We have, so far in 2009, discussed the common myths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the additional myths which each of these religions uses to seek unique status, and the common base from which all religions stem. That has led us to affirm, once again, that there certainly is a God in our universe. For want of a better description, that God is called the physical laws of the universe and the laws of probability. We have again tried to make the point that humans are not significant in the universe, are not directed toward a certain goal, and are not immortal. We have tried to make the point that all our decisions and ethics should be made on the basis of this insignificance and mortality. When we base our ethics and decisions on religious myths of great significance, superiority and immortality, we universally make bad decisions. If we are wise enough to direct our personal lives and our societies rationally, based on the laws of probability, however, we are soon faced with a great quandary. There are many layers of probability. Should we lead our lives according to what is best for us, for our loved ones, for our extended families, for our community, for our state, for our nation, for the human race, for all of life, or for all of the universe? It is indeed, a Shakespearean dilemma.
Concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, morals, ethics, fairness and justice all come into play when we try to sort out what layer of probability to use in any given decision. In the simplest of terms, good and evil apply to individual decisions. If there is anything that gives any one of us greater sustenance, shelter, security, pleasure or longevity, that is good. Whatever takes away from these sustaining values is bad. If more than one person is involved, those two people have to make additional decisions about sharing, protecting resources, and compromise, for their mutual benefit. Whatever helps them both survive is called right, and whatever limits their survival is called wrong. If the decision is based on community need, whatever helps that community survive is said to be moral, and whatever decreases its chance of existence is said to be immoral. Ethics, we guess, are those rules that apply to all humans everywhere, regardless of national interests. Some extend ethics to include all of life.
In normal linguistics, however, all of this gets all mixed up. We use good and evil to describe events that have occurred at all layers of probability, whether that involves an individual or the whole world. Morals vary widely from one community to another, and from one era to another. There is no fixed set of ethics. When war crimes are held, they are always held by the victors, who cast blame on the losers. The losers are not allowed to hold war crimes on the winners, even though there have been multitudes of atrocities committed on both sides in every war. Virtually all humans lose sight of the fact that all these value judgments apply only to humans. Inanimate objects don’t care. The universe has no value system of good and evil, right and wrong, morals, ethics, fairness and justice.
We have, of course always been taught otherwise. Plato, Aristotle and Socrates took different twists on the basic concept that there is a fixed Goodness out there. The more intelligent and wiser we become, said the Greeks, the more we are able to approach or become like the God of Goodness. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have seized eagerly on this concept, claiming that God is totally good and that we are always attempting to emulate or achieve the goodness of God. All of this religious theory is based on the belief that the universe contains a solid, never changing fixed goodness as an integral part of its very nature. This is unfortunately, truly hogwash. All of the evidence we have is that the universe runs only on chance and probability, without a judgment system or a plan. The only value system we have been able to see in the universe is that those organisms which adapt to their environment are able to live longer and pass their traits on to the children. Those that do not adapt to their environment are summarily eliminated. The universe does not care; it has no goodness or evil. The universe would just as soon not have us here, and will in some appropriate future time, eliminate humans from existence, regardless of how evil we think that might be.
Under the great influence of these religious fallacies of human divinity, superiority, immortality, operating under a fallacious fixed goodness in the universe, we are making terrible decisions about our personal lives and the construction of our societies. Most of those awful decisions are based on short-sighted selfish decisions about what is good for us and or our people, as opposed to other nations and other people. We do not extend our decision making to include that layer of probability which is good for all of life everywhere. We have so far failed to understand that there is not one chosen people or one chosen religion. We are all one people, living on one planet home. We have become, over the last 40,000 years, one dominant species covering all of the Earth. Unless our decisions about our lives are not extended to include what is good for all life, we will all perish together in short notice.
The Shakespearean dilemma is solved. Our decisions must include compassion for all of life, not just a select few. Although this is not perhaps the answer we want to hear, it is the right answer.