514. Morals And Ethics Without The Myth Of The Free Will - 2
The myth of the free will (discarded in entry (512) is perpetuated as a result of the subjective experience of other people's behavior as moral. This experience is often independent of the person's real motives. Whenever another's personal benefits from choosing a specific behavior are not obvious, people are prone to ascribe the behavior to the expression of an apparent free will.
Morals and ethics can instead be explained by the intrinsic and extrinsic cost and benefit calculation for deciding to choose a behavior.
This calculation is not only using the perception of immediate and present dishomeostasis and the immediate attraction of present stimuli for expected pleasure. Both can at least partially be visible and recognizable to others including to the target of the behavior.
This calculation also includes the evaluation, consideration and expectation of emotional, social and legal direct and long-term consequences derived from experiences stored in the memory. This cognitive part is invisible and mostly unknown to those exposed to the behavior, which is thus not or not fully explicable and comprehensible.
Not harming others unless there is a morally justified reason to make an exception can be seen as a basic principle of all morals. As outlined in entry 513, persons with the particles' identity value the species higher than the individuals. They accept the justification of harm, when it is collateral damage in favor of the survival of the human species.
For the individualistic identity, there is no justification for harming others.
The myth of the free will (discarded in entry (512) is perpetuated as a result of the subjective experience of other people's behavior as moral. This experience is often independent of the person's real motives. Whenever another's personal benefits from choosing a specific behavior are not obvious, people are prone to ascribe the behavior to the expression of an apparent free will.
Morals and ethics can instead be explained by the intrinsic and extrinsic cost and benefit calculation for deciding to choose a behavior.
This calculation is not only using the perception of immediate and present dishomeostasis and the immediate attraction of present stimuli for expected pleasure. Both can at least partially be visible and recognizable to others including to the target of the behavior.
This calculation also includes the evaluation, consideration and expectation of emotional, social and legal direct and long-term consequences derived from experiences stored in the memory. This cognitive part is invisible and mostly unknown to those exposed to the behavior, which is thus not or not fully explicable and comprehensible.
Not harming others unless there is a morally justified reason to make an exception can be seen as a basic principle of all morals. As outlined in entry 513, persons with the particles' identity value the species higher than the individuals. They accept the justification of harm, when it is collateral damage in favor of the survival of the human species.
For the individualistic identity, there is no justification for harming others.
Therefore refraining from harming behaviors is at least an important ingredient in what is subjectively experienced as an expression of morals, if it is not the core of it.
Evaluating the morality of behavior implies the interaction between two or more persons. There are two perspectives. One focuses upon the target of possible behaviors, the other one upon the acting person's motivation and reasons.
The target can judge from direct subjective experience and according to the own concept of morality, if a specific behavior is either moral or not. The motivation for the behavior is hidden, and can only be assessed as a guess. The behaving person can either act morally by ethical principles or as the haphazard reaction to a singular situation.
Evaluating the morality of behavior implies the interaction between two or more persons. There are two perspectives. One focuses upon the target of possible behaviors, the other one upon the acting person's motivation and reasons.
The target can judge from direct subjective experience and according to the own concept of morality, if a specific behavior is either moral or not. The motivation for the behavior is hidden, and can only be assessed as a guess. The behaving person can either act morally by ethical principles or as the haphazard reaction to a singular situation.
A monster is not less a monster, when once in a while a possible victim is lucky enough to remain unharmed in spite of being exposed to the hazard. The non-victim in an ephemeral exposure can remain unaware of having been exposed to a monster and is unable to know, if the apparently moral behavior was only exceptionally and accidentally identical with what the target considers moral.
There are four varieties of interactions, which are experienced as moral by the target. None needs the free will as an explanation:
- Moral behavior in the absence of conflicting needs.
1.1. The acting person lacks any opportunity, occasion, method, means, tools or weapons to indulge in harmful behavior.
1.2. The acting person happens either temporarily or principally not to experience any need, urge or reason to do anything, that would be experienced by the target as harming. - Moral behavior by self-control as a result of expected consequences.
The acting person anticipates external consequences following the choice of behavior, there is awareness of the pending punishment for harming and/or pending reward for not harming. This includes acquiring correct knowledge of what is harmful to every individual target as a part of choosing, how to behave.
Consequences can for example be legal punishment, harmful reactions of the victim or social damage as is the loss of a position of power and influence. It also includes delusional rewards and punishments by an imaginary deity. - Consistent moral behavior of apparently ethical persons.
The acting person anticipates internal consequences following the choice of behavior. This can be emotional dishomeostasis and/or emotional joy of the pleasure center.
In a generalized anticipation of these internal consequences, some people follow rules and thus behave consistently in a way, that is experienced by the targets as not only moral but as the apparent expression of an ethical personality.
3.1. Dishomeostasis can be triggered by- suffering as a result of spontaneous empathy with the target
- experiencing harming others as damaging the self-esteem and self worth. This is the result of being influenced by social norms and/or a religion, when specific harming behaviors have been associated with despised traits like being weak, foolish, coward, guilty, ashamed.
3.2. Stimulation of the pleasure center can be caused by an innate predisposition of the cognition.
This innate predisposition is the prevalence of rationality over instinctivity. Rationality determines a specific choice of an ethical principle. When focusing decisions not only on self-interest, the interaction with individuals nor on the preference for any ingroup, but on looking at the big picture of the overall balance between giving and taking, then justice, fairness and equal chances are the most logical principle.
On this level, the generalized benefits of the golden rule and of tit-for-tat strategies are ethical, because they are logical. Unjust, unfair and asymmetrical behavior and inequality are unethical, because they are irrational.
Rationality causes the pleasure of self-esteem, self-worth and self-confidence, while irrationality causes dishomeostasis.
People with this predisposition are ethical, because they are rational.
