Morality - and survival

Morality is seen as a necessary prerequisite for survival. Without it we would destroy ourselves. But is it really such a truism?

To begin with: Right now morality does not refer to traffic rules, engineering principles, hygienic requirements and the like. Adhering to them may well be a matter of ethics, but in themselves they derive from the need for consistency and/or science. Here morality stands for the kind of behaviour that cannot be based on some formula but for all that is taken very seriously indeed.

The most powerful source of morality is religion. Across the globe and throughout history, no society has ever been without it, and no other background has ever been more intransigent and more unforgiving when it comes to upholding moral laws (even in those few societies that were declared to be without religion, a spiritual ideology had been replaced with a secular one and so the same principles apply). The same goes for the mindset of individual members of a society.

Given the status of religion, and considering events in the past and today, there are hardly any other examples where disobedience or disagreement have met with greater ferocity and vengeance. Wars and any other ways of mutual destruction in the name of religion occupy a rank all on their own. And so the question could be reasonably asked, to ensure our ultimate survival should we not endeavour to rid ourselves of such a force? Even doing without the comfort religion gives to so many people, would that not be a small price to pay?

What follows is an analysis of the functional linkages within that conceptual realm we humans have created for ourselves.

Note: The otoom.net website prides itself of being completely free of plagiarism. Anything mentioned elsewhere is duly referenced, otherwise the reader can assume it is original. The Otoom mind model is original. That includes its various aspects such as nonlinearity, affinity relationships, and attractor-type outcomes embedded in a specific manner within its overall system. The Otoom mind model has not been created around any philosophy, hypothesis or theory assembled elsewhere. Hence some element already occurring within a philosophical tract for example would only be a verbal repetition showing up in the model and nothing more; in a functional sense it would be considerably different from any other erstwhile use.

We have the destruction: One tribe fighting another over their choice of gods; one society waging war against another because only their god is acceptable. "Wars of religion" has even become a historical definition. Even with other sentiments in place, without the spiritual obsession those others would have been far less intense. Note that from a cognitive perspective, the faith itself is not instructive in terms of strategy or technological preparedness, it is simply a thought clamping itself onto any other ideations under its control - and its reach is total.

Leaving room for any other conceptions, faith alone may not be the deciding factor in a conflict. Technical know-how can easily override the other side's power of conviction. Nevertheless, if faith plays any role at all (as it usually does), even gaining victory through superior technology would still be ascribed to their god and leads to further denunciations of the loser's quality of spiritual guidance; if anything, those cognitive dynamics would be reinforced. In principle nothing has changed.

As for the loser, and at that level of cognisance, their fate would trigger even more fervent acts of faith - to them it has become clear their spiritual ruler found them wanting. And here we have the first hint of how reality is playing itself out. If this victory/defeat scenario had been a temporary one, there would be a repeat under the same auspices. If the defeat had been more devastating, the losers will all their dearly held religion, morals and customs will disappear from the scene. Perhaps history will record their traces, perhaps not.

The victor however will live another day to practice the same kind of interaction challenges, their outcomes to be decided accordingly. As any archeologist, any history book will confirm, this is the way of the human race. Over the millennia the respective fate of the peoples of this world has resulted in the state of affairs as can be observed in the present.

Note the cognitive principles involved: An over-arching driver (religion), in conjunction with contemporary capacities (technical know-how, organisational ability), and the accompanying affinities (each party being within the radius of interest of the other). Exceptions can and do occur - such as the sudden onset of a disease - but in the longer term these factors decide the outcome. And so here we are: Having moved on from chariots, from catapults, from arrows, yet we still have religion. In overall terms, the human race has been a success.

Will this ensure its survival?

There is one fundamental aspect which only recently is beginning to be considered. Throughout history there has never been a time when one side had been so powerful, the means to victory spelled everyone's doom in equal measure. Only now have we achieved that stage.

To put this another way: So far, regardless of how decisive a victory had been, there was bound to be some other who could continue playing out that self-same scenario. Imagine a sports competition which never ends; as soon as a winner is declared, there is yet another challenger and the score board is reset again. Until the winning team has become so effective it is able to wipe itself out as well in the process.

General capability is one part of the equation, yet the ultimate driver is the moral conceptualisation standing behind. If one side abandons it (disarms itself, in a manner of speaking), that side would have relinquished a major part of its arsenal and religion would have won the day. The situation is very similar to the problematic proposition held by pacifists; peace is admirable, but it only takes one aggressor and calamity follows.

It may well be the universal trajectory of an intelligent species. Matter coalesced into stars and planets - but suns do not care about amoebae. It took billions of years for numerate humans to emerge and since then mathematics has flourished - but amoebae did not reserve some extra space for differential equations. Yet those humans eventually developed nuclear weapons and other means to undermine their very existence. There is an undeniable evolutionary process based on the affinity relationships within nonlinear systems, leading to ever greater complexity. One could ask, is there a limit to this complexity, and why stop now? Either there is an eons-long growth destined to come to a cataclysmic end, or complexity advances until it has reached its full potential.

What 'full potential' means is impossible to say without having a comprehensive understanding of reality. For us humans this is impossible because otherwise the level of complexity inside the brain's neuronal network would have to be greater than that of reality itself; just as a machine needs to be more complex than the thing it produces, or to explain a subject needs a higher level of understanding compared to the subject itself. Hence we have a logical contradiction since the ultimate degree of complexity cannot be surpassed. (Anything we express has to first exist in the form of thought structures, a complex of affinity-based neuronal dynamics. Neuronal complexes consist of individual neurons with their own specific states. Without these functional elements there would be no complexes and hence no thoughts, although the neurons themselves do not constitute thought. Since the degree of complexity is of course higher among the neurons compared to the resultant aggregates in the form of thoughts, even if - hypothetically speaking - the neuronal clusters would have the same level of complexity as reality overall, we could not think it. Therefore it is impossible for humans to form any judgment about the achievement of a comprehensive understanding of reality. It all revolves around one core fact: For us the human mind is the only thing in existence which is subject and object at one and the same time. And by the way, the same applies to subconscious thought structures; they are just not sensated to us and so we are not conscious of them.)

Yet reality would be the arbiter, the ultimate framework. A system that, for all its grandeur, nevertheless relies on finite energy for its unfolding. Perhaps humanity - or any intelligent species - is a facilitator with so many traps along the way. Perhaps the either/or from above (an early end vs gradual advance) is incorrect since the outcome depends on the players. There is no guarantee it will be us who take the prize, when the long series of competitions will have finally come to an end.

And that includes religion.

© Martin Wurzinger - see Terms of Use