When man came into existence, for the first time in forever, the universe could think and feel and see and purpose and direction were born amid the black chaos of space. In us, the universe has evolved into a mind and a conscience and a potential beyond that of a thousand super novas. As the most powerful organizing and directing force in the universe, man is the corporeal manifestation of the universe trying to comprehend and control its own destiny.
If we behave in a 'good' way, we can determine the destiny of the universe. If we behave in an 'evil' way, we will destroy ourselves and the destiny of the universe will be anarchy: black space devoid of life. |
If we are the center and focus and fulcrum of the universe through which everything is seen and understood and done, our value and our moral responsibility and religious significance are infinite. If we are the mind and soul of the universe trying to comprehend and control its own destiny, we must be prepared to accept the sole responsibility for the destiny of the universe and the fate of our children. This is a moral duty infinitely greater than anything ever imagined by the fundamentalist religions of the past, which failed to recognize man's unique importance to the universe or his ethical responsibility for his own destiny. If man can destroy the human race and thereby destroy the consciousness that must determine the destiny of the universe, man has the power and responsibility that once was ascribed only to God. This brings a higher level of responsibility and opportunity than was ever dreamed of before. By comparison, the fundamentalist religions of the past are profoundly immoral and almost nihilistic. Jesus, Mohammed, et al place so little moral responsibility on man that man's most grievous 'sins', even murder are viewed as simply the mischief of a child, which however foolish or harmful can not even really result in his own destruction because his 'soul' is in the hands of a 'holy ghost' which determines his destiny. But if man is the sole entity that must choose the destiny of the universe: the entity that is responsible for the fate of all mankind, then to kill or injure ourselves or our children would be like killing or injuring God. The choice between good and evil is then not an abstract ivory tower debate, but the primal choice between death and anarchy or consciousness and Godhood. According to Evolutionary Ethics, we have the same responsibility to maintain our own existence as we had in the past to support the consciousness that controlled the destiny of the universe because now we recognize that we are that consciousness. If we behave in a 'good' way, we can determine the destiny of the universe. If we behave in an 'evil' way, we will destroy ourselves and the destiny of the universe will be anarchy: black space devoid of life.
If we could see our children colonizing other earths a million light years from today, or lying dead and disfigured after a nuclear war, all as a direct result of what we have done today, we would realize the ultimate significance and value of our efforts. If there are no people alive in a million years, it will be because we did something "evil" today. If our children are alive and colonizing other new worlds, it will be because we did what was "good".
The question of the purpose of life and the riddle of 'good' and 'evil' has always been with us. The only difference today is that because of our control of nuclear power and the threat of nuclear self destruction, we must either answer it or die.
Throughout the ages, man has faced and survived all the plagues, ice ages and calamities in the history of the world. Now that he has harnessed the power of the atom and flown to the moon, it seems that nothing in heaven or earth could harm him again. Still, he is on the verge of destruction by his only enemy. Think of the ironic paradox in the nuclear dilemma: (man is now powerful enough to destroy himself). An animal is also powerful enough to destroy himself by jumping off a cliff, but no would anticipate that he would be stupid enough to do it. If some other living or non living thing threatened the existence of man or of his children, man would mobilize all of his energies to destroy it. Yet when man is himself the only real threat to his own existence, he seems stymied to save himself from his own clumsiness, fear and greed.
What good does it do us to have the power to fly to the moon if we use this same ability to destroy ourselves in a nuclear war?
We have the moral understanding of an ignorant savage of 2000 years ago, but the science and power of a modern nuclear age. |
Our physical science has advanced, but our moral science has not. The reason we are on the verge of nuclear suicide is because our scientific advance gave us power, but our failure to advance in a religious moral sense did not give us the ability to control our actions for our own benefit. This exposes us to terrible dangers. We have the moral understanding of an ignorant savage of 2000 years ago, but the science and power of a modern nuclear age. Mankind is like a five year old child playing with a loaded gun.
Yet, even in this preposterous predicament, foolish nihilists tell us that good and evil are myths. Good is what maintains and improves the consciousness of the universe. Evil is what destroys that consciousness. Nothing can destroy that consciousness but itself. We determine by our actions today all that we can ever do tomorrow. Although we can never know what glorious achievements are in store for our children we do know that by our actions today, we determine whether anything will happen tomorrow or for all the tomorrows that are ever to be. If we do not help our children during our lives, they will never exist.
What is the evil that pulls us toward self destruction? Why do we kill? Jews are killing Arabs. Protestants are killing Catholics. Communists are threatening to kill Capitalists. Do men need such totally different environments to sustain life that the must fight against one another because of these different needs? Do we need different air to breath, different food to eat, different temperatures, pressures or climates to survive? Could any biologist discover a difference between these groups? If the differences between men are imagined, then the reasons for human conflict are also imagined.
Is it truly moral to be patriotic and fight for God and country? If it is moral for you to fight for God and country, then isn't it just as moral for the guy on the other side to fight for his? Do you think it is good to kill women and children in Moscow, but evil to kill them in Des Moines? If the people in Moscow think the same thing about your children in Des Moines, then mankind will not survive and he won't deserve to.
The old practice of dividing the world up into good guys and bad guys, (us and them) may be all right for late night cowboy movies, but it is hardly suitable in the nuclear age. The major problems in the world are not amenable to political or military solutions. We already have enough power to kill everyone ten times over. This power has not saved us in the past and merely increasing it will not save us in the future. We need a moral system explaining good and evil not a political or military system to kill women and children in Moscow or in Des Moines.
Man will either destroy himself, or he will gain dominion over the universe. The evil which threatens the survival of man is not a particular ideology like capitalism or communism. Evil existed long before these ideas came into being and evil will still exist when these ideas are as dead and long forgotten as Isis and Amon Ra. Evil is putting loyalty to nation or to a religion above loyalty to mankind. Choosing up sides in a meaningless gang war between communists and capitalists or Jews and Christians has no more significance ultimately in the biological and historical context than a skirmish in L.A. between the Cripts and the Bloods. Sooner or later, this meaningless quarreling must end in the nuclear or biological germ warfare that may destroy the human race. The choice between good and evil is a choice that we make in every human relationship. If we look for a person to blame for past wrongs, we will always find an enemy to fight against. If we look for a person to work together with for future endeavor, we will always find an ally to cooperate with. Evil is the willingness to fight. Goodness is the willingness to cooperate. Thus will be determined the survival of man.
One man alone would still be hiding in the trees of the jungle. Together we have subdued the earth, plumbed the seas and flown to the moon. |
The ultimate human action is not war and conflict, but the exact opposite, cooperation and agreement; because that is what leads to power and power is what has made man the ultimate creation. Man's viability as a challenging life form competing for dominion in the universe depends on his working with other men on a common purpose. The probability of a human surviving as a lone individual is fairly small. As a lone individual, man is less equipped for survival than many other animals. In many ways, man's ability to survive as a lone individual is even less than that of a praying mantis. One man alone would still be hiding in the trees of the jungle. Together we have subdued the earth, plumbed the seas and flown to the moon.
All significant human effort must be social. No one man can build a house, a car, or a space ship. Only agreement and cooperation can produce these things. Cities which are never built or children who are never born will hardly have any effect on the future.
It does not matter what men disagree on because that will never happen. The only thing that matters is what men agree on because only that will be accomplished.
One man alone could not even create a modern pencil. Together we can conquer the stars.
...you can not maintain human existence without social cooperation and you can not have social cooperation without upholding principles of good and evil. Therefore, you can not maintain human existence without upholding principles of good and evil. |
It seems clear than human cooperation is necessary for human survival just as it is for the survival of the ant or any other social animal. Could social cooperation exist in any society that did not uphold universal cross cultural beliefs such as thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not steal? It is simply a fact that social cooperation could not exist without these moral principles being observed by the people in society. And it is simply a fact that mankind could not exist without society. It seems clear that you can not maintain human existence without social cooperation and you can not have social cooperation without upholding principles of good and evil. Therefore, you can not maintain human existence without upholding principles of good and evil.
Therefore, good and evil are not myths. On the contrary, there are basic inviolable principles of good and evil and right and wrong which apply to all men for all time. In fact, these principles do not apply only to men, but to many life forms. Instinctive moral systems occur in the behavior patterns of most social animals, such as the ant. If the ant violated the immemorial laws which must direct his cooperative instinct, the ant species would cease to exist. It seems pain that if the homo sapien violates the biological laws which must direct his cooperative instinct the human race will also cease to exist. The inescapable conclusion is that good and evil are not myths: they are biological laws which are no more arbitrary than any of the laws of mathematics or chemistry.
Morality is necessary for social cooperation. Social cooperation is necessary for survival. Therefore, morality is necessary for survival. Good then is what promotes social and international cooperation and evil is what destroys that cooperation because that decreases man's chances of survival.
Good and evil are not myths, although many myths have been written about them. They are a prerequisite for human survival. Morality is not some superstitious fairy tale: it is the mathematics of survival. Good is cooperation and leads to power, life and the stars. Evil is quarreling and leads to war, weakness, death and a nuclear holocaust.
Any race, tribe or nation which violates the mathematics of survival by killing or stealing from one another will cease to exist just as surely as a moon mission based on the formula 2 plus 2 equal 5 will fail. It is a sin to say that 2 plus 2 equals 5 because that is scientifically inaccurate and will cause failure. It is a sin to kill or steal because that is scientifically inaccurate and will cause the failure of the tribe or race that practices that formula.
Whenever I read Darwin, I get the impression that he has forgotten something; that he has made a potentially fatal, philosophical error or omission. Is not human survival equally as dependent on ethical human cooperation as it is on human intelligence? The universal cross cultural pattern of ethical, cooperative human behavior–Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal–evolved right along with human intelligence and we would and will be extinct as the dinosaurs without it.
Who said man is beyond Good & Evil? Nietzsche or Al Capone? On the contrary, man's very survival is more dependent on our ethics than on our technological widgets whether hammers or nuclear power. Without ethics, our stone age spears and nuclear widgets will destroy us. Technology is merely an outgrowth of and is totally dependent on the prerequisite of ethical human cooperation. A house, a car, or a spaceship requires ethical human cooperation to produce. Therefore, a house or a spaceship is an ethical, moral and religious statement just as much as it is a technological statement. A society can die from unethical behavior. The task of a journalist, historian, judge or psychologist is not less important than that of a scientist searching for a cure for aids. Human survival depends on ethical human cooperation and we are dying because or leaders have failed to recognize that fact.