Should we be moral? (E11)

And if yes, then how and why?

“In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces judicial decisions.” —Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

This is the eleventh in a series of related but self-contained essays. I’ll begin with E11’s conclusion:

Yes, “I” should always be moral. How? By intending to treat others the way “I” would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot. Why? Because everyone suffers when civilization is struggling to survive, and everyone benefits when it is thriving.

What are the definitions of moral and immoral intent?

Question: Who treats others the way “I” would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot?

Answer: Virtually everyone.

Moral intent is the intent to treat others the way “I” would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot even when it is inconvenient.

Immoral intent is the intent to treat others the way “I” would want to be treated if the shoe was on the other foot when it is convenient.

The third option is that there is no third option. Allow me to explain.

Nobody’s perfect, so it can—and occasionally will—take a significant number of iterations, but when the two interests facing a conflict of interest respond with moral intent, they serve the common interest by resolving the conflict.

With two exceptions, the future is unknown and unknowable. One exception is that it is highly predictable that human enlightenment and human tragedy are at the end of a long chain of actions that are informed and triggered by respectively moral and immoral intent. The only other exception is hindsight.

The future is otherwise unknown and unknowable because we are subjects of a complex adaptive social system in which seemingly insignificant short-term outcomes have long-term consequences that are cumulative and immense.

How does civilization’s survival and success depend on moral intent?

Keep eroding its “bedrock” foundation and a Manhattan skyscraper eventually collapses. Keep eroding its “public sentiment” foundation and civilization eventually collapses. Moral intent molds—and immoral intent erodes—public sentiment.

Moral intent has a cloud with a silver lining. The cloud is that good outcomes are never guaranteed. The silver lining is that the combination of moral intent and unnecessary suffering reveals a knowledge gap. Reveal the gap and knowledge expands.

Immoral intent’s long-term silver lining is knowing why to always act with moral intent.

Because no one knows everything, “ignorance” is neutral, “ignorance constrained by moral intent” is good, and “unconstrained ignorance” is immoral.

What is a moral tradition?

Moral traditions began to emerge roughly 100 generations (25 centuries) ago, and they have continued to emerge at different times in different contexts because:

· An agreement to be tolerant of moral intent and intolerant of immoral intent is documented,

· No matter how much is known about acting with moral intent, there is more to learn,

· The more we learn, the harder it is to keep track of the knowledge, and

· Learning couldn’t be documented until writing was invented.

Different traditions use different words and phrases to express and define the “moral intent” concept.

There are many moral traditions including all the world’s great religions, democracy, science, etc.

The original definition of moral intent was “documented” when human DNA changed at the origin of our species roughly 12,000 generations ago.

Can a conclusion be falsified?

Although Darwin’s “natural selection” conclusion is obviously different than E11’s conclusion, they have the following in common:

· Valid testing of the conclusion employs established rules and principles,

· An individual test falsifies by default and confirms by exception,

· When repeated testing exclusively confirms, a consensus eventually emerges that the conclusion has been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt,

· Regardless of a conclusion’s “confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt” status, if it has not been “scientifically” confirmed, then there remains a non-zero possibility that it will be falsified by the next test, and

· Testing is iterative (the next test’s design depends on the outcome of the last).

A consensus eventually emerged that Darwin’s conclusion was confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt roughly six generations ago because of two factors. First, repeated test results were exclusively confirming. Second, the results were shared widely. Whether a consensus will eventually emerge that E11’s conclusion is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt in this generation will depend on the same two factors.

To test, or not to test?

My testable conclusion? Test.

Although there are more, one good reason to test should suffice. There is an imminent threat to the survival of civilization, and E11 suggests a way to neutralize the threat.

Although there are more, one example of a bad excuse for not testing should suffice. Testing is inconvenient.

The easier part of testing is observing and describing evidence, and the inconvenient part is using logic to:

· Agree on what evidence is relevant,

· Interpret evidence,

· Draw conclusions, and

· Test logic.

Because the outcome of an individual test is knowable only in hindsight, and because testing is iterative, testing E11’s conclusion is beyond E11’s scope.

If I am a prosecutor with you on the jury, my task is to convince you that the logic in my theory of the case is sound, and your task in the justice system is to identify flaws in my logic. You can complete this task alone, but it is otherwise the same.

The task involves iteratively identifying and addressing apparent logic flaws, but doing so is more than inconvenient. It is hard. And yet, to paraphrase Jimmy Duggan, the Tom Hanks character in “A League of Their Own” (1992 movie), it’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard, every species would do it. The “hard” is what makes it great.

If the logic supporting E11’s conclusion is to be tested, then it needs to be shared. This essay’s question-and-answer format is how I’m sharing the logic.

If it appears as if I’ve failed to fulfill the implied promise to connect the dots, or if you have any questions/comments/suggestions, post a comment.

What explains the size of the human brain?

Robin Dunbar, the British biological anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist, concluded that primate brain size is directly proportional to the size of an animal’s social system. If the conclusion is correct, then when the number of individuals in a species’ system is fifty percent larger than the number of individuals in an ancestral system, the size of the individual’s brain is fifty percent larger than the ancestral brain.

Dunbar’s conclusion has been repeatedly tested using established rules and principles. Although there remains a non-zero possibility that the conclusion will be falsified by the next test, repeated tests were exclusively confirming until a consensus eventually emerged that Dunbar’s conclusion was confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, “Dunbar’s number” is the widely accepted idea that the natural size of the human social system is 150 individuals.

Can the number of human social systems be counted?

Evidence of the first agricultural settlements emerged at the dawn of the Neolithic Period. In the Paleolithic Period there is only evidence of hunter-gatherer bands.

Dunbar implies that, in a Paleolithic human system, bigger is better until “bigger” is more than 150 individuals. As the system continues to grow, increasing instability eventually causes one unstable system to divide into two stable systems. If we then assume that it increased until an unstable system with 200 individuals on average divided into two stable systems, then the average Paleolithic hunter-gatherer band had 150 individuals.

Based on one estimate, the human population was five million at the dawn of the Neolithic Period. If we add that to the “150 individuals per system” assumption, then when the global human population hit 4.5 million, there were 30,000 systems. The number is not precise and is instead intended to be accurate enough for discussion purposes.

What is the defining characteristic of a social system?

If an individual animal is not an independent “life” system, then the individual is a subject of a “social” system. Either way, the “system” has two defining characteristics. It is:

· Comprised of interdependent subsystems, and

· Independent of other systems.

We don’t generally refer to a social system’s subsystems. Instead, humans are “subjects” of a common social system.

There is precisely one factor determining whether an individual animal is a separate life system or a subject of a social system, and that factor is the individual’s genetically inherited and species-specific social instinct.

So, the system is behaving like a separate life system because instinct is telling an individual animal to behave like a subject of a social system or like a separate life system. And in Darwin’s words, “The very essence of instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.”

In a prehistoric context lasting thousands of generations, an individual Homo sapiens was exclusively a subject of a hunter-gatherer band, and a band was socially and economically autonomous in relation to neighboring bands.

How do social systems respond to change?

A life system responds to change in one of two ways. If the system thrives, then we say that the response was adaptive, and if the system struggles or fails to survive, then we say that the response was maladaptive. Thus, a healthy system will continue to thrive until maladaptive responses diminish its health, and then the unhealthy system will struggle to survive until it either fails, or until adaptive responses restore its health.

How has the human system responded to change?

In nature, “genetic” adaptations are produced by biological evolution. In nurture, “cultural” adaptations are learned by using moral intent to reveal—and then logic to close—the “intent versus unnecessary suffering” gap.

We all inherit our species-specific “moral intent” genetic adaptation. An “adaptive” cultural inheritance is in harmony—and a “maladaptive” cultural inheritance is in discord—with moral intent.

There is a cause-and-effect relationship between the origin of our species and the dawn of the Neolithic Period. The cause was a random genetic adaptation that would have seemed irrelevant with foresight. With hindsight, the effect—that Homo sapiens not only became the sole survivor of the roughly twenty hominin species known to science but had also become Earth’s dominant vertebrate species—was enormous.

A healthy life system survives and thrives until it becomes oversized causing its health to decline, and then, with one exception, the system simply divides into healthy (rightsized) systems. The one exception is our species in a historic context.

When historic human system growth caused the system’s health to decline, one of two things happened. While it appeared as if the system needed to divide in two, the unhealthy system continued to struggle to survive until it either failed, or until adaptive responses restored its health.

Can we count the current number of systems?

Consider two conflicting and testable conclusions. The “null” conclusion is that the current number is irrelevant and/or uncountable. The “explanatory” conclusion is that it is relevant and countable.

If a human system is socially and economically autonomous in its relationship with other human systems, then within-system individuals are always relevant. Individuals in other systems are irrelevant except as resources or threats.

I suggest the explanatory conclusion is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the Paleolithic Period, but not because 150 individuals per Paleolithic system is precise and instead because it is sufficiently accurate. I further suggest that the explanatory conclusion is confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the current decade.

Is the current human system comprised of roughly eight billion humans?

There are reasons to believe that the answer is either yes or no. However, I’m suggesting that the “no” reasons include identifiable logic flaws that cannot be addressed whereas the “yes” answer is based on sound logic.

Should we count the current number of systems?

We don’t have to count the current number of systems. Survival is optional. We can continue to assume that the number is irrelevant and/or impossible to know while the system struggles to survive until it fails. However, if we instead want civilization to thrive, then we must count the number. Fortunately, that only requires the ability to count to one.

Why must we count the current number of systems?

Benjamin Libet (1916-2007) was an American neuroscientist and a pioneer in the field of human consciousness. Repeated iterations of his famous experiment first conducted in the 1980s invariably suggest that there is roughly 300 ms in the “space” between the stimulus and unconscious intent.

To be more specific, if a stimulus is detected by the senses, and if it also elicits a voluntary behavioral response, then the response is preceded by a cognitive process lasting about one half second. But the experiment’s most important revelation is that the process divides neatly into two phases.

If there is a defining characteristic of a scientist, then it is that the scientist respects the data. Libet’s respect for the data led him to the inescapable conclusion that unconscious intent is formed in the initial 300 ms phase, and that there is no awareness of intent until it is delivered to and received by the conscious mind in the final 200 ms phase. When there is a voluntary behavioral response, it is informed by unconscious intent. The conscious mind is made aware of the imminent response in the final 200 ms phase, and then the response is triggered as the 500 ms process comes to an end.

What happens in the space between the stimulus and the intent?

To understand what happens in the 300 ms space between the stimulus and unconscious intent, consider what happens when the stimulus is a conflict between two limited interests. It depends on whether the limited interests are fellow subjects of one system or two separate systems.

Thus, a within-system conflict is a dilemma, and an extra-system conflict is a problem. Some dilemmas are resolved in a multi-step interaction. Others require a multi-interaction resolution. A problem has a one-step “neutralize threat” solution.

There are patterns within patterns, but there is one pattern literally every animal’s unconscious mind is trying to match. If the individual is to thrive, then the individual must know if a “conflict” stimulus is a dilemma or a problem. So, below the level of conscious awareness, your mind is using its ability to match patterns to make that determination in the initial 300 ms phase.

For individuals in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer band, there was no need to count the number of systems. The only need was for recognizing that a within-band conflict was a dilemma to be resolved, and a between-band conflict was a problem to be solved. In other words, systems acted like systems, and subjects acted like subjects.

For individuals in a historic civilization, counting the number of systems is an existential imperative. Otherwise, individuals witnessing within-system conflicts (aka dilemmas) are perceiving extra-system conflicts (aka problems) with one-step “neutralize threat” solutions. That’s why the system is unhealthy. Its parts are acting like separate systems.

The bad news is that our unhealthy 21st century civilization might fail to survive. The good news is that it will thrive if its health is restored. It just needs to discover an adaptive response. The much better news is that the discovery has already been made. It just needs to be tested, and the results need to be widely shared.

How is public sentiment formed?

Public sentiment is formed or eroded every time a preferred conclusion is challenged by an inconvenient conclusion that happens to be closer to the truth.

Eroding public sentiment takes a certain amount of expertise. If you want to witness an expert at work, watch a five-year-old act with immoral intent.

Every five-year-old knows how to identify evidence and logic supporting a preferred conclusion and refuting an inconvenient conclusion that is closer to the truth. To erode public sentiment, act the way every five-year-old knows how to act.

Forming public sentiment takes a certain amount of expertise. If you want to witness an expert at work, watch a pair of fifth graders act with moral intent.

Every pair of fifth graders on opposite sides of a conflict of interest that they both want to resolve know how. They openly share and challenge each others’ logic. It’s an iterative process requiring time, energy, and attention, but they will resolve the conflict in service of their common interest.

Everyone who acts the way that every five-year-old knows how to act has an inaccurate estimate of the number of human social systems. Below the level of conscious awareness, and roughly 300 ms after the “conflict” signal is delivered by the senses to the mind, immoral intent is formed, then the conscious mind is either a passive observer or an active participant.

Everyone who has an accurate estimate of the number of human social systems acts the way that every fifth grader knows how to act. Below the level of conscious awareness, and roughly 300 ms after the “conflict” signal is delivered by the senses to the mind, moral intent is formed, then the conscious mind is always an active participant.

Civilization is struggling to survive, and it will either fail, or its health will be restored in this deciding decade because enough people stopped ignoring the number of systems. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, the answer, my friend, is like the wind in that it has been smacking everyone in the face every day while everyone seemed to be turning their heads and pretending that they just don’t see.

So, the best time for the times to be a-changin’ was six decades ago, and the second-best time is in this decade.