Page 26
E S S A Y S
By the NUMBER
Fig. 1. Credit: miqel.com
e68
The MANDELBROT SOUP
An Alternate View of String Theory
Have you ever noticed -- as it has so many times to me that it prompted this essay -- how practically anything in the form of a cord, string, rope, twine, chain, or strand, seems to possess an innate tendency to become entangled? No matter how many times one unties the knots and straightens out the multiple snares, these same stringy things, as if possessed of a life of their own, insist on twisting, turning, looping, and otherwise forming knotted combinations with which a skilled sailor might have trouble untying.
Interestingly, strings and their numerous cousins may indeed have a mind of their own. Not an intelligence, per se, but rather a mathematical, geometrical obedience to the laws of physics that govern such things. It's as if a loose length of string, left to hang while draped over a rod or bar of some kind would, on its very own, become entangled at first and eventually knotted in some way. The phenomenon is so prevalent that a curious person might begin to see an interesting pattern in such behavior.
The world is filled with so many objects and items that fit the descriptions numerated, that the inclination to speculate is tempting, especially as regards certain universal laws that would appear to govern these kinds of things. That's when it hit me. Of course; stringy stuff isn't unique to human technology or inventiveness. All of it, in all its myriad forms, is little more than redundant copies of what already exists -- and likely always has -- within nature itself.
Cords, ropes, chains and especially tendrils are all reflections of what are called the Mandebrot and Julia sets.
To paraphrase Wikipedia:
The Mandelbrot set is a mathematical set of points whose boundary is a distinctive and easily recognizable two-dimensional fractal shape. The set is closely related to Julia sets (which include similarly complex shapes) and is named after the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot who studied and popularized it. The late Arthur C. Clarke, of 2001 Space Odyssey fame (and inventor of the communications satellite), was a great proponent of the significance of the Mandelbrot set.
Fractals include the ideas of detailed patterns that repeat themselves. They are further defined as both natural phenomena and mathematical sets. What they all have in common is a repetitive pattern that displays at every scale of magnification. If the replication is exactly the same at every view, it is called a self-similar pattern. Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels.
No discussion of this particular material is possible without the inclusion of two other important mathematical models: One, Fuzzy logic, and two, Chaos theory. And Wikipedia again offers the following definitions: (I didn't even bother to paraphrase either of these)
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic; it deals with reasoning that is approximate rather than fixed and exact. Compared to traditional binary sets (where variables may take on true or false values), fuzzy logic variables may have a truth value that ranges in degree between 0 and 1. Fuzzy logic has been extended to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. Furthermore, when linguistic variables are used, these degrees may be managed by specific functions. Irrationality can be described in terms of what is known as the "fuzzjective". The term "fuzzy logic" was introduced with the 1965 proposal of fuzzy set theory by Lotfi A. Zadeh. Fuzzy logic has been applied to many fields, from control theory to artificial intelligence.
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including meteorology, sociology, physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions -- a paradigm popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely divergent outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Chaos theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as follows: "When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future, chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather and climate. This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps (whatever they are). I added that last parenthetical comment myself.
The reason why all of this is interesting, if not really important to this discussion, is because all of the principles involved in Fractals, Fuzzy logic, and Chaos theory (to name only three out of a bunch of others) were available -- and at work -- on a vestigial Earth and within its primordial oceans, which are often referred to as "soups" because of their complex chemical ingredients. It's easy to imagine such elegant mathematical systems churning the waters, constantly governing and manipulating the atoms and molecules at their disposal. Obviously the secret to what constitutes "life" is a matter of roiling, boiling and otherwise cooking an oceanic mixture in just the right way. Helping us to understand the evolutionary processes at play, both simple and complex, are discoveries of, and investigations into, such things as the Mandelbrot set.
Due to Clarke and others, the Mandelbrot set has become popular outside mathematics both for its aesthetic appeal and as an example of a complex structure arising from the application of simple rules, and is one of the best-known examples of mathematical visualization. Be that as it may, the basic purpose again of this short article is not to argue the merits of Mandelbrot configurations one way or the other, but solely to demonstrate that lots of twisting and turning occurs at both the largest of scales and the smallest, most microscopic levels of existence.
A final observation describes how organic compounds, molecules, acids and the like, tend to be "sticky" in the sense they appear to enjoy clinging to one another. Among the primordial soups that once composed the shallow and saturated oceans of the antediluvian Earth, the waters were rich with such materials, all of which hung around -- stuck around -- constantly forming into aggregate collections of this and that. Similar to a bunch of different jigsaw puzzles where the pieces were all jumbled together, some of the parts would "fit"together while most did not. Among those that did, we would have expected to find -- you guessed it -- long strands, strings, cords, chains and the like, all strung out and impossibly entangled among one another.
The Gordian bundles of molecules, compounds, and acids, all possessed of an insatiable desire to wrap themselves around anything within reach, and occurring on a numerical scale approaching infinity, should have produced lots of interesting combinations.
It only took the "right" combination once, maybe twice, to happen. And that was just on this planet.
Interestingly, strings and their numerous cousins may indeed have a mind of their own. Not an intelligence, per se, but rather a mathematical, geometrical obedience to the laws of physics that govern such things. It's as if a loose length of string, left to hang while draped over a rod or bar of some kind would, on its very own, become entangled at first and eventually knotted in some way. The phenomenon is so prevalent that a curious person might begin to see an interesting pattern in such behavior.
The world is filled with so many objects and items that fit the descriptions numerated, that the inclination to speculate is tempting, especially as regards certain universal laws that would appear to govern these kinds of things. That's when it hit me. Of course; stringy stuff isn't unique to human technology or inventiveness. All of it, in all its myriad forms, is little more than redundant copies of what already exists -- and likely always has -- within nature itself.
Cords, ropes, chains and especially tendrils are all reflections of what are called the Mandebrot and Julia sets.
To paraphrase Wikipedia:
The Mandelbrot set is a mathematical set of points whose boundary is a distinctive and easily recognizable two-dimensional fractal shape. The set is closely related to Julia sets (which include similarly complex shapes) and is named after the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot who studied and popularized it. The late Arthur C. Clarke, of 2001 Space Odyssey fame (and inventor of the communications satellite), was a great proponent of the significance of the Mandelbrot set.
Fractals include the ideas of detailed patterns that repeat themselves. They are further defined as both natural phenomena and mathematical sets. What they all have in common is a repetitive pattern that displays at every scale of magnification. If the replication is exactly the same at every view, it is called a self-similar pattern. Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels.
No discussion of this particular material is possible without the inclusion of two other important mathematical models: One, Fuzzy logic, and two, Chaos theory. And Wikipedia again offers the following definitions: (I didn't even bother to paraphrase either of these)
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic; it deals with reasoning that is approximate rather than fixed and exact. Compared to traditional binary sets (where variables may take on true or false values), fuzzy logic variables may have a truth value that ranges in degree between 0 and 1. Fuzzy logic has been extended to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. Furthermore, when linguistic variables are used, these degrees may be managed by specific functions. Irrationality can be described in terms of what is known as the "fuzzjective". The term "fuzzy logic" was introduced with the 1965 proposal of fuzzy set theory by Lotfi A. Zadeh. Fuzzy logic has been applied to many fields, from control theory to artificial intelligence.
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including meteorology, sociology, physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions -- a paradigm popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely divergent outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Chaos theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as follows: "When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future, chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather and climate. This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps (whatever they are). I added that last parenthetical comment myself.
The reason why all of this is interesting, if not really important to this discussion, is because all of the principles involved in Fractals, Fuzzy logic, and Chaos theory (to name only three out of a bunch of others) were available -- and at work -- on a vestigial Earth and within its primordial oceans, which are often referred to as "soups" because of their complex chemical ingredients. It's easy to imagine such elegant mathematical systems churning the waters, constantly governing and manipulating the atoms and molecules at their disposal. Obviously the secret to what constitutes "life" is a matter of roiling, boiling and otherwise cooking an oceanic mixture in just the right way. Helping us to understand the evolutionary processes at play, both simple and complex, are discoveries of, and investigations into, such things as the Mandelbrot set.
Due to Clarke and others, the Mandelbrot set has become popular outside mathematics both for its aesthetic appeal and as an example of a complex structure arising from the application of simple rules, and is one of the best-known examples of mathematical visualization. Be that as it may, the basic purpose again of this short article is not to argue the merits of Mandelbrot configurations one way or the other, but solely to demonstrate that lots of twisting and turning occurs at both the largest of scales and the smallest, most microscopic levels of existence.
A final observation describes how organic compounds, molecules, acids and the like, tend to be "sticky" in the sense they appear to enjoy clinging to one another. Among the primordial soups that once composed the shallow and saturated oceans of the antediluvian Earth, the waters were rich with such materials, all of which hung around -- stuck around -- constantly forming into aggregate collections of this and that. Similar to a bunch of different jigsaw puzzles where the pieces were all jumbled together, some of the parts would "fit"together while most did not. Among those that did, we would have expected to find -- you guessed it -- long strands, strings, cords, chains and the like, all strung out and impossibly entangled among one another.
The Gordian bundles of molecules, compounds, and acids, all possessed of an insatiable desire to wrap themselves around anything within reach, and occurring on a numerical scale approaching infinity, should have produced lots of interesting combinations.
It only took the "right" combination once, maybe twice, to happen. And that was just on this planet.
e69
A Matter of Morals. And why they do.
MORALITY:
First of all, I'm not interested in the morals of the individual. The Nazis had their own ideas of right and wrong, as do serial killers. Morals, by their very definition, imply or refer to notions of universality among cultures and societies that are otherwise very different from one another. Morals are, or ought to be, the very opposite of subjectivity. They are the codes of conduct and behavior by which we not only lead our own personal lives, but it is presumed, in a civilized world, that certain aspects of that code are the same for everyone. Murder, rape, incest, theft, fraud, lying, cheating are all examples of moral beliefs that our society in particular, reinforces with punishable laws. Since these laws are (generally) obeyed by the vast majority, then it is by consent of the governed that we accept these morals as serious controls on our way of life -- precisely because, for us, they apply to all. Or we wish they did. More on personal, individual beliefs (and principles) later on.
When authors write fiction, for instance, the moral makeup of their characters is critical to readers. Nasty villains are easy, while great heroes are less so. Heroes are more complex, such as what's called the "anti-hero", because he or she is often as bad in some ways, as they are good. All morals in a story should be universal in nature, and not culturally specific. But not always. When it's necessary to use certain morals (such as ill treatment of women in India) which are outside our American norm, readers must be informed in some fashion that certain behaviors are acceptable in other countries, or derived from specific religions. The maltreatment of women by Muslim men is morally acceptable (for them) because their religion gives them permission to do it. So strong do we cling to moral concepts, that even Muslim women, as just one example, tolerate their own abuse because of how they are raised and what they are taught. Laws are different in the sense that in India, again, laws are being passed making it illegal to burn your wife if her dowry is too small. This despite the fact that from a traditional, religious, and moral viewpoint, murdering the woman in such a way was (and still is, somewhat) fine and dandy. As India westernizes its thinking, their morals also change accordingly, thus we see the passage of laws which outlaw certain acts that were, at one time, considered entirely appropriate. Many examples of this kind of thing exist; this is just my take on the short and sweet (or bitter) of it all.
ETHICS:
People tend to get confused over the difference between morals and ethics. It's easy to do because while related, even synonymous, the two involve grammatical differences, plus ethics are typically tied to business, medical, and legal practices. If how we think involves our moral beliefs, then how we behave or act upon those beliefs in the real world involves the practice of ethics. For instance, two doctors might both believe abortion is wrong, morally speaking. But while one doctor performs the procedure on a routine basis, one does not. The doctor who doesn't, considers it unethical to do abortions because it conflicts with his moral beliefs. The other doctor, however, considers that some morals are of greater importance than others. Although he is personally opposed to abortion, and discourages it whenever possible, he also feels a moral imperative with respect to what's best for his patients, or in doing what they want or what they think is in their own best interest. When he weighs the options between his two conflicting moral decisions, he chooses what the patient, or the parents of the patient, believe is morally correct for them.
Choosing between two moral conflicts typically involves a third kind of moralistic decision. A personal "code" of ethics can help us make these decisions, but they are not always, if ever, easy. Well crafted characters in a novel (or movie) are morally complex and usually ethically conflicted, and they make both bad and good decisions accordingly. The doctor who overrides his or her own moral beliefs and makes choices that favor what their patients want for themselves, exercises what are called "situational" ethics. More on that later on.
TRUST:
Trust is my favorite issue and I share a great deal of bitterness with those who have been betrayed in one way or another. I believe that trust -- when we extend it to others -- is given in the absolute belief that they share our same morals and ethics. To most people, trust is a sacred commitment and when someone violates that trust, they also breach both our moral principles and the faith we placed in them. That's a form of violence that is (and ought to be) in most cases -- unforgivable. There is no small version of trust; it is always a big deal (and ought to be). When I trust in another, even the smallest things take on added importance. And when one violates even the smallest of commitments, it damages the bond of trust between us. Do it often enough and the trust factor is permanently destroyed. Any husband or wife who's been unfaithful and then accepted back by their spouse, can never expect the relationship to be the same as it was. Ever. An no, that's not the voice of experience; it's little more than common sense.
"What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas?" Oh, sure, now that's where you can place your trust with absolute confidence. I think they want you to trust that they'll take your money with no questions asked. Well, they've never let me down yet; I'll give them that much. And have. More than once. But that's another story and don't ask. Speaking of anecdotal stories....
Although I enjoy anecdotes, the problem with them is that the information in the story is often second-hand, third-hand, or even more. I generally pay close attention to firsthand accounts, accept them for what they are, but rarely tolerate gossip and rumors. Over the years I've trained myself to be so sensitive to such matters, that I almost never watch TV news anymore. And read only a Sunday newspaper. If that. I do, however, listen to two radio broadcasters -- "talkshows" as they're called -- which is where I get the bulk of my current events. That and the Fox News website which is my internet homepage. Among these cited examples, I've found that hearing is vastly superior to seeing or reading.
The question is sometimes raised as to whether morals and ethics are, to some extent, inborn and instinctual. Many Christians would have us believe that newborn babies are already plagued by sin and in need of the redemption that Jesus obtained for us. Maybe, but I think it's the adults we need to worry about. Anthropologists and others have pondered whether humans are inherently prone to violence or are more gentle by nature. The prehistorical record is ambiguous on the subject. We certainly know that apes and especially chimpanzees are capable of sudden and unpredictable murder and mayhem. Except for the few children raised by wolves, the history of human behavior, whether young or old, is recorded via the concepts of both nature and nurture.
High intelligence in humans is definitely inborn. We have a genetic predisposition to not only learn stuff, but to use language in order to communicate with others of our own species. Skills, however, including knowledge that is cumulative and passed on either verbally or through writing, may be something altogether different. But what about ideas of right and wrong? What we commonly refer to as morals. Are they included in our genetic makeup? Maybe. The better question is whether ethical behavior is inborn. Remember that ethics refer to actions; they're active as compared to the more passively abstract philosophies of morality. So were early hominids ethical by their very nature? Chimps and gorillas exhibit a crude form of ethical treatment among their own kind; they know early on the meaning of proper manners, so to speak, including certain disciplines and attitudes which make for congenial ape societies. But compared to humans, such actions are neither moral or ethical. Only humans have refined these twin attributes both for the better, and the worse.
In those cases where people exhibit the worst of what humans can do, whether in the form of sadistic cruelty or expedient necessity, it is likely that the perpetrators possess a sense of their own wrongdoing, but rationize their actions based on any number of psychological factors or pathologies.
On the contrary, when humans demonstrate their propensity for kindness, gentility, self-sacrifice, altruism, and encouragement of others, such faculties -- when gregarious in nature -- were simply enriched and enhanced by the nurturing of like-minded individuals or environments. In other words, mentally healthy people. Thus I'd have to say, if asked, that mental health in humans will characteristically manifest as (generic) moral and ethical qualities.
There's an old Air Force anecdote about a WWII bomber that went down in the arctic, landed, and needed repairs done. When the local Eskimos came around, curious about the strange event, they volunteered to help out. With almost no instruction, it's said that they knew where things went and how they worked. They just knew, because functionality was its own truth. The process is akin, I think, to "reverse" engineering almost any machine or mechanical device. In similar fashion, I believe that almost all humans are capable of reverse engineering, so to speak, behaviors and attitudes that produce functional, positive results (right), while discarding others that are counterproductive and negative (wrong). In other words, steal what isn't yours and get your ass kicked. Evil, in this context, is kicking someone's ass for the purpose of stealing what they have -- and what you want. The topic is interesting and I hope you get something from my observations (besides a headache).
The reason so much blood was shed over slavery, throughout the ages, from Spartacus to the American Civil War, is that humans know, instinctively, that we are meant to live free. Just as an animal (or human) struggles to free itself from inside a cage -- a survival instinct -- so do people reject confinements, constraints, and other limitations when such are forced upon them. Part of living a moral life is knowing which cages we should accept or tolerate, and which represent tyranny, oppression, or abuse at the hands of another person.
The idea of owning another human, like property, is an anathema to us at a "gut" level of understanding. So why did we do it, and still do? Hmm, maybe some people's morals are wanting? During the Civil War, however, these were good Christians fighting other good Christians over the issue. How was it that Southerners didn't share the same revulsion, repugnance, and rejection of slavery as an ultimate evil? Well, many did, while most others did this thing we call "rationalization". Many convinced themselves that "negroes" were better off under slavery than otherwise. Others believed they were inferior humans. Still others found passages in the Bible that permitted it. On and on it goes. When the immorality of slavery was taught to children as morally appropriate, it was inculcated as a truth no less veracious than the crucifixion of Christ himself. The inferiority of blacks was taught in schools (and churches) as a scientific fact. Thus we find that the South and North were operating according to two very different codes of moral conduct and subsequent ethics.
As with the slave ship owner whose personal epiphany freed him from his own shackles (where we got the song "Amazing Grace"), Northerners were not only better educated and enlightened, but what they were promoting, as an undeniable truth, blended in much easier with what people already instinctively knew or sensed was wrong. Or contradictory. The country's own Declaration of Independence referred to all men as being created equal -- an assertion that had already sewn the seeds of future and inevitable discontent. And conflict.
Slavery exists today as it always has, because, among other things, there is financial gain in addition to all else. But whether economic or otherwise, the bottom line is still a matter of morals -- either a lack of same or a perverted form of them. Those engaged in human trafficking, many of whom would claim membership in one religion or another, suffer from degrees of schizophrenia that would qualify most for immediate institutionalization. Others are simply evil, for lack of a better description. Equally vile, however, are those societies, our own politicians included, who sit idle and do little or nothing to erase the scourge of slavery from human civilization. And snuff out the slavers themselves with little or no mercy. Our failure, as a human community, to end this blight once and for all is its own loathsomeness that runs second only to the Holocaust itself.
PRINCIPLES & VALUES
Last but not least by any stretch, these two terms can and do mean many different things, and are used in a variety of ways. The words apply to laws, for example, and to the governing rules of science and nature. They also refer to aspects of right from wrong, i.e. morals and ethics. So why use so many words that all point to the same things?
If one checks a dictionary and looks up morals, they'll find ethics as part of the answer -- if not the whole answer depending on the dictionary. Turn to the word, ethics, and you'll read that they refer to morals. And round and round she goes. When we search for values and principles, the same kind of mutual back and forth occurs, more or less. The two are great synonyms for use in writing, but I'm sure other people get them all rather confused. It would be rare to find someone who could tackle the four terms of morals, ethics, principles, and values -- and define the whole bunch to their own, let alone everyone's satisfaction.
Here's a set of working definitions that might help, or maybe not. Although I'm satisfied with my analysis, this is the first time I've collectivized the entire group and put my results in writing. If not entirely correct, the following is pretty close:
Morals are nothing more than a collection or group of principles, while ethics involve the application of those principles to everyday life. Values relate to the level of importance we place on our principles, and are both common and core in nature. So what does this all mean? Well, I'll be more than happy to tell you.
In order for moral ideas to have a place in the real world, they need to be in the form of principles that delineate how we think and feel about specific issues. If one is morally opposed to abortion, then they would refuse to get one, if a woman, or condone one as a man -- solely on principle. If one is morally opposed to gay marriage, then they would likely vote against it, legislatively -- on principle. So on and so forth. Libertarians, as a general rule, have relatively few moral principles, for example. Just in number, but not in quality. Conservatives on the other hand, tend to have lots of them.
Principles should not be confused with opinions. While everybody's got opinions on everything, they're not necessarily prepared to act on them and behave accordingly. Principles lead directly to behaviors and actions. Once again, while morals and the principles that comprise them can be very subjective and personal in nature, these private ones are subordinate to the public, generally accepted versions. While I might think the use of drugs is morally acceptable, and I might use them myself and even argue for their legalization, I also abide by the laws (objective morality) of the government and therefore don't sell them to anybody else, minors especially. I might, however, vote accordingly if and when the issue is on a ballot.
While I possess one or more principles that form the foundation for why I believe the way I do, or why I profess moral convictions of one form or another, none are more powerful than what we call, "core" values.
"Common" values (virtues) are such things as courtesy, politeness, kindness, honesty and so forth. If someone treats us rudely, we may treat them rudely in return. So being courteous is flexible, changeable, depending on the situation. Such actions are sometimes called situational ethics. We discussed these earlier with respect to the two doctors who both believed abortion was wrong, but where one performed them and the other refused to. As an aside, Conservatives (and Christians) tend to reject situation ethics because they define the practice according to its most narrow and negative connotations. If viewed solely in such a manner, situational ethics might well describe an individual for whom right and wrong themselves become flexible, interchangeable, volatile and even dangerous. Such an interpretation is itself an illogical and inappropriate distortion of the term. It assumes that one's morals are subject to change, rather than a person acting in accordance with them.
Sometimes no situation, however, is compelling enough to allow for a flexible evaluation of its merits. In such circumstances, no amount of deviation in one's ethical response is considered tolerable, let alone acceptable. Instances of this sort involve our "core" values.
Core values are immutable, soul-locked, cannot be debated, argued, or discussed if the intent is to change them in some way. They are sacred, sacrosanct, and to be respected at all times. Religion is the best example of a core value, especially when the person is devout or seriously faithful. Some people have no core values, while others have many. Another example of a core value is the importance of trust. Sound familiar? No amount of argument can change my mind that trust is something we ought to cherish, grant it sparingly, and treasure it when bestowed by others. Most would sooner cut their own wrists than dishonor someone's trust.
Another example might be one's perception of the power of good over evil. One of my chief core values involves the superiority, in every way, of good versus evil. No amount of persuasion or discussion will change my mind about this. I don't care if evil appears stronger or victorious, it pales by comparison to the glory of goodness. The idea is a lot deeper and more complex than my meager example, but I think the point is clear enough.
A quick review for those who care:
Morals are composed of principles which are essentially based on concepts of right and wrong. While our personal views of right and wrong might differ a little or a lot, we strive to live (act ethically) by the moral principles established by the society as a whole.
Moral principles manifest themselves in the real world via the role of ethics. Ethics are the active, behavioral demonstrations of our moral beliefs and values. Morals are almost never passive in nature; they actively dictate how we live and steer our lives along. To continue the metaphor, ethics are the vehicle itself.
Values (akin to virtues somewhat) are of two varieties: common and core. Common values (which often involve situational ethics) are flexible and changeable. New ones are often added and old ones deleted simply as we live our lives. Core values, however, are who we really are, way down deep. No amount of pretend or acting can disguise or alter our core values. While common ones are akin to breathing -- sometimes fast, slow, heavy, or shallow -- core values are the air itself. Without strong core values, men (and women) would rarely, if ever, shed blood for one cause or another. Doing the right thing when no one is looking, is another example of a core value kind of thing.
All of this verbiage (garbiage?) is detailed here for others only to ruminate over, and the intent is neither to teach or to preach. I don't aspire to be anyone's personal guru, nor do they wish me to, I'm sure. These are just some very interesting ideas that have served me well in the past, and reflect a lot of stuff (and fluff) that I've picked up along my personal journey.
Some would argue that, similar to fishing, one needs to learn when to throw the small ones back. Well, I guess they didn't read my essay on vegetarianism.
And how I'm opposed to fishing.
First of all, I'm not interested in the morals of the individual. The Nazis had their own ideas of right and wrong, as do serial killers. Morals, by their very definition, imply or refer to notions of universality among cultures and societies that are otherwise very different from one another. Morals are, or ought to be, the very opposite of subjectivity. They are the codes of conduct and behavior by which we not only lead our own personal lives, but it is presumed, in a civilized world, that certain aspects of that code are the same for everyone. Murder, rape, incest, theft, fraud, lying, cheating are all examples of moral beliefs that our society in particular, reinforces with punishable laws. Since these laws are (generally) obeyed by the vast majority, then it is by consent of the governed that we accept these morals as serious controls on our way of life -- precisely because, for us, they apply to all. Or we wish they did. More on personal, individual beliefs (and principles) later on.
When authors write fiction, for instance, the moral makeup of their characters is critical to readers. Nasty villains are easy, while great heroes are less so. Heroes are more complex, such as what's called the "anti-hero", because he or she is often as bad in some ways, as they are good. All morals in a story should be universal in nature, and not culturally specific. But not always. When it's necessary to use certain morals (such as ill treatment of women in India) which are outside our American norm, readers must be informed in some fashion that certain behaviors are acceptable in other countries, or derived from specific religions. The maltreatment of women by Muslim men is morally acceptable (for them) because their religion gives them permission to do it. So strong do we cling to moral concepts, that even Muslim women, as just one example, tolerate their own abuse because of how they are raised and what they are taught. Laws are different in the sense that in India, again, laws are being passed making it illegal to burn your wife if her dowry is too small. This despite the fact that from a traditional, religious, and moral viewpoint, murdering the woman in such a way was (and still is, somewhat) fine and dandy. As India westernizes its thinking, their morals also change accordingly, thus we see the passage of laws which outlaw certain acts that were, at one time, considered entirely appropriate. Many examples of this kind of thing exist; this is just my take on the short and sweet (or bitter) of it all.
ETHICS:
People tend to get confused over the difference between morals and ethics. It's easy to do because while related, even synonymous, the two involve grammatical differences, plus ethics are typically tied to business, medical, and legal practices. If how we think involves our moral beliefs, then how we behave or act upon those beliefs in the real world involves the practice of ethics. For instance, two doctors might both believe abortion is wrong, morally speaking. But while one doctor performs the procedure on a routine basis, one does not. The doctor who doesn't, considers it unethical to do abortions because it conflicts with his moral beliefs. The other doctor, however, considers that some morals are of greater importance than others. Although he is personally opposed to abortion, and discourages it whenever possible, he also feels a moral imperative with respect to what's best for his patients, or in doing what they want or what they think is in their own best interest. When he weighs the options between his two conflicting moral decisions, he chooses what the patient, or the parents of the patient, believe is morally correct for them.
Choosing between two moral conflicts typically involves a third kind of moralistic decision. A personal "code" of ethics can help us make these decisions, but they are not always, if ever, easy. Well crafted characters in a novel (or movie) are morally complex and usually ethically conflicted, and they make both bad and good decisions accordingly. The doctor who overrides his or her own moral beliefs and makes choices that favor what their patients want for themselves, exercises what are called "situational" ethics. More on that later on.
TRUST:
Trust is my favorite issue and I share a great deal of bitterness with those who have been betrayed in one way or another. I believe that trust -- when we extend it to others -- is given in the absolute belief that they share our same morals and ethics. To most people, trust is a sacred commitment and when someone violates that trust, they also breach both our moral principles and the faith we placed in them. That's a form of violence that is (and ought to be) in most cases -- unforgivable. There is no small version of trust; it is always a big deal (and ought to be). When I trust in another, even the smallest things take on added importance. And when one violates even the smallest of commitments, it damages the bond of trust between us. Do it often enough and the trust factor is permanently destroyed. Any husband or wife who's been unfaithful and then accepted back by their spouse, can never expect the relationship to be the same as it was. Ever. An no, that's not the voice of experience; it's little more than common sense.
"What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas?" Oh, sure, now that's where you can place your trust with absolute confidence. I think they want you to trust that they'll take your money with no questions asked. Well, they've never let me down yet; I'll give them that much. And have. More than once. But that's another story and don't ask. Speaking of anecdotal stories....
Although I enjoy anecdotes, the problem with them is that the information in the story is often second-hand, third-hand, or even more. I generally pay close attention to firsthand accounts, accept them for what they are, but rarely tolerate gossip and rumors. Over the years I've trained myself to be so sensitive to such matters, that I almost never watch TV news anymore. And read only a Sunday newspaper. If that. I do, however, listen to two radio broadcasters -- "talkshows" as they're called -- which is where I get the bulk of my current events. That and the Fox News website which is my internet homepage. Among these cited examples, I've found that hearing is vastly superior to seeing or reading.
The question is sometimes raised as to whether morals and ethics are, to some extent, inborn and instinctual. Many Christians would have us believe that newborn babies are already plagued by sin and in need of the redemption that Jesus obtained for us. Maybe, but I think it's the adults we need to worry about. Anthropologists and others have pondered whether humans are inherently prone to violence or are more gentle by nature. The prehistorical record is ambiguous on the subject. We certainly know that apes and especially chimpanzees are capable of sudden and unpredictable murder and mayhem. Except for the few children raised by wolves, the history of human behavior, whether young or old, is recorded via the concepts of both nature and nurture.
High intelligence in humans is definitely inborn. We have a genetic predisposition to not only learn stuff, but to use language in order to communicate with others of our own species. Skills, however, including knowledge that is cumulative and passed on either verbally or through writing, may be something altogether different. But what about ideas of right and wrong? What we commonly refer to as morals. Are they included in our genetic makeup? Maybe. The better question is whether ethical behavior is inborn. Remember that ethics refer to actions; they're active as compared to the more passively abstract philosophies of morality. So were early hominids ethical by their very nature? Chimps and gorillas exhibit a crude form of ethical treatment among their own kind; they know early on the meaning of proper manners, so to speak, including certain disciplines and attitudes which make for congenial ape societies. But compared to humans, such actions are neither moral or ethical. Only humans have refined these twin attributes both for the better, and the worse.
In those cases where people exhibit the worst of what humans can do, whether in the form of sadistic cruelty or expedient necessity, it is likely that the perpetrators possess a sense of their own wrongdoing, but rationize their actions based on any number of psychological factors or pathologies.
On the contrary, when humans demonstrate their propensity for kindness, gentility, self-sacrifice, altruism, and encouragement of others, such faculties -- when gregarious in nature -- were simply enriched and enhanced by the nurturing of like-minded individuals or environments. In other words, mentally healthy people. Thus I'd have to say, if asked, that mental health in humans will characteristically manifest as (generic) moral and ethical qualities.
There's an old Air Force anecdote about a WWII bomber that went down in the arctic, landed, and needed repairs done. When the local Eskimos came around, curious about the strange event, they volunteered to help out. With almost no instruction, it's said that they knew where things went and how they worked. They just knew, because functionality was its own truth. The process is akin, I think, to "reverse" engineering almost any machine or mechanical device. In similar fashion, I believe that almost all humans are capable of reverse engineering, so to speak, behaviors and attitudes that produce functional, positive results (right), while discarding others that are counterproductive and negative (wrong). In other words, steal what isn't yours and get your ass kicked. Evil, in this context, is kicking someone's ass for the purpose of stealing what they have -- and what you want. The topic is interesting and I hope you get something from my observations (besides a headache).
The reason so much blood was shed over slavery, throughout the ages, from Spartacus to the American Civil War, is that humans know, instinctively, that we are meant to live free. Just as an animal (or human) struggles to free itself from inside a cage -- a survival instinct -- so do people reject confinements, constraints, and other limitations when such are forced upon them. Part of living a moral life is knowing which cages we should accept or tolerate, and which represent tyranny, oppression, or abuse at the hands of another person.
The idea of owning another human, like property, is an anathema to us at a "gut" level of understanding. So why did we do it, and still do? Hmm, maybe some people's morals are wanting? During the Civil War, however, these were good Christians fighting other good Christians over the issue. How was it that Southerners didn't share the same revulsion, repugnance, and rejection of slavery as an ultimate evil? Well, many did, while most others did this thing we call "rationalization". Many convinced themselves that "negroes" were better off under slavery than otherwise. Others believed they were inferior humans. Still others found passages in the Bible that permitted it. On and on it goes. When the immorality of slavery was taught to children as morally appropriate, it was inculcated as a truth no less veracious than the crucifixion of Christ himself. The inferiority of blacks was taught in schools (and churches) as a scientific fact. Thus we find that the South and North were operating according to two very different codes of moral conduct and subsequent ethics.
As with the slave ship owner whose personal epiphany freed him from his own shackles (where we got the song "Amazing Grace"), Northerners were not only better educated and enlightened, but what they were promoting, as an undeniable truth, blended in much easier with what people already instinctively knew or sensed was wrong. Or contradictory. The country's own Declaration of Independence referred to all men as being created equal -- an assertion that had already sewn the seeds of future and inevitable discontent. And conflict.
Slavery exists today as it always has, because, among other things, there is financial gain in addition to all else. But whether economic or otherwise, the bottom line is still a matter of morals -- either a lack of same or a perverted form of them. Those engaged in human trafficking, many of whom would claim membership in one religion or another, suffer from degrees of schizophrenia that would qualify most for immediate institutionalization. Others are simply evil, for lack of a better description. Equally vile, however, are those societies, our own politicians included, who sit idle and do little or nothing to erase the scourge of slavery from human civilization. And snuff out the slavers themselves with little or no mercy. Our failure, as a human community, to end this blight once and for all is its own loathsomeness that runs second only to the Holocaust itself.
PRINCIPLES & VALUES
Last but not least by any stretch, these two terms can and do mean many different things, and are used in a variety of ways. The words apply to laws, for example, and to the governing rules of science and nature. They also refer to aspects of right from wrong, i.e. morals and ethics. So why use so many words that all point to the same things?
If one checks a dictionary and looks up morals, they'll find ethics as part of the answer -- if not the whole answer depending on the dictionary. Turn to the word, ethics, and you'll read that they refer to morals. And round and round she goes. When we search for values and principles, the same kind of mutual back and forth occurs, more or less. The two are great synonyms for use in writing, but I'm sure other people get them all rather confused. It would be rare to find someone who could tackle the four terms of morals, ethics, principles, and values -- and define the whole bunch to their own, let alone everyone's satisfaction.
Here's a set of working definitions that might help, or maybe not. Although I'm satisfied with my analysis, this is the first time I've collectivized the entire group and put my results in writing. If not entirely correct, the following is pretty close:
Morals are nothing more than a collection or group of principles, while ethics involve the application of those principles to everyday life. Values relate to the level of importance we place on our principles, and are both common and core in nature. So what does this all mean? Well, I'll be more than happy to tell you.
In order for moral ideas to have a place in the real world, they need to be in the form of principles that delineate how we think and feel about specific issues. If one is morally opposed to abortion, then they would refuse to get one, if a woman, or condone one as a man -- solely on principle. If one is morally opposed to gay marriage, then they would likely vote against it, legislatively -- on principle. So on and so forth. Libertarians, as a general rule, have relatively few moral principles, for example. Just in number, but not in quality. Conservatives on the other hand, tend to have lots of them.
Principles should not be confused with opinions. While everybody's got opinions on everything, they're not necessarily prepared to act on them and behave accordingly. Principles lead directly to behaviors and actions. Once again, while morals and the principles that comprise them can be very subjective and personal in nature, these private ones are subordinate to the public, generally accepted versions. While I might think the use of drugs is morally acceptable, and I might use them myself and even argue for their legalization, I also abide by the laws (objective morality) of the government and therefore don't sell them to anybody else, minors especially. I might, however, vote accordingly if and when the issue is on a ballot.
While I possess one or more principles that form the foundation for why I believe the way I do, or why I profess moral convictions of one form or another, none are more powerful than what we call, "core" values.
"Common" values (virtues) are such things as courtesy, politeness, kindness, honesty and so forth. If someone treats us rudely, we may treat them rudely in return. So being courteous is flexible, changeable, depending on the situation. Such actions are sometimes called situational ethics. We discussed these earlier with respect to the two doctors who both believed abortion was wrong, but where one performed them and the other refused to. As an aside, Conservatives (and Christians) tend to reject situation ethics because they define the practice according to its most narrow and negative connotations. If viewed solely in such a manner, situational ethics might well describe an individual for whom right and wrong themselves become flexible, interchangeable, volatile and even dangerous. Such an interpretation is itself an illogical and inappropriate distortion of the term. It assumes that one's morals are subject to change, rather than a person acting in accordance with them.
Sometimes no situation, however, is compelling enough to allow for a flexible evaluation of its merits. In such circumstances, no amount of deviation in one's ethical response is considered tolerable, let alone acceptable. Instances of this sort involve our "core" values.
Core values are immutable, soul-locked, cannot be debated, argued, or discussed if the intent is to change them in some way. They are sacred, sacrosanct, and to be respected at all times. Religion is the best example of a core value, especially when the person is devout or seriously faithful. Some people have no core values, while others have many. Another example of a core value is the importance of trust. Sound familiar? No amount of argument can change my mind that trust is something we ought to cherish, grant it sparingly, and treasure it when bestowed by others. Most would sooner cut their own wrists than dishonor someone's trust.
Another example might be one's perception of the power of good over evil. One of my chief core values involves the superiority, in every way, of good versus evil. No amount of persuasion or discussion will change my mind about this. I don't care if evil appears stronger or victorious, it pales by comparison to the glory of goodness. The idea is a lot deeper and more complex than my meager example, but I think the point is clear enough.
A quick review for those who care:
Morals are composed of principles which are essentially based on concepts of right and wrong. While our personal views of right and wrong might differ a little or a lot, we strive to live (act ethically) by the moral principles established by the society as a whole.
Moral principles manifest themselves in the real world via the role of ethics. Ethics are the active, behavioral demonstrations of our moral beliefs and values. Morals are almost never passive in nature; they actively dictate how we live and steer our lives along. To continue the metaphor, ethics are the vehicle itself.
Values (akin to virtues somewhat) are of two varieties: common and core. Common values (which often involve situational ethics) are flexible and changeable. New ones are often added and old ones deleted simply as we live our lives. Core values, however, are who we really are, way down deep. No amount of pretend or acting can disguise or alter our core values. While common ones are akin to breathing -- sometimes fast, slow, heavy, or shallow -- core values are the air itself. Without strong core values, men (and women) would rarely, if ever, shed blood for one cause or another. Doing the right thing when no one is looking, is another example of a core value kind of thing.
All of this verbiage (garbiage?) is detailed here for others only to ruminate over, and the intent is neither to teach or to preach. I don't aspire to be anyone's personal guru, nor do they wish me to, I'm sure. These are just some very interesting ideas that have served me well in the past, and reflect a lot of stuff (and fluff) that I've picked up along my personal journey.
Some would argue that, similar to fishing, one needs to learn when to throw the small ones back. Well, I guess they didn't read my essay on vegetarianism.
And how I'm opposed to fishing.
e70
Why I don't got to church, but should.
People attend churches and synagogues, mosques and temples
for any one or all three of the following reasons:
1) By force of habit.
2) They are looking for something.
3) They need something.
Please note that none of the three reasons shown is judged in a hierarchical manner, meaning no one behavior is deemed superior (or inferior) in any way to the other two. All are of equal importance and legitimacy, and each is worthy of its own examination. Since I am basically a heretic at heart (and mind) I feel a certain freedom of thought (and neutrality) qualifies me to make a few observations and comments accordingly.
in-progress /to be continued
in-progress /to be continued
Recycle kindness.
You're currently on page NOU26
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
