as good for the species as those received from other sources. But, of course, not all of us are free to create our morals or give ourselves the freedom to do so. Yet others are satisfied to follow what they are told. But the more we think for ourselves, the more likely we are to converge in our beliefs about right and wrong, for we all have the same social desires and fears.

2. Religious morality

Religious systems have been a source of moral guidelines for thousands of years. Morals and ethics have been one of the two main reasons for the existence of religion, the other being spiritual comfort. The Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Gita, Tripitaka, Guru Granth Sahib and other religious texts are repositories of moral thought for their respective religions. We can say religious leaders such as Krishna, Moses, Jesus, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Mohammed, Buddha, Mahavira and Guru Nanak (and those who contributed to their teachings) were moralists and ethicists. Many of the books and teachings make eminent sense from the context of the Life Instinct and our philosophical exploration of morality here. Each also has limitations formed in a different era long ago with particular social conditions, challenges, community sizes, and limited geographical and ecological scope. (We explored Religion in Chapter 11.) Nonetheless, they still provide practical guidance for billions of people worldwide and deliver considerable moral wisdom for humanity.

3. Leaders of moral thinking

There have been several philosophers, writers and secular leaders who have given deep thought to moral issues. They have played a significant part in shaping personal and public attitudes and beliefs about right and wrong in our behaviour and interactions. Some notable examples are Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Rousseau, Karl Marx, Kierkegaard, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, et al.

Most people will not know the precise views of these leaders of moral philosophy. Still, the ideas of these deep thinkers have influenced political and religious leaders, framers of constitutions and judges worldwide and affect our daily life in many ways. They have become part of our collective human consciousness, beliefs and attitudes.

4. Community morality

Communities have formed throughout human history based on having something in common or being part of a dependent network. Some of the communities that have developed and their influence on moral beliefs are briefly listed below.

• Primary food source (E.g., farming, fishing, whaling, hunting, etc. Their needs shape their moral beliefs, especially concerning nature and animals.)
• Settlements (E.g., village, town, city, state, country, etc. Their residents develop common beliefs of good and evil.)
• Religion and caste (We know how much this shapes moral thinking.)
• Race (The historical experiences of different races creates differences in their concepts of right and wrong.)
• Social strata (E.g., rulers, wealthy, middle class, poor, etc., show moral variations from their need to either maintain their position or achieve social mobility.)
• Education (Level achieved and subject, e.g., high school, college, or PhD and science, engineering, medicine, art, trade, etc. It affects the depth of thinking about right and wrong.)
• Profession (E.g., business, teaching, labour, law, sales, etc. Their value systems are shaped by the imperatives of the job.)
• Governance systems (E.g., democracy, theocracy, communism, dictatorship, oligarchy, etc.) have a significant bearing on people’s freedom of thought and concepts of right and wrong.)
• Sports (E.g., football, tennis, ice hockey, cricket, etc. The nature and history of the sport creates differences in moral attitudes.)
• Marriage (Value systems vary from one unit family or extended family to another.)

These are all small and large forms of social groupings. Inevitably, they shape our morals to serve their needs and belong to them. Beliefs and value systems vary subtly or significantly between them. E.g., what is morally acceptable can be different between a salesman and a teacher or an ice-hockey player and a cricketer.

5. Genetic and socio-cultural morality

The combination of our genetic make-up and the milieu in which we grow up (which we can call the socio-cultural context) shape our morals intimately. Here are a few such combinations of what we are and our formative environment that lead to moral differences. (Please see the bibliography for more studies.)

• Gender — There are differences in some situations between the moral stances of men and women. It is directly due to genetic differences and indirectly due to socio-cultural mores that shape our sense of identity as men and women. For example, men tend to care more about social order and rights hierarchies, and women about interpersonal care, connections, sensitivity, and responsibility. In competitive situations, men are expected to be more aggressive, control their emotions, and be strategic and calculating in their decisions. Due to this, they may cut moral corners to win at any cost and avoid diminished financial status, the threat to professional rank, and the appearance of weakness. On the other hand, women may make moral compromises for their children's welfare or manage social relationships.
• Sexual preferences — Due mainly to socio-cultural developments, the moral attitudes of heterosexual people differ in certain domains from those of lesbians, gays and bisexuals. The latter naturally emphasise the moral rectitude of equality, privacy and freedom of every sort, including sex and marriage between consenting adults. Also, LGBT people are generally more liberal and eco-friendly, possibly due to greater empathy with other oppressed life forms, whether animals or plants. But in other areas, they are aligned with straight people, e.g., about fidelity, honesty, loyalty, etc.
• Strength and intelligence — Those who are physically, economically or intellectually strong are likely to take moral stances that propagate why might is right and why the survival of the fittest is the best outcome for everyone. So it takes unifying the weaker members of the species, the empathy of the strong, and everyone’s realisation of the ultimate pointlessness of life to dissipate attitudes of entitlement.

Clear moral beliefs

Given the disparate sources of morality, there are bound to be variations among us. But given our common and defining Life Instinct and genetic uniformity, the differences are bound to be small. It is what we see on the whole across the world.

We still have many problems and imperfections as a species. But if immoral behaviour were rampant among us, we would not have achieved the social development and success that have led to our numerical strength and power over the world.

(Whether ethical codes and laws align to morals is not the focus of this chapter, but they do in most cases.)

These are the moral rules most humans agree with:

(We note the origin of each in the Life Instinct. Also, we note how each moral has exceptions in our mind, whether covered by law or not.)

1. Killing is wrong

(Reason — because we don’t want to be killed either. Exception —killing in self-defence and killing murderers.)

2. Stealing is wrong

(Reason — because we don’t want our property stolen either. Exception — stealing back what was stolen from us or everyone.)

3. Cheating is wrong

(Reason — because we don’t want to be cheated either. Exception — none.)

4. Adultery is bad

(Reason — because we don’t want to be cheated genetically either. Exception —none.)

5. Lying is bad

(Reason — because we don’t want to be lied to. Exception — lying for a selfless cause.)

6. Keeping our promises is good

(Reason — because we want to be trusted and belong. Exception — none.)

7. Helping others is good

(Reason — because we may need help too or goodwill for something else. Exception —helping bad people.)

8. Forgiving is good

(Reason — because we may also make mistakes and want to be forgiven. Exception —forgiving heinous behaviour.)

9. Loyalty and bravery for the group are good

(Reason — because we want to belong and get support and protection in return. Exception — loyalty for an evil person or group.)

10. Fairness is good

(Reason — because we want fairness in return. Exception — none.)

11. Returning favours is good

(Reason — because we want to be respected and belong. Exception — none.)

12. Respecting our parents and elders is good

(Reason — because we also want to be respected by our children and when we are old. Exception — when the parents or elderly are not good.)

Moral dilemmas

There are some questions of right and wrong that have not been easy for us to answer. These are situations in which there are two alternative courses of action, or we can do nothing, and all choices have bad outcomes. Selecting any of them will leave us feeling guilty.

Let’s have a brief look at the most troublesome examples. Then, we will consider a way to resolve some of these dilemmas for ourselves in the final section of this chapter on steps to moral wisdom.

(There are also self-imposed moral conflicts of the type: Is it morally right for me to change my moral position? Is it morally right to use my influence to change someone’s beliefs? The extended consideration of moral dilemmas is beyond the scope of this book, but the interested reader has some starting points in the bibliography.)

Do the ends justify the means?

This question has long troubled people. We will cut down the vast scope of this question by discarding bad ends from consideration. By ‘bad’, we mean ends that are selfish or wicked. E.g., cheating to pass an examination. We will also ignore good means, e.g., being charitable to get elected to a post.

The problem then becomes, “Do good ends justify bad means?”. For example, should we lie to make the last days of a terminally sick person happier? Let’s see a few more examples: Publishing a list of sex offenders and taking away their privacy for the sake of the public good, having the death penalty as a deterrent for the most heinous crimes, etc. From the perspective of the Life Instinct, there is no dilemma, and the answer is an emphatic yes, at this point in our evolution.

Is life more important than freedom?

Is it okay to sacrifice some fundamental freedoms, such as that of free speech, expression, political representation, etc., for the sake of material well-being? It must be a question that often occurs to the citizens of wealthy non-democratic countries. If they accept it, they sacrifice much of their individuality and potential. If they fight it, they may be imprisoned or lose their lives. If they do nothing, they betray themselves and society. From the viewpoint of the Life Instinct, the answer is “Stay alive so you can make a change. Be smart and work on achieving the goal with others. Being a dead idealist does not help propagate your genes the species.”

Is equality more important than material success?

Should we share everything we have and become egalitarian, or should we let those more ambitious and capable have more? It has been a central moral and social question for many centuries now. Sociologists, economists and religious leaders have considered it. Ideas of charity, humility, socialism, communism and so on are answers affirming the idea of equality being more important than success. But we know that people and the world are unequal, and there seems to be no easy or natural way to achieve equality. Why is this so, and is inequality morally wrong?

We, humans, do not instinctively think first about equality. It is natural as the selfish aims of the Life Instinct drive us. We need to survive and do well first ourselves and reproduce to keep our genes going. But because we are a species dependent on others besides our immediate family, we need the concept of equality. We know cooperation does not work well or for long in unequal relationships.

The answer is to balance our strong instinct for selfishness with some form of social equality. A stable state of this equilibrium can come by aiming for core equalities while accepting non-core inequalities. What this means is, although two people or groups can be unequal in strength, intelligence, knowledge, wealth, and power, they should be equal in the essential things: fundamental freedoms, the primary conditions for a healthy life, and reproductive freedom.

We can call this More Life Instinct Equality. As long as we have it, we can match anyone in anything we want and produce genetic descendants who can also realise the full potential of the lineage and be whatever they want. So it meets the essential aim of the Life Instinct.

Save the known one or the unknown many?

If the choice we face is to save a known person or a mass of unknown people in a life-threatening situation, the former becomes our priority as it appeals directly to our Life Instinct. The drive kicks in first to protect those closest to us, genetically or socially. Why is this right? It is because evolution needs to operate in this way for the survival of the fittest. If all individuals first ensure the survival and well-being of those genetically or socially closest to them, the overall aims of the Life Instinct are met best. The only exceptions are role-based responsibilities, e.g., a lifeguard, fire-fighter, captain, head of government, etc. These people swear an ethical oath that puts the public good higher than their family and friends in such a situation.

Abortion

Having a baby is a deeply personal matter for a woman. The next most affected is the father. Society comes a distant third. If the woman wants or needs to abort the baby, why is the decision not hers alone, with only the obligation to take the father’s needs and wants into account? Society intervenes because the Life Instinct makes us think of the fetus as a living person with the right to live. And we want to preserve all life, especially that of our progeny, as they carry on the species. It is a profoundly ingrained drive of the Life Instinct.

Whether we think of this personally or go by the pro-life teachings of our religions, we don’t want the unborn baby to die. In almost all cases, neither does the mother, as that is genetically and biologically not in her constitution. But there are exceptions where the mother is okay or actively wants to abort. And our intelligence and wisdom lie in how we treat exceptions.

When her health is at risk, the species is okay with the abortion as the mother can bear more children, which is in line with the aims of life. But where the mother is not at risk and wants to abort, there is a conflict between the mother’s right to happiness and peace versus the unborn baby's rights. (There is also the undeniable fact that men's moral and ethical views have been dominant in this as in other areas, which is morally questionable in itself.)

From the perspective of the Life Instinct, there is an overpopulation of the Earth by humans. Nor do we lack genetic variety. So it is only good for us, the environment and all plants and animals on the planet if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy. She should be free to do so for any reason until the foetus is 24 weeks old. Even if the population ever became low or too uniform, the right should remain as human life is not precious from an absolute perspective, and we need not preserve it.

Most women (about 59% as of 2020) of childbearing age live in countries that allow abortion based on broad personal, social or economic grounds. About 36% live in countries that allow abortion if the health or life of the mother is at risk. The balance 5% are in countries that do not allow abortion under any circumstances. Given these numbers, humanity appears to have mostly resolved this dilemma by favouring the mother’s right to decide.

Animal rights

Are the rights of humans more important than the rights of other living things, including animals? If we answer yes, we are taking a species-centric view of morality. Then we would hardly have a reason to complain if a more advanced alien species ate us for food or farmed us for materials. Neither should we consider mosquitos, viruses, rats or man-eating tigers as evil, for they are doing just what we would do with this concept of morality — survive at the expense of other species. So the question becomes one about food chains and the application of intelligence.

Long ago, we were part of natural food chains. But we got out of them using our advancing intelligence. Now we stand outside them, and all living things and their bodies are valuable as food, medicine or entertainment for us, or pests to be eradicated or kept down. Unfortunately, when we treat them as vermin, we often don’t consider their position in existing natural food chains and decimate other species along with them.

So are we doing the right thing in treating other living things as open to our exploitation? There are enough of us asking this question worldwide that it becomes essential, even more so for the animals and plants.

The viewpoint of the Life Instinct is that humanity is intelligent, different and robust enough that it needs to take responsibility not only for itself but all forms of life within its power. (We will elaborate on this in the last section on steps to moral wisdom.) It is not okay for us to not have empathy for other life forms. In this view, we need to accord animals and plants rights and look diligently for different ways to meet our needs.

Death Penalty

What if we get the case wrong and sentence and execute an innocent person? Should we tolerate a few such mistakes for the sake of the deterrent effect of the death penalty? Does the fear of being sentenced to death prevent enough crimes to justify it on the whole for the species? From the viewpoint of the Life Instinct, the answer is yes. Therefore, the death penalty should apply, but only for the worst crimes and the most open and shut cases, e.g., voluntary confession, incontrovertible video evidence, etc.

Suicide

Suicide can come about due to mental health issues or as a considered decision. If suicide fails, society needs to help the person recover the urge to live. If it succeeds, it is macabre to consider it a crime. (Assuming someone has not been driven to suicide, which is morally and ethically wrong, and a crime by someone else.)

A detached view of life and the Life Instinct makes us realise that life is a chance happening and has no real value or meaning. Given this reality, if a person wants to terminate their life, they have every right to do so. Of course, there could be sadness and material loss for the family, friends and society, but these reasons do not take away the rights of humans or any other life form to decide to live or not.

Moral conflicts

Conflicts are situations where we have a clear position on what is right or wrong, but external factors oppose our views.

Not only is our mind complex, so is our society. We feel not only a duty to ourselves but also others. In addition, we belong to several communities at once and are subject to ethical codes and laws. Given these multiple internal and external forces, there is often confusion and conflict about whether we should stick to our moral beliefs or change them. Here are a few situations where we face this challenge.

In marriage

When we have differences in moral outlook with our spouse, should we follow our thinking, align with the spouse, go by our parental family’s values or debate it out with our spouse until we convince each other or agree to disagree? Should we take a different approach to each moral question? Can a general rule be formulated to categorise the issues into different types with set treatments? E.g., can we say that the Twelve Simple Morals of the earlier section are non-negotiable, other than for exceptional situations? Other than that, should we go as per the fundamental genetic competency of women and men? Can we say that what the wife feels should carry more weight in childcare and interaction with neighbours? Should the husband’s views prevail in matters to do with money and the outside world? Are these sexist or respectful and best use of actual differences?

At work

There are myriad ways our work, profession or sports conflict in their practices and rules with our values. Our religion may require us to wear a beard and turban, and our job may prohibit it. Our personal belief may be that lying is wrong, but our sales job may force us to bend the truth about a competitor or product. We may believe in equality, but affirmative action may favour a minority person with lower skills. We may believe in the strictly military use of armed forces, but our platoon may oppress civilians. What should we do?

In education

We may be taught a version of history that we believe is a lie. The sports coach may teach us tricks for winning, which we feel border on cheating. Science research may include genetic manipulation, which we think is abominable. Religious studies may consist of what we consider bigotry. What can almost powerless students do in such situations?

In the community

One can belong to more than one community, with smaller communities being part of larger communities. Sometimes their defining beliefs can pose a severe challenge for us. For example, we may be part of a religion and caste and adhere to its religious morals while living in a mixed neighbourhood with friends who think differently while simultaneously belonging to a scientific community that considers religious views ridiculous. What should we abide by? Should we change?

The Law

As we will see in Chapter 24 on Ethics, we cannot live purely by our personal moral beliefs. But neither can laws and ethics cannot cover all moral beliefs.

Law and codes of ethics may not cover even strong moral beliefs. E.g., we may believe in the rightness of affirmative action or euthanasia, etc., but there may be no laws that enforce our views.

The opposite happens too, and laws can be against our moral beliefs. E.g., we may believe capital punishment is wrong, marijuana use is acceptable, etc., but the law can be against them.

In many countries, we can get together with other like-minded people and groups and change the law, either through the political process or the supreme court. For example, Roe vs Wade gave women the right to abortion in the USA; Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India decriminalised sexual relations between the same sex, Donoghue vs Stevenson in the UK established duty of care, etc. So what is our responsibility for activism for ourselves and society?

Morality in action

Along with our emotions and intelligence, our private moral rules can bring about social change.

Good

Our internal beliefs in the goodness of empathy, kindness, loyalty, sharing, and caring lead such activities as below:

• Charity
• Social service
• Activism for equality, freedom, and peace
• Change in food habits towards veganism and vegetarianism
• Activism for the environment
• Campaigning against capital punishment
• Campaigning for LGBTQ+ rights

Bad

Our internal beliefs in the goodness and rightness of our race, religion, caste, nation, power, success, popularity, gender, sexual orientation, culture, family, etc., result in such activities as the ones below.

• Pogroms (an organised massacre of a particular ethnic group)
• Lynchings (spontaneous killing of a presumed moral offender by a mob, without trial)
• Crusades and jihads (holy wars with religious aims)
• Ethnic cleansing (systematic removal of a group of people, based on their ethnicity, race or religion, to make a region homogeneous)
• Genocide (systematic killing of a group of people, based on their ethnicity, race or religion)
• Discrimination (the differential treatment of individuals or groups based on generalised traits)
• Vendetta (a blood feud or prolonged series of vengeful, retaliatory or hostile acts, often as an exchange of such actions between two groups)

A path to moral wisdom

Humanity has become quite well off by now, the first quarter of the 21st century. Nutrition, health, and a peaceful social life have reached most of the several billion people on the planet.

We question our need to discriminate against others when we see no particular survivalist need for it. Moral behaviour has increased because it is better for the species. The same applies to our growing concern for other animals and the ecology of the planet. Humans everywhere are showing significant convergence of fundamental ideas about right and wrong. As our value systems have become more uniform and united, so have our ethical and legal systems.

But laws will never cover the myriad shades of morality in our minds and all the variations they undergo with the situations of life and society. Moreover, we are also imperfect creatures and easily misguide ourselves or let ourselves be led astray. For these reasons, we will always have the responsibility to think better.

The quantity of our morality is not the problem; it is its quality that is the issue.

Are there any final and definitive guideposts to moral truth?

Ultimate morals

Let us assume we are good and morally enlightened. In most situations, we know what is right. But how do we resolve the moral dilemmas and conflicts we saw in the sections above? These are complex problems with no clear answers. However, if we can work out a general framework of morals, it will help us tremendously.

Let us see how we can address the problems of morality in the most holistic and futuristic manner. We can see from our history the profound and long-lasting negative impact we have had on ourselves and the planet. We cannot have it both ways — claim we are superior and have special rights over others and the world while shirking the responsibility for their well-being. A great power that is uncaring is hollow. A great power that harms others is evil.

Due to the Life Instinct, we have an innate affinity for people and animals similar to us. We are uncomfortable with differences in looks, thoughts, and behaviour. It manifests as bigotry and discrimination of various sorts. But in recent centuries, we have developed the intelligence to understand how the Life Instinct is also served broadly by variety. Most people don’t express it exactly like this, nor are they conscious of this facility. But it is reflected in the worldwide movements against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc. The roots of this moral progress lie in our advances of thought. We are free to take this to its logical conclusion in opinion while practice catches up with it. Taking this view, we need to include two aspects of inclusivity in our wise moral thinking.

• Morality inclusive of human differences — We still have many prejudices that restrict our moral value systems. For a single universal morality to develop, one of the essential aspects, difference, and how we deal with it, has to change a lot more than it has. We need to think and feel differences are beneficial and should be exploited, enjoyed and maintained.
• Morality inclusive of nature and all living things — We cannot restrict our moral thinking and its application to self-aware life forms, namely us humans. It wouldn’t make sense for three reasons — 1. There is no basis for such an assumption 2. Other life forms may also be conscious of their separateness from the world and existence 3. It is self-defeating to alter too much the natural ecosystem in which we have evolved. It includes all the plants, animals and ecological systems of the planet. We cannot live in blithe ignorance, buying packed meat from stores and experimenting on animals for our benefit. Nor can we give people a choice to go ‘back to nature’ and be part of the food chain again so they can fish, hunt, etc., and be hunted too. Humans have become too advanced for that to work. We have forever become incapable of being wild. We can think of it as a curse, but we can turn it into something bearable, or even a blessing, through broader benevolence and responsibility.

With great power comes great responsibility for the well being of everything within its control. It becomes our highest moral starting point. We can state it as:

As the most powerful species we know, humanity must take responsibility for the well-being of all other living and non-living things on Earth and other spatial bodies within its power.

‘Different but equal’ should be our mantra between men and women, black, Asian or Caucasian, straight, gay or lesbian, humans, animals or birds, and all the glorious varieties of life.

We come to the following framework of definitive moral guideposts from this and our consideration of moral dilemmas and conflicts.

Three Ultimate Morals

1. Humanity is responsible for the equal and inclusive well-being of all living and non-living things within its power anywhere.
2. Good ends justify the means.
3. When faced with ‘one vs many’ dilemmas, it is correct for us to prioritise those genetically and socially closer to us.

Five steps to moral wisdom

Bringing it all together, we can use the twelve simple morals we saw in the third section and the three ultimate morals in the following five-step approach for reaching the wisest moral positions and resolving any moral dilemma or conflict.

1. Develop self-actualisation and emotional wisdom
2. Gain deep and wide knowledge about others and the world
3. Apply the Twelve Simple Morals for straightforward moral situations
4. Apply the Three Ultimate Morals for moral dilemmas and conflicts
5. Be open and ready to improve

Let’s consider each step.

1. Develop self-actualisation and emotional wisdom

Without understanding ourselves and realising our full potential, our moral thinking and beliefs will be limited in more straightforward situations and unreliable in challenging ones. Self-actualisation is the term used for the process by which we reach our best selves. If we are self-actualized, we possess nine attributes: 1. We accept ourselves and others 2. We are realistic 3. We have a strong sense of morals and responsibility 4. We are autonomous 5. We enjoy solitude and privacy 6. We have a thoughtful sense of humour 7. We are spontaneous in doing good things 8. We appreciate the journey, and 9. We have moments of transcendence and flow.

Self-actualisation is focused inwards, but it also contributes to developing our external Emotional Wisdom, which we explored in Chapter 12. Emotional Wisdom allows us to work in the best way possible with our family, friends and networks, through understanding ourselves, others, relationships, perspectives, detachment, empathy, humour and other essential social capabilities.

Finally, if we study the Life Instinct, we understand life, its innate urges and evolution.

Combining self-actualisation, emotional wisdom, and Life Instinct's philosophy creates a solid mental framework to analyse social situations for moral wisdom systematically.

2. Gain deep and wide knowledge about others and the world

Ignorance is bliss until we need to interact with others, then it becomes a danger for ourselves and everyone. If we don’t know what others feel and think, their needs and wants, and how much they are like us, we have a scant chance of developing moral wisdom. So, we must read widely and talk to people, especially those different from us, whether minorities or the majority. We should travel as much as possible and be curious about the natural world. Knowledge gives us the familiarity that leads to tolerance, acceptance and finally, inclusivity.

3. Apply the Twelve Simple Morals for straightforward moral situations

Once we have self-actualized, gained a deep and comprehensive understanding of others and adopted inclusivity for all humans and life, it is relatively easy to apply the Twelve Simple Moral Rules to guide us in most situations.

4. Apply the Three Ultimate Morals for dilemmas and conflicts

When there are dilemmas of right and wrong and conflicts between us and our circumstances, the Three Ultimate Morals can break the deadlock. We saw examples of this in the earlier section on dilemmas. For example, take the situation of a son whose father is killed in war and has a very sick mother. He wants to enlist and fight to destroy the enemy. But he also wants to take care of his mother. What should he do? From the third of the Three Ultimate Morals, he can choose to look after his mother as the ‘least bad’ moral choice. The reader can revisit more examples in the dilemmas section to see how we applied the ultimate morals.

5. Be open and ready to improve

We are still evolving, and as long as we remain a natural form of life, we will continue to do so. But, hopefully, we are also improving, and our thinking, morals and philosophy will keep getting better. Being a part of this is crucial for our moral wisdom.

Conclusions

We frequently agonise over the right and good thing to do. It is difficult to always overcome our instinctive self-centredness and selfishness for the greater good. But we can succeed if we are interested and determined.

When we advance our thinking to a higher and more inclusive approach to right and wrong, we create far-reaching waves of goodness. It is the greatest thing we can achieve, for our moral beliefs affect everything about us, humanity, and all other life on this ark.

© 2020 Shashidhar Sastry. All rights reserved.

(As each chapter of the book is published, its link is updated in the ToC below.)

Table of Contents

Part I Metaphysics of The Life Instinct

Part II Philosophy of The Life Instinct

Part III The Life Instinct and The Future

Join my email list? — it’s easy to unsubscribe if you change your mind.

There’s more for you at quality-thinking.com.