15 December 2003
Dear Friends,
What follows is further development of the discussion initiated in "Dear Friends," 11/16/03, and continued 11/27/03. Here, we will be expanding upon the topic of "morality."
Please bear in mind that this is not simply an excursion into possibly intellectually stimulating or entertaining philosophical issues for our idle amusement. The present discussion was originally prompted, after a prolonged hiatus, by yet another anguished, almost despairing look, 11/16, at the "human predicament." This is not an abstraction. The "human predicament" is your predicament, and mine, right here, right now. Either we find a solution for it, and extricate ourselves from it, and that right speedily, or we "die;" cease our biological adventure of human life on planet Earth. We're coming down to "crunch time," folks, and our options are steadily diminishing. These are uncompromising facts, and they touch you, personally, intimately, and unavoidably.
Your every act, choice, decision - including "inaction" and "non-decision" - bear consequences to yourself, which also spread out, like rings expanding from a pebble tossed into a still pond, and touch the lives of countless others, known to you and unknown. There is nowhere these "chains of consequence" from a single act may truthfully be said to come to an end. This is yet another way of saying, as has been said in these pages so many times, all are One. Whether we know it or not, or like it or not, we are all, all intimitely connected with one another. Our every act, choice, decision, bears consequences for ourselves, and for everyone and everything "else," everywhere, throughout all "time" and "space." These acts, choices, decisions, and their consequences, are entirely reciprocal: we affect everyone and everything with our acts, and are affected by all the acts of everyone and everything "else;" for in truth, there is no one and nothing "else." There is only One here, and "thou art That."
Therefore, this issue that has frequently, and traditionally, gone under the label, "morality," is important, for it bears upon the decisions you make about what you will and will not do under the constantly changing circumstances you encounter in your daily life. Deciding to adhere to a "moral code" laid out for you by "someone else" is a decision, like all decisions, with consequences. It is the decision most of us have made, one way or another, for most of our lives, throughout most of the world, and most of human history. We have delegated our individual responsibility to "authorities" of one description or another. Many of the consequences of these decisions are evident in the world we inhabit, and in the experiences we have in our every-day lives; which I have been summing up with what I call the "human predicament."
In the 11/27 edition, I briefly mentioned "morality," and gave it a provisional definition; yet focused my main discussion, in part, upon what is, and is not, in the best interest of anyone engaged in human action. When it is clearly understood a) that all are One, and b) that each is sovereign, and consequently responsible for his or her actions, and their consequences, it becomes possible to move away from the idea of "morality," and into the realm of conforming our behavior to our own highest and best interests - which many existing "moral codes" define without further discussion as a priori immoral.
On the contrary, further examination of "morality" and "individual interest" is vital, and I predict will yield surprising and liberating discoveries. Also, because it is the concept almost universally employed when considering all forms of human action, "morality" cannot easily be evaded. Accordingly, I propose here to attempt a coordinated evaluation of traditional concepts of "morality," in parallel with an approach I believe to be far less prone to misuse and corruption.
Disappointingly, yet undeniably, "moral codes" in the past, with their concomitant "institutions," "laws," and "governments," have often been deliberate hoaxes developed for a single purpose, namely, to control the will and actions of the "many" by the "few" self-appointed "moral leaders," for the exclusive profit of the "leaders," at the expense of their "followers."1 In the view being developed here, this would be at once immoral, and contrary to the interests of "leaders" and "followers" alike.
Standing upon the axiomatic ground that a) all are One, and b) each is sovereign, I made the following statements, somewhat rearanged here, about "morality."
- Any action that is not immoral is moral.
- Pre-emptive use of force, and only pre-emptive use of force, is immoral.
- Included in the deffinition of pre-emptive use of force are:
- overt pre-emptive force,
- fraud,
- deception,
- malicious nondisclosure,
- theft,
- threat of force.
- Theft, deception, slander - even if these go entirely undetected - as well as overt physical attack, are examples of pre-emptive use of force.
- Any effort to control the will and actions of anyone, other than oneself, is by nature, and by definition here, pre-emptive use of force.
- Any pre-emptive, or unprovoked hostile or malicious action (or inaction), deliberately intended to damage the interests of its recipient(s), or to profit at their expense, is here defined as immoral.
- Any being in Cosmos pre-emptively attacked or threatened by another may legitimately defend itself.
- "Morality" is not the most appropriate frame of reference..., because "morality" implies "action someone might want to take, but 'ought not' to take;" which implies in turn the presence of some sort of "authority" to adjudicate what "ought" and "ought not" be done.
- Rather, pre-emptive use of force ... is intrinsically self-destructive, because all are One, and so is universally and infallibly contrary to the interests of the one so acting.2
In sum, the thesis being developed here is that when our true relationship to our fellows, and to Cosmos at large, is deeply and thoroughly understood, what has traditionally been called "moral behavior" may be seen clearly to be indistinguishable from pursuit of one's highest self interest. This brings the individual into dynamic harmony with "All Things," and brings to an end the perpetual warlike struggle to balance the needs and desires of the individual with the seemingly competing pressures exerted by "others" - often imposed by "authorities" of doubtful authenticity, by means of pre-emptive use of force.
Statements 1. and 2., above, have been given somewhat alternative expression in some of my earlier essays, for instance as follows:
- Do only that which is in harmony with the "highest good" for "All That Is."
- Do whatever you wish.
- Allow all others the liberty to do likewise.3
...which have in turn far earlier antecedents, as for example, the following familiar passage:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: This is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.4
All these share a similar purpose and meaning, and a resonant spirit.
Statements 3., 4., 5., and 6. flesh out and expand the meaning of pre-emptive use of force - which is to say, immorality, or action which is universally contrary to the interests of the one so acting.
Statement 7. states the natural, universal, and legitimate response to pre-emptive use of force - which is by nature a de facto declaration of war by its perpetrator(s), against its object(s).
Statement 8. touches the fundamental problem underlying the concept of "morality," inasmuch as it implies some sort of "authority" to give it definition. If it is True that all are One, and each is sovereign, there can be no effective "authority," beyond the inmost "guidance" within each of us, and common to us all; i.e., the "guidance" of the One which each of us is, and all of us are. All such claims to "authority," or "priority" of one peer over another, are without foundation, for as discussed earlier,
"...we all, everyone and everything, share a common Source. Whatever 'it' is that 'spawned' 'Life, the Universe, and Everything,' ... we all share 'it' in common. Therefore, no one and nothing is any more or less 'important' than anyone or anything else."5
And, no one posesses any intrinsic "authority" not shared by his or her peers.
Therefore, any "moral claim" that one "ought," or "ought not" do such-and-such may be met with the qustion, "Who says so?" or, "By what 'authority' do you address me?" The only "authority" with any force is just that: pre-emptive force - which is itself immoral by the definition given in statement 2.; which springs in turn from the Truth that all are One. Is this really True? I believe so. I can even say I know so6 - yet I cannot say so with any claim to "authority" not common to everyone.
Specialized authority springs from unique individual accomplishment, and is acknowledged by others through fully informed consent and agreement. Anyone fraudulently claiming specialized authority to which he or she is not by accomplishment entitled, resorts to pre-emptive use of force, as defined above in statements 3.-6., and thereby places her or himself in a condition of de facto war with all he or she deceives, or attempts to deceive. Such a one, by his or her own action, not by the judgement of others, immediately casts himself or herself as a pariah, entirely out of genuinely civil society, and as one to be defended against, if possible, by any appropriate or effective means. Hence, subparagraphs 5.3.1., 5.3.2., and 5.3.3., of our Prayer, and Statement of Purpose. Indeed, pre-emptive use of force immediately puts its perpetrator at war with genuinely civil society, and with those who seek to build and maintain it.
The social facts that pre-emptive use of force has been "Standard Operating Procedure" in human "society" (so called), and consequently that there has been no genuinely civil society in human history,7 do not contradict the intrinsically self-destructive nature of pre-emptive use of force. Rather, they emphasize it in a global context; and they deliniate yet again the contemporary "human predicament." Our situation is that all those who have, in great or small ways, practiced pre-emptive use of force - which includes just about all of us - have so thoroughly "trashed our planet" that we find it today almost uninhabitable, and "sliding downhill" at a swift and accelerating pace. This is the fruit of our sense of "morality," rising from our delegated "authoritative sources." And who will defend this "human predicament" as ultimately to the advantage of anyone?
So... this is the "problem." What is the "solution?" Statement 9. affirms that pre-emptive use of force is intrinsically self-destructive, and infallibly guaranteed to be contrary to the interests of the one so acting. This knowledge, coupled with the knowledge, a) that all are One, and b) that each is sovereign, and consequently responsible for his or her actions, and their consequences, provides a bridge from our failed concepts of "morality" to an approach to human action that may actually work.
If there are no legitimate "authorities," aside from specialized authorities who have "earned their spurs," and can demonstrate it, then there is no legitimate basis for "morality" as it has been applied in human history; because all such "morality" is the product of delegated "authorities" without authentic basis. This leaves a very significant "vacancy," which must be filled by something. Each of us requires some sort of personal ethic by which we pilot our own lives and make our decisions in relation to one another. If not the "morality" prepared for us by our delegated "authorities," what should be its basis?
Well, each of us is a specialized authority, at least potentially, in the field of our own best interest. This is a field prone to error, particularly among the young and inexperienced, who frequently misapprehend what their best interest really is. Children will typically eat candy, if it is available to them, until they make themselves sick, which one may reasonably doubt is genuinely in their best interest. Similarly, an alcoholic may sincerely believe that nothing on Earth could do him as much "good" right now, as a tall, stiff drink of "the right stuff." But there is a high probibility he may be mistaken. In other words, one's own best interest is not always obvious. We frequently damage ourselves, and one another, in the mistaken belief that we are acting in our own best interest.
Perception of one's own best interest is particularly prone to error if one is not aware of her or his identity with "All That Is," and remains captivated by the poverty consciousness discussed earlier.8 Such profound misperception skews one's ability to evaluate one's own best interest close to "180° out of phase" with what it actually is. The result is the painful spectacle of a significant number of pathologically deranged individuals, some in positions of high responsibility and trust, expending enormous effort on the project of "shooting themselves, each other, and all the rest of us, in the foot;" and "trashing the planet," potentially irreversably, in the process.
This is yet another restatement of the "human predicament." The only "solution" to it, that makes sense to me, is a spontaneous, widespread "expansion of consciousness" among people in all walks of life, and "social strata," into a profound intuitive awareness, a) that all are One; b) that each is sovereign, and responsible for his or her actions, and their consequences; and consequently c) that pre-emptive use of force is intrinsically self-destructive, and infallibly guaranteed to be contrary to the interests of the one(s) so acting.
I believe this "expansion of consciousness" is well in progress among the human residents of this planet, and that it is important that each of us "contribute our little" to pushing the process along; which is why I write what I write. Yet as much as we may strive in various ways to "push the process along," its primary impetus must come from within each individual - particularly as opposed to being "bestowed from above" by yet another "moral authority." The latter is precisely how the "human predicament" arose in the first place. It is the source of the "problem," not its "solution." "Do what you did; get what you got."9
The process of "expanding one's consciousness" and arriving eventually at a reliable perception of one's own best interest is not without its hazards. "Mistakes" are part of the process, and lead, like every human action, to their natural consequences; which in the case of "mistakes," are unintended, and often "disagreeable." Nevertheless, I submit to your consideration that even a rudimentary understanding, a) that all are One; b) that each is sovereign, and responsible for his or her actions, and their consequences; and c) that pre-emptive use of force is intrinsically self-destructive, and infallibly guaranteed to be contrary to the interests of the one so acting, will render a significant improvement upon any "moral code" bestowed by a "moral authority" of any description. To any who may protest to the effect that this is "far too radical" a proposal, I shrug and reply, "Do what you did; get what you got." Do you want to find a solution to the "human predicament," or do you want to ride it out to its appointed destination? These are the choices facing all of us, right here, right now. The ball is in motion, and the clock is ticking. It's your call.
Fortunately, what is called for here is not so simple and blunt as "scrapping" across the board all existing "moral codes" arising from "authoritative sources," and filling the resulting "vacancy" exclusively with the personal ethic suggested. In keeping with the insight that all are One, we're not talking about "either / or," but rather, "both / and." Practically everyone already has a personal ethic of some kind, which is a unique composit of "lessons learned" through principles imbibed "at Mother's knee," personal experience, and usually, elements from "moral codes" with many sources. One may consider onself a "Hindu," "Muslim," "Buddhist," "Christian," or a constituent of some other identifiable or unidentifiable sect or doctrine. Whatever they are, it is rare that one's "religious beliefs" are purely "by the Book" and absolutely unalloyed with elements from other sources, even if great pains are taken to "defend the faith," and keep the doctrine "pure." Everyone is unique, and the understanding and faith of no two Christians, Buddhists, etc. are exactly alike. Our beliefs are all, to at least some extent, eclectic.
Therefore, the "expansion of consciousness" under discussion here need not be viewed as "competitive" with existing faiths and doctrines. Indeed, even the concept of competition carries with it a nuance, a "suspicion" of pre-emptive use of force on some level, which we have already demonstrated is contrary to the interests of the one so acting, and consequently not recommended.
Additionally, the course of human events has always been the product of consensus, not the opinion of any particular individual; and in any case is already the product of individual evaluations, each of his or her own best interest. The consensus in the past has favored "moral codes" bestowed by delegated "authorities," which has been perceived as in the best interest of overwhelming numbers of individual humans. What I am suggesting is simply that the widespread "expansion of consciousness," already in progress, may yield a different consensus, somewhat along the lines I have described. This is an opinion, and can claim no higher "authority" than that of anyone who reads it.
Exploring further, Statement 7, above, potentially raises some questions. "Any being in Cosmos pre-emptively attacked or threatened by another may legitimately defend itself." "Defend itself," how? By what means? To what extent?
As is often the case, Nature provides numerous examples of how "nonhuman beings" defend themselves from "pre-emptive attack." There are few more peaceful creatures than forraging honey bees in a field of clover. Yet accidentally step on one barefoot, and you may receive a painful sting - even though your "pre-emptive attack" was void of malicious intent, and was entirely accidental.
"Pre-emptively attack" a beehive, with the purpose of raiding its store of honey, and you are likely to call down upon yourself the painful retaliation of swarms of angry bees, willing to "defend to the death" their nest, and their queen. Yet every bee sting is a suicide. Bees are "kamikazes," for their stings are barbed, and remain in the wound the bee inflicts. The bee cannot leave without disemboweling itself, which is unavoidably fatal - to the bee, not, usually, to its "attacker."
Skunks and porcupines too are notoriously peaceful creatures in the wild; yet each is equipped to account for itself effectively, in the event it is "pre-emptively attacked" by a predator. Neither skunks nor porcupines, however, are noted for destroying their attackers; only for makeing them intensely uncomfortable.
Get on the wrong side of a bear in the wild, however, and all bets are off. You may innocently, with no malicious intent, have wandered inadvertently between a sow and her cub. Watch out! she may interpret your presence there as a "pre-emptive attack," and rend you limb from limb, or kill you outright, if you are unable to evade her charge. All because of an innocent "mistake" on the part of an unaware stroller in the woods.
A mountain lion, or couger, may mark you down for its prey, and stalk you silently, invisibly, and effectively, should you have the misfortune to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time" in the wild. The result could be a "pre-emptive attack" upon you, and you could be mauled, or killed, and carried off. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened, so I am told.
There are evidently a wide spectrum of responses to "pre-emptive attack" in Nature; and so it seems reasonable that there should be a wide spectrum of responses to pre-emptive use of force by humans. Mainly, when someone launches a de facto war against his or her fellows, by means of pre-emptive use of force, there is no reliable way to predict what the response might be. It might be anything. The initiator of hostilities abrogates all claims, and has no basis for complaint, no matter what retaliatory measures she or he or they invoke. This is one of many reasons why pre-emptive use of force is intrinsically self-destructive, and infallibly guaranteed to be contrary to the interests of the one(s) so acting.
Still, it may be worth mentioning that retaliation for pre-emptive use of force may possibly be carried too far, in some instances. Someone pre-emptively, and without provocation, shoves you in the street; and you, being a black-belt in Karate, or armed with a stout stick, retaliate by beating your assailant to within an inch of his life, fracturing bones and teeth in the process, and maybe putting out an eye or two. There may be a point in such a confrontation at which your retaliation "overflows reasonable bounds," and you become in a sense the wielder of pre-emptive force. If so, this is contrary to your interests.
Such issues are open to discussion, debate, and presonal introspection; and "mistakes" occur, even in the lives of the most scrupulously careful and well-intentioned. My main position is that, in general, errors of judgment or action notwithstanding, a population of individuals, each maintaining a personal ethic which includes the principles, a) that all are One; b) that each is sovereign, and responsible for his or her actions, and their consequences; and c) that pre-emptive use of force is intrinsically self-destructive, and infallibly guaranteed to be contrary to the interests of the one so acting, are thereby much more likely than otherwise, to be "morally equipped" to create a genuinely civil society; which, by the testimony of history, is evidently not possible, absent such ethics.
If these speculations are agreeable to you, or "interesting," and you know others who may find them so, feel free to copy this page, and share it. We all face a predicament desperately in want of solution. Such solution must emerge from the synergistic exchange among many hearts and minds. At the moment, this is my contribution to this exchange. Thank you for your time and attention.
Love, Peace, Joy, Now,
Harmon
(To be continued 2/15/04)
_____________________________________
1. See my 11/23/98 essay, "Governance" in The New Paradigm, and in the Law section of the Freedom Digital Library.
2. "Dear Friends," 11/27/03 edition.
3. "New Beginnings, Part IV" in the Communities section of the Freedom Digital Library. See also paragraph 5.3., et seq., of Prayer, and Statement of Purpose, in the same section.
4. Mark 12:30-31, King James Version, quoted in "New Beginnings, Part IV".
5. "Dear Friends," 11/27/03 edition.
6. See my August 1997 essay,"Knowledge" for an in-depth analysis of what we know, and how we know that we know it, in the Intelligence section of the Freedom Digital Library.
7. With possible "minor" exceptions. There may be, or may have been from time to time, and place to place, isolated societies that may be described as genuinely civil. Unfortunately, if any such have ever existed, they have all been, or are now in the process of being swept away by the overwhelming exercise of pre-emptive use of force.
8. In "Dear Friends," 11/27/03 edition.
9. Sharing the Commonwealth in the Peace section of the Freedom Digital Library.
"Dear Friends," 12/15/03 edition, copyright 2003 by J. Harmon Grahn. Verbatim copying and redistribution are permitted in any medium provided this notice is preserved.