Universal Morality? 
Here are my thoughts on a concept I call "ASSUME" which attempts to take an open, honest and level-headed look at the idea of "Universal Morality". 
 

In this article I only look at the issue of Universal Morality from my perspective (which is the only field in which I can legitimately claim to be an expert) as I understand it at this point in time. The main reason I want to do this is because of its wide ranging acceptance on the face of this planet and its influence in all aspects of human life. I am not trying to establish a new system of universal morality (or any other system of morality for that matter) in any way, shape or form. 

This is not meant as a direct attack on the ideals or values which are part of any particular brand of Universal Morality. Rather it is an attack on the philosophical practice of holding such ideals and values captive to any form of Universal Morality in the first place. I don't want to do away with the ideals and values associated with Universal Morality. I want to set them free from it. In writing this, my deepest concern is making sure not to turn focus away from the ideals and values them selves, but on the contrary to actually focus directly on them so that they can be seen for what they really are without the distractions of any particular moral code clouding our view of them. 

If anything, this is an invitation to critical thinking. I won't be so arrogant as to say that those holding to one or another code of Universal Morality are necessarily not thinking critically. However, if critical thinking does in fact pose a threat or challenge to holding one particular form of Universal Morality or another as one's guide in life, then let it be so. 

Now, if you hold to, follow or are a believer in a particular code of Universal Morality, you might find it very hard to even read through this article let alone pay close attention to what I have to say in it and actually consider my ideas with an open mind. However, that is exactly what I'm inviting you to do. You might get hooked by certain catch phrases or get distracted by pet peeves, but I encourage you to set all of that aside. I might not always mean the same thing that you would mean by using a particular word or phrase, and you might not get to an understanding of what I mean by using it until later on in the article from the point at which you first encounter it. Please feel free to contact me to ask clarifying questions as well. 


In the section for each respective term, I will first state what I think the term means. The way I describe each term may not be universally held by those engaging in reading this. They are simply my working definitions. I want to be up front. So, I offer them in order for you to examine and decide for your self whether or not you think I have any unacceptable preconceptions about this issue before you read on.
    After stating my working definitions, I will offer what I consider to be reason enough to avoid using such building materials when constructing one's own world view. 

Absolute
Static
Systems
Universal
Morality and Ethics


Absolute
To me this means that it is just there and there's nothing we can do about it, and though our ideas about it may come close to expressing it, they are not likely enough to catch quite all of what is there. Whatever is absolute is not debatable ...or at least, if we do debate about it, the debate is irrelevant with regard to the actual nature of the absolute; supposing there is anything which is absolute in the first place (which, for me, outside of 'Natural Law' is quite a stretch).

Problems with absolutism as I see them at this point in time.
Danger and Consentropy

1. Danger
For the most part I think that claims of absolutes are dangerous because, first of all, they are unattainable. There is no way any human alive today could ever verify most of what is called "absolute" in the realms of religion and philosophy. 
    One danger is in compelling folks to count something as absolute when in fact their own brain can't actually verify it as absolute. This has lead to a great deal of anxiety, stress and trauma in many people's lives. They find themselves trapped between what their brain clearly understands to be real and that which their belief system of choice forces them to pretend. I don't think this is fair. I don't think it is healthy to do this to each other and our selves. 
    Another danger is in missing important parts of reality along the way because I'm too focused on my fantasy. If my fantasy says that there absolutely is a God of some sort, and that this God will always heal people of bacterial infections when I pray hard enough, two things might result... One is that many people will die that could have been saved by a simple, inexpensive dose of antibiotics. The other is that I might end up with a great load of guilt for not praying correctly or not praying hard enough to save these people from their infections. In either case, an error in mental processing (choosing to prefer fantasy over reality) results in an unnecessarily unhealthy experience in life. 
    The dangers are so numerous that I could write books on this issue alone. In fact, many books have already been written about it. Some are from a perspective similar to my own, where the author sees the problem at the level of absolutism and the fact that it is being employed at all in the first place. Others are from the perspective of people who are buying into one absolute or another and are seeing some of the dangers of absolutism, but are not quite ready to acknowledge that absolutism it self is one of the root causes of the problems. (For those of you who knew me in my 20s, you can probably guess which resources I'm referring to in the latter category; David Johnson/Open Door, Jeff VanVonderan, Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, Ken Blue. Since those resources were actually a large part of what helped me eventually come out of the darkness of an uncritical mind, I still recommend them to Christians today even though I am no longer a believer.) 

2. Consentropy:  (con·sen·tro·py)
    an infinitely exponential perpetual entropy of consensus

  [FYI: Since some of you got to this section from the Critical Thinking main page, this is just a note to let you know that this is a portion of my page about a concept I call ASSUME.]

Another problem with absolutism, even if we were to assume it into the mix for the sake of discussion, has to do with consensus.

The equation goes like this:
     [#P  -  NatSci  x  !!!  =  ~#!>%8?]

That is,

a multitude of participants
    minus the scientific study of nature
        multiplied by an increase of opinions
equals the approximate number of opinions is greater than an unknown percentage of infinity

  [or simply, an infinitely exponential perpetual entropy of consensus: Consentropy]

You see, the more people get involved and the less they study nature and decide that they prefer fantasy over reality, the farther and farther they will go from consensus. 

To be fair, this is not to say that there can only be consensus on things in the realm of science. Certainly we see a great deal of consensus in a great many things which have nothing what so ever to do with science. I'm just making the point that scientific study of nature is the only place we can be sure to ever find anything that is absolute, if in fact it is there to find at all, and it is the only place there can ever be real consensus.

Why? It's simple. For one thing, we can be certain that whatever scientists might ever find to be absolute is actually there since it was found through the use of the scientific method. Again, not to say that without this method, there can't be anything which is absolute, but just that without it, we'll never really be able to know for sure. 

Everything else is the product of imagination and creativity which is not bound by anything other than our mental capacity as a species. Thus, it is possible (though it doesn't have to go this way) that the more we exercise our imagination and creativity as individuals in a vacuum that excludes the scientific study of nature, the less and less consensus we will have with each other about what is absolute. 

Whatever is actually absolute (and I guess there must be something that's absolute, somewhere, in some sense) is not debatable. No one holding to a code of Universal Morality argues about whether or not there is an absolute, but just about what is absolute. What is debatable then is whether or not a particular thing is absolute. So, the problem comes in with trying to arrive at a consensus on exactly what it is that is actually absolute. 

The variety of philosophies and religions alone should give us some clue to whether or not it will ever be possible for even any one person to know for sure whether or not there even is an absolute at all and what it is, let alone get everyone else to see it and acknowledge it and agree on it.

The real kicker here is the fact that this vast chasm doesn't seem to stop, or even distract the absolutist from trying. In fact, it often appears to fuel the drive of some absolutists to push their particular opinion on "the Absolute" all the more causing even more contention and division even among the original group which used to have consensus on the issue. [Again, how well I know (for those of you without the privilege of having known me in my 20s, I used to be an absolutist of the conservative Christian persuasion)]. 

Thus, consentropy persists. 

Just in case you missed it, here's another example of why I'm more into approaches than positions.
I'm not advocating for a position that says that there are no absolutes (that would be "Absolute Relativity", which I do not subscribe to).
Rather, I'm advocating for an approach that acknowledges ignorance and has no position with regard to the nature of, existence of or non-existence of anything which can't be known for sure. 

Some may think the explanation of my acronym A.S.S.U.M.E. above (How Absolute, Static Systems of Universal Morality and Ethics make an ASS out of U and ME) might sound pretty absolutist. Well, it just may be an absolutist type of statement. Please bare with me though if you are willing. Give me a chance to explain why I word it like this. It's partially for the effect of grabbing the attention of absolutists (current and former absolutists like my self) with phraseology that they're already familiar with. 

However, if in the course of trying to avoid moral absolutism it seems like I'm falling into the trap of being a reactionary ass in some other absolutist format, please confront me about it. I am always open to valid criticism... eventually (whether at first I acknowledge it as being valid or not). 

Static
In the general sense of the word, it is fixed and immovable. It is changeless and will always remain the same. It is unaffected by experience or the passage of time. 

Problems with the way staticness is ascribed...
In the context of the religious beliefs I once held (and which most Bible-centered religious believers still now hold) however, not only was static a term that meant that it was unaffected by experience or the passage of time, but even worse, it has no experience at all since it does not even pass through time in the first place. In the case of God, the idea I had during part of my religious years was that God was a Being that existed outside of what we know of as Time, and that God in fact even created Time it self. Therefore, whatever this God had to say was understood to be just as "timeless" as God. The problem of course is that this kind of theology leaves no room for God to interact in any way what-so-ever with the creation that God had made and which the Story seems to show God so interested in. 
I know where this particular staticness came from with regard to God, from the Greek's idea of the One (I write about this much more extensively elsewhere. Please ask me for access to the relevant pages if you are interested in the theological viewpoint of a non-believer). Philosophy and religion being static came from the philosopher's and the religious person's fear of ever being shown to have been mistaken. So, they came up with this in order to lock in whatever they came up with. Not all of them take it this far, but most of them sure come pretty close. 


Systems
It is not necessarily just one thing or idea alone, but is a combination of multiple things or ideas which are put together into a group. Usually, but not always, the group is meant to work together in harmony so as to either work on various parts of a project and cooperate on completing it as a team or to explain different philosophical aspects of something and arrive at a cohesive body of knowledge about it. 

Problems with systems as I see them at this point in time
I don't see any problems with "systems" in general at all. Systems are just what they are; systems. It is in not recognizing that there is a system at play or in not calculating adequately enough to make sure the system actually "works" well as a system that there are problems with systems. So, although there can be poorly constructed systems, the problem usually isn't with the concept of systems, but with the ones constructing and using them. 

Universal  [including my comments on "shoulding"]
It is effective for everyone and everything, everywhere throughout all time. There is nothing in all of existence for which it does not apply or which can escape its essential relevance no matter how different, new, original or unique a person, place or thing is perceived to be. 

One of the problems with universalism as I see it at this point in time
Sometimes this kind of thinking leads to another oddity of human socialization. People and groups of people who get caught up in the idea that their way of thinking or doing things is the one and only right or correct way tend to excel in the field of "shoulding" everyone around them. Especially those on the outside of their particular belief group.  Here I want to make it very clear where I stand on the issue of "shoulding" others. 

Just for the sake of clarification, I don't say that others "should" do critical thinking (or anything else for that matter) for the most part in general. I just say that I think it could be helpful to them and I try like hell to point out areas in their worldviews where it seems to me that critical thinking has not taken place. Still, this has nothing to do with telling them that they "should" do critical thinking. It's just stating out loud what I see and how I perceive it from my perspective. 

I try so hard to make it very clear when talking with people (and in my writing) that I have no intention of telling them what they should or should not do in relation to these kinds of things. I try to make my point as forcefully and as boldly as I can without ever stepping over the boundary of personal preference, suggestion and invitation into the land of self-righteousness, obligation and demands. Please confront me on it if you ever think you see me going off in that direction. It is not my intent and I would be very grateful to you for your help in spotting it if it should ever crop up. 

Sure there are some places in life where I probably do think that people "should" do things (including critical thinking). For instance, I think that people driving motor vehicles "should" stop at all stop signs in most situations for the sake of the health and well-being of them self and others around them regardless of whether or not they think it is necessary. If nothing else, the act of doing so in all stop sign situations helps reinforce the habit of doing it later on in situations where it may actually be absolutely necessary to save their life (or the life of someone else). 

Notice, to ward off the extremist, legalists that try to skewer me on my own words (because they're too busy trying to find something wrong with my words to actually pay close attention to what I'm actually trying to say), I said "in most situations". I know that there may indeed be times when actually stopping for a stop sign may be detrimental to one's health and those around them. I'm a situational ethicist. 

It may be that you think that the concept of "should" is implied in some of what I write due to the forcefulness or boldness with which I state it. However, "shoulding" people is not my main thrust. Inviting them is. 

Since this issue is so important to me personally, and since I genuinely care so much about people and helping them get free from the manipulation and control of others, I am always open to being confronted about this issue. If such things are found in my writings and brought to my attention, I will certainly take a good hard look and genuinely consider what the person confronting me has to say. 

Where necessary, I will either acknowledge the area in which I still have an unreasonable "should" hanging around or I will make the appropriate changes to the wording to better convey what I actually meant to say if "shoulding" was not my intent. 

Either way, I genuinely want to be sensitive to the way my words are understood by others. I may seem a bit un-empathetic at times if it seems like what I'm saying is harsh or indifferent toward persons. However, don't mistake what I say as being this kind of situation just because I am being harsh or indifferent towards what people think or believe. Just because I attack what people believe doesn't mean I am attacking the person them self. It is only weak-mindedness and unstable personalities that can't handle their own worldview being torn apart to find what really lies within and upon what kind of intellectual foundation it is really built. 

I would like to quote from a song I wrote (yep, I'm still a singer/song writer) a while back, "Are you tired of pretending, and avoiding the truth when it hurts? I'm hearin from one extreme to the other, but what about everything in between? Compassion not arrogance makes me bold enough to ask you these questions. Do you prefer fantasy or reality? Are you really thinking or just believing?" 

Those are just simple questions. Any "bad" or uncaring attitude one might find in them is put there by their own mind. I have no ill intent toward anyone when asking such questions. I'm just curious. I really care about people and I'm genuinely interested in understanding how they use their brain (the degree to which they use it for thinking and the degree they use it for believing) and why they believe the things they believe. In fact, it is specifically because I do care about people that I'm asking these questions in the first place. 

It seems to me that being bold and standing out in the crowd by saying what we think is not an arrogant act in and of it self. Rather, it's what's in the person's attitude that determines their relative degrees of arrogance and humility. Making bold proclamations of what seems real to us is not necessarily saying that we think other people "should" or "should not" do this or that. 

Sometimes (and hopefully always in my case) it is just a matter of using the skills we have at our disposal to invite others to think about something. In my case in particular, even more important than an invitation to consider a particular opinion, it's an invitation to consider an approach to thinking about things (an approach which they may or may not have really encountered very much up to this point). 

Invitation being the most important point. It's not about "should", but about "could". I invite you to think about that. What do you think?

 [this link will take you back to my "other Thoughts" page] 

Morality and Ethics
This is the arena where we find the battle between various concepts of of Right and Wrong/ Good and Evil. 

First of all, here are the generalized definitions I'm assuming for these two words here in this section...
Morality: opinions about 'right & wrong'
Ethics: the decision making process in the midst of life applications of these opinions

In other words, one's morality says that 'object x' is BAD and should be avoided. How they go about avoiding and the degree to which they avoid 'object x' in the real world is a matter of ethics; the decision making process that happens when it actually becomes necessary to act in such a way that is in keeping with and reflects their moral beliefs.

It is right here that I usually lose at least half of my audience. "You mean I have to actually live according to the values I claim to care about?"

To which I'd say, "Well, I'm not saying that you have to. Your own moral code is telling you that. It's all up to you whether or not you're going to do it. All I'm doing is helping you think through your system of beliefs far enough to see how it would actually 'play out' in real life situations. You can take it from there and think about it and decide for your self whether or not each particular moral belief seems realistic in light of your life and the world in which you actually have to live it."

Problems with Morality and Ethics as I see them at this point in time...
For the record, I do not personally hold to or believe in any form of Universal Morality or Ethics. I do have preferences for human interaction, and I will act on them, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that those preferences are Absolute or Universal in any mysterious, magical, supernatural or metaphysical sense.

Also, since I'm always open to and in fact desiring to be learning and growing and maturing as a person, my preferences are most certainly not Static either. My core set of preferences might change (even if so slightly as to be unnoticeable) from time to time. They are also flexible to the extent that they can adjust for certain situations without essentially changing. 

...more on the way