1: “Surely, you’ve thought of this before. I can’t be the only one stumbling in darkness.”
2: “Thought of what?”
1: “Morality. Moral life. Ethics even. I’m not sure in this context I know what to call it.”
2: “Context?”
1: “The whole universe.”
2: “I don’t understand. Where’s this going?”
1: “Well, here we are, intelligent beings that discuss ‘morality.’ The topic is often on our minds, especially when we witness an act we consider to be ‘evil.’ If Dr. Frank Drake was correct in his equation, there are bunches of other kinds of intelligent beings scattered throughout the Milky Way.* Then, what about all those other galaxies? Two trillion in the most recent estimate. They all have millions to billions of stars with who knows how many planets. If Drake’s formula holds true, there’s intelligent life out there; bunches of it. Is it moral? Does that life weigh the ‘immoral’ against the ‘moral’? Does it recognize ‘evil’? Is ‘higher’ intelligence destined to construct a moral system or be part of one? And if so, from what does morality derive? Some ‘moral imperative’ that runs throughout the universe?”
2: “The Drake equation reminds me of that joke once declared to be the greatest joke. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson went camping in the wilderness. In the middle of the night Holmes woke up Watson. ‘Watson, Watson! Wake up.’ The bleary-eyed Watson awoke to Holmes’s question: ‘Look up Watson, and tell me what you observe and deduce. Watson, still a little asleep, responded in the knowledge that he was in the presence of one of the sharpest minds of his time: ‘I see thousands of stars, and I deduce that just as our sun has planets, some of those stars must have planets orbiting them, and on some of those planets there must be life, and some of that life must be intelligent. So, I deduce that we are not alone in the universe.’ To which Holmes said, ‘No, Watson, someone stole our tent.’”
1: “Funny. But I was trying to ask a serious question. Is a moral system endemic to the life of all higher intelligence? If so, then why? Is it related to species survival? Is it deeply connected to social life?”
2: “No, because ‘immoral’ lifestyles can be found in every social gathering. Our problem is that you and I probably can’t agree on what moral means. Doesn’t it vary from culture to culture?”
1: “I guess I want to know why morality, immorality, and amorality are important issues, why they take up so much of our time. Is all morality related to the protection of individual members as a way of continuing a species? Or is there another reason for morality? Is morality an extension of empathy? And if it is, does that not mean that morality has little to do with intelligence and much to do with raw emotion? Not too long ago I hit a starling with my car. Not on purpose, but the darn thing just flew in front of my grille. In my side view mirror, I saw it lying on the road behind me, and then I saw another starling fly down, flit it wings repeatedly, leave briefly, and then fly back, flitting again while looking at the lifeless starling. Was there something of a sense of value in the starling that ostensibly ran parallel to my own sense of empathy for the stricken bird? Or am I just thinking too anthropomorphically? Is my own empathy the root of my moral system? Was there a moral sense in the flitting, living starling that made it seem to be saying, ‘Hey, get up. You can’t lie in the middle of a road. Let me help.’ That living bird truly appeared to be ‘concerned.’ When I think about that incident, I ask myself if my moral concerns for other humans are different from the bird’s in either kind or degree.”
2: “Well, we know some birds can invent and use tools. So, they appear to be rather intelligent as we define intelligence. And we know that some birds appear to mate for life. You know, problem solving and loyalty seem to indicate both intelligence and a moral sense. And since starlings fly around in groups, they seem to have a social structure. I’ve seen them give up places on an electric wire, probably to a bird considered somehow to be more deserving. But let’s go back to your original thoughts. So, you’re asking me whether or not I think there are moral beings elsewhere in the universe. I keep wondering about whether or not we have moral beings here, given all the ‘man’s-inhumanity-to-man’ stuff going on. And then I assume you also want me to think about what really underlies any moral system.
“Heck, why not go back further than just concerned starlings. Think brains. Supposedly, certain social animals share with us von Economo neurons, those brain cells which look like spindles and that are located in three specialized brain regions, the Anterior Cingulate Cortex, the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex, and the Fronto-Insular Cortex; at least two of those areas seem to be associated with socialization. Just a few other animals seem to have those spindle cells, all of them rather farther along the intelligence scale and none of them starlings. Animals like dolphins, whales, and elephants. Maybe animals that have those neurons show empathy because of them, but I don’t think starlings have von Economo neurons. Am I forced to be moral because I have certain neurons that are ‘social’ neurons? Oh! And one more thought. If my social sense derives from specialized brain cells, does it also mean that morality is predetermined by biology? Do alien brains act like ours? Obviously, great apes, whales, and elephants do some human-like stuff.”
1: “Maybe so. Just being a social being doesn’t seem to be the key to being moral, however. Bees are social. Would you ascribe a moral sense to them? All those intelligent organisms scattered over trillions of galaxies might seem stranger than bees and yet be intelligent social organisms imbued with a moral sense, or like bees they might be social without being ‘moral.’ That’s the focus of much of our science fiction: Monsters that are either amoral or immoral or superior beings that arrive to save the day like Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still (original film). In the film he arrives to warn that as we become dangerous to ourselves, we begin to pose a threat to the survival of other life-forms. He notes that intelligent beings “out there” devised an ethical or moral system that protects all from annihilation. So, is morality’s purpose inextricably tied to survival?”
2: “If I infer properly you suggest that morality is driven by empathy in social beings looking for ways to survive. What I propose is that deep down we might be moral (or not) in part because of von Economo cells in just three brain regions associated with socialization. Morality everywhere might be a biological endowment. Given the right brain structures, intelligent beings will be moral beings—even if they reject their penchant for morality.”
1: “I know. It seems a bit of a stretch that empathy and survival are the roots of morality.”
2: “Now you’ve got me wondering. I’m thinking…Yes, socialization is a survival mechanism, isn’t it? If so, then regardless of where intelligence develops, it, like our intelligence, will do what it can to survive. And what better way to survive than to build a protective moral system? Of course, I can counter my own argument with those suicide bombers whose ‘morality’ includes murdering innocents. If morality is relative, doesn’t that lead us to another problem?”
1: “That takes us back to the beginning of this conversation. Do you think that intelligent life elsewhere would be moral life? And if you do, do you think that there is some underlying moral principle that applies to all moral systems regardless of where they are?”
2: “But what could underlie all moral systems? Look at the various religions on our planet. Sure, there are similarities; look at Christian and Buddhist principles. All that peace and love stuff. What about the Ten Commandments? What about one of those commandments, the one that says ‘Don’t kill anyone’? We could argue that murder seems to fit into the ‘moral’ system of terrorists; look at what the suicide bombers and the perpetrators of recent genocidal atrocities claim as a moral position.”
1: “That’s why I’m asking you: Is there a moral principle that underlies all moral systems, even those devised by social, intelligent alien life-forms? Come on, think. If we could understand the moral system of aliens, we could point to that common core. Of course, chances of our running into aliens are slim, regardless of how numerous such beings might be. When I think about it, I realize I cannot even discover a common core in all of Earth’s so-called moral systems save survival, thus the emphasis on peace and empathy in so many religions, but not, I’m afraid, in all—as religious wars and genocide attest.
“We claim intelligence, and we claim morality, but we have difficulty understanding one another’s moral systems. When hard pressed, we might even have difficulty defining the essence of our own morality. Do you think you are an intelligent moral being? Why?”
* N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
2: “Thought of what?”
1: “Morality. Moral life. Ethics even. I’m not sure in this context I know what to call it.”
2: “Context?”
1: “The whole universe.”
2: “I don’t understand. Where’s this going?”
1: “Well, here we are, intelligent beings that discuss ‘morality.’ The topic is often on our minds, especially when we witness an act we consider to be ‘evil.’ If Dr. Frank Drake was correct in his equation, there are bunches of other kinds of intelligent beings scattered throughout the Milky Way.* Then, what about all those other galaxies? Two trillion in the most recent estimate. They all have millions to billions of stars with who knows how many planets. If Drake’s formula holds true, there’s intelligent life out there; bunches of it. Is it moral? Does that life weigh the ‘immoral’ against the ‘moral’? Does it recognize ‘evil’? Is ‘higher’ intelligence destined to construct a moral system or be part of one? And if so, from what does morality derive? Some ‘moral imperative’ that runs throughout the universe?”
2: “The Drake equation reminds me of that joke once declared to be the greatest joke. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson went camping in the wilderness. In the middle of the night Holmes woke up Watson. ‘Watson, Watson! Wake up.’ The bleary-eyed Watson awoke to Holmes’s question: ‘Look up Watson, and tell me what you observe and deduce. Watson, still a little asleep, responded in the knowledge that he was in the presence of one of the sharpest minds of his time: ‘I see thousands of stars, and I deduce that just as our sun has planets, some of those stars must have planets orbiting them, and on some of those planets there must be life, and some of that life must be intelligent. So, I deduce that we are not alone in the universe.’ To which Holmes said, ‘No, Watson, someone stole our tent.’”
1: “Funny. But I was trying to ask a serious question. Is a moral system endemic to the life of all higher intelligence? If so, then why? Is it related to species survival? Is it deeply connected to social life?”
2: “No, because ‘immoral’ lifestyles can be found in every social gathering. Our problem is that you and I probably can’t agree on what moral means. Doesn’t it vary from culture to culture?”
1: “I guess I want to know why morality, immorality, and amorality are important issues, why they take up so much of our time. Is all morality related to the protection of individual members as a way of continuing a species? Or is there another reason for morality? Is morality an extension of empathy? And if it is, does that not mean that morality has little to do with intelligence and much to do with raw emotion? Not too long ago I hit a starling with my car. Not on purpose, but the darn thing just flew in front of my grille. In my side view mirror, I saw it lying on the road behind me, and then I saw another starling fly down, flit it wings repeatedly, leave briefly, and then fly back, flitting again while looking at the lifeless starling. Was there something of a sense of value in the starling that ostensibly ran parallel to my own sense of empathy for the stricken bird? Or am I just thinking too anthropomorphically? Is my own empathy the root of my moral system? Was there a moral sense in the flitting, living starling that made it seem to be saying, ‘Hey, get up. You can’t lie in the middle of a road. Let me help.’ That living bird truly appeared to be ‘concerned.’ When I think about that incident, I ask myself if my moral concerns for other humans are different from the bird’s in either kind or degree.”
2: “Well, we know some birds can invent and use tools. So, they appear to be rather intelligent as we define intelligence. And we know that some birds appear to mate for life. You know, problem solving and loyalty seem to indicate both intelligence and a moral sense. And since starlings fly around in groups, they seem to have a social structure. I’ve seen them give up places on an electric wire, probably to a bird considered somehow to be more deserving. But let’s go back to your original thoughts. So, you’re asking me whether or not I think there are moral beings elsewhere in the universe. I keep wondering about whether or not we have moral beings here, given all the ‘man’s-inhumanity-to-man’ stuff going on. And then I assume you also want me to think about what really underlies any moral system.
“Heck, why not go back further than just concerned starlings. Think brains. Supposedly, certain social animals share with us von Economo neurons, those brain cells which look like spindles and that are located in three specialized brain regions, the Anterior Cingulate Cortex, the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex, and the Fronto-Insular Cortex; at least two of those areas seem to be associated with socialization. Just a few other animals seem to have those spindle cells, all of them rather farther along the intelligence scale and none of them starlings. Animals like dolphins, whales, and elephants. Maybe animals that have those neurons show empathy because of them, but I don’t think starlings have von Economo neurons. Am I forced to be moral because I have certain neurons that are ‘social’ neurons? Oh! And one more thought. If my social sense derives from specialized brain cells, does it also mean that morality is predetermined by biology? Do alien brains act like ours? Obviously, great apes, whales, and elephants do some human-like stuff.”
1: “Maybe so. Just being a social being doesn’t seem to be the key to being moral, however. Bees are social. Would you ascribe a moral sense to them? All those intelligent organisms scattered over trillions of galaxies might seem stranger than bees and yet be intelligent social organisms imbued with a moral sense, or like bees they might be social without being ‘moral.’ That’s the focus of much of our science fiction: Monsters that are either amoral or immoral or superior beings that arrive to save the day like Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still (original film). In the film he arrives to warn that as we become dangerous to ourselves, we begin to pose a threat to the survival of other life-forms. He notes that intelligent beings “out there” devised an ethical or moral system that protects all from annihilation. So, is morality’s purpose inextricably tied to survival?”
2: “If I infer properly you suggest that morality is driven by empathy in social beings looking for ways to survive. What I propose is that deep down we might be moral (or not) in part because of von Economo cells in just three brain regions associated with socialization. Morality everywhere might be a biological endowment. Given the right brain structures, intelligent beings will be moral beings—even if they reject their penchant for morality.”
1: “I know. It seems a bit of a stretch that empathy and survival are the roots of morality.”
2: “Now you’ve got me wondering. I’m thinking…Yes, socialization is a survival mechanism, isn’t it? If so, then regardless of where intelligence develops, it, like our intelligence, will do what it can to survive. And what better way to survive than to build a protective moral system? Of course, I can counter my own argument with those suicide bombers whose ‘morality’ includes murdering innocents. If morality is relative, doesn’t that lead us to another problem?”
1: “That takes us back to the beginning of this conversation. Do you think that intelligent life elsewhere would be moral life? And if you do, do you think that there is some underlying moral principle that applies to all moral systems regardless of where they are?”
2: “But what could underlie all moral systems? Look at the various religions on our planet. Sure, there are similarities; look at Christian and Buddhist principles. All that peace and love stuff. What about the Ten Commandments? What about one of those commandments, the one that says ‘Don’t kill anyone’? We could argue that murder seems to fit into the ‘moral’ system of terrorists; look at what the suicide bombers and the perpetrators of recent genocidal atrocities claim as a moral position.”
1: “That’s why I’m asking you: Is there a moral principle that underlies all moral systems, even those devised by social, intelligent alien life-forms? Come on, think. If we could understand the moral system of aliens, we could point to that common core. Of course, chances of our running into aliens are slim, regardless of how numerous such beings might be. When I think about it, I realize I cannot even discover a common core in all of Earth’s so-called moral systems save survival, thus the emphasis on peace and empathy in so many religions, but not, I’m afraid, in all—as religious wars and genocide attest.
“We claim intelligence, and we claim morality, but we have difficulty understanding one another’s moral systems. When hard pressed, we might even have difficulty defining the essence of our own morality. Do you think you are an intelligent moral being? Why?”
* N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
RSS Feed