So, where to from here? I’m asking that question in the context of my thesis that all definitions of ethics, morality, and value cannot transcend the fundamental argument that all references to value cannot supersede the presumption of the existence and reference to the holder of that value. Values are a function of individual agencies, specifically individual, atomic agencies, i.e. people in our most broad common usage of that word. (…and thus not in the sense of governments or corporations as legal persons but possibly in the context of specific dolphins, parrots, or apes as such.)

I find the conclusion that all morality is fundamentally personal inescapable. As an atheist, or more precisely as a naturalist I find this rejects any divinely inspired universal morality. But I likewise see it as a flaw in the attempts by the Humanitarians, Utilitarians, and such to construct a reasoned universal ethics. But I also reject the notion of the Social Contract as a common ethic. As with the moral question of accepting the ethical dictates lain down by a deity, there is still the continuous moral question that each individual must continuously evaluate as to the whether to continue to accept or renege on a contract, social or other.

I cannot feel better about myself in pronouncing a verdict of guilty and a sentence of death upon a man charged for murder by saying to myself “well he reneged on his social contract.” We are each individually born into an existing society with supposed contractual terms already established. We cannot negotiate individual terms nor reject it except under sentence of death. It would be as if, one walked into a mall, and upon reading the legal fine print on the kiosk in the center the rules that one must purchase something, or pay a fee in order to be permitted to leave the mall to find another place to shop. If I cannot say “no! I do not accept all of these terms!” and seek an alternative deal then I cannot consider myself as having made a valid contract. Especially consider that the current “social contract” I’m asked to “sign” includes it being illegal for me to likewise acquire a monopoly on any essential resource and charge what I like for it. For that matter, if one considers the society as a whole, when were they consulted as to the terms of the social contract. Such a singular artifice does not exist.

So, again, where to from here? Well I am feeling excited about a prospect. By getting away from the baggage of the many presuppositions I’m getting the sense that a true calculus of ethics might be possible. It would not be a calculus that proves a given action is righteous or evil but rather a calculus that would explain what a given individual’s ethical code implies or necessarily leads to. If I can know that another individual’s value system, as it stands, is irreconcilable with my own then I can know he is my adversary. I might also be able to more exactly determine that and how another’s or my own value system is not internally consistent and exactly why. Knowing this in another I might better educate their moral sense, or better confuse it if that suited my own values. Likewise I could reconcile my own inconsistencies to formulate a better, more resilient system of value to guide my actions.

So next we begin with a moral paradox. Since the only fundamental ethic by which we chose our actions is our own we cannot possibly act unethically. Ethics is meaningless and we collapse into nihilism. But no this is an error. I believe it is a categorical error but I need to consider it further.

I mentioned before that the necessary ingredients of ethical behavior is the power to act, the knowledge to know the effect of our actions, and the value system, our ethic, to give weight to those outcomes we predict. In mathematics the truth of a proposition is statically universal because all postulates are known and all deductions from those postulates are considered to be timelessly valid and known in so far as they apply their existence to the truth or falsehood of conclusions we may deduce from them. However in our actions in the realm of actual existential nature we are not omnipotent nor omniscient nor have we reached the point of fully developing and refining our values to their perfectly most precise form.

Let us label these the third quality, a consideration of meaning and value beyond factual understanding of existential truths and the laws of cause and effect, wisdom. I do not think this definition too far off the main stream usage of the term as it is distinguished from knowledge. As far as unbounded attributes, I think omnibenevolent may come closest but that often has an altruistic interpretation. Fortunately we can separate out that spin by distinguishing the term from omnibeneficent which is more directly interpreted in terms of love and charity.

As we define the ultimate good of God to be the agent with omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, and a lesser being as possessing limits on one of these three. We mere mortal agents likewise are deficient in all three but likewise possessing the finite versions of these three qualities.

• We have some power, but some impotence.
• We have some knowledge, but some ignorance.
• We have some wisdom (understanding of value) but some foolishness.

So the paradox only occurs when we attempt to imbue ourselves with the unbounded varieties of these qualities. Most typically we acknowledge our ignorance of cause and effect, or of the true state of affairs, and we break down the act of achieving a superior goal into subsidiary value in a heuristic groping toward that goal via weights applied to subsidiary achievements. I like the analogy of playing chess or other games here, say contract bridge. We are ignorant of our opponents abilities or limits and we are incapable of analyzing all the permutations of play so we develop a point system and weights to certain game configurations (controlling the center of the board for example) which we can reason gives us more rather than less opportunities to act toward the manifestation of our ultimate values.

This brings into my thoughts an idea of an ultimate ethic if we find we are the type of person who needs a horizon to strive towards. Suppose you believed that somewhere in the future, be it in your own lifetime or somewhere in the distant future, maybe even beyond the scope of the existence our the human race as such, but somewhere there in the future the ultimate choice between good and evil will be place before those who might be in a position to act. It may be that the choice, the action is not fixed at a given place and time but that it will necessarily occur, that it is in effect occurring over the course of all history over the whole of the universe of existence. And that choice is/was/will be the more important than the sum total of all other values combined. Assume then the goodness inherent in making the right choice in/over that time but your current and our current temporary ignorance as to what there is to be done and which of the alternatives will be the ultimately best one. What is your strategy to marginally increase, to the best of your ability, the chances that the better choice will be made, or that there will even exist a moral agent there and then to effect a better vs worse outcome.

I believe that I could found a whole religion, say “The Church of the Cusp” on the moral implications of this article of faith on each of our own individual lives. The doctrine is this one thing. We will face a moral crisis in the future, either individually, or as a community or as a race. Everything we do now should be guided toward making the best choice when we reach that future moral cusp.

Well, I’m going to stop here and pick up at some future time.