Poemander

Ethics is an approach in relation to somebody or something other then you. For an individual entity, every dealing directed outwards becomes a matter of ethics. Without individuality ethics ceases to be a consideration as there is no line to separate between the self and the others. There is no ethics involved in dealing with your own self either, because rights and wrongs are always regarded in consideration to others even if require extensive self reflection. Ethics only becomes a consideration on crossing this cursory line between the self and the others. Therefore, the outreach of ethics is determined by the nature of individuality. And how broad and definitive this nature outlines the scope of moral.

Firstly, is there something such as right and wrong intrinsically, per se, outside of interpretation? This is predominantly an enquiry into the nature of existence. If existence is self-sufficient or complete, then there is no right or wrong per se because it has everything what it needs. If existence is not self-sufficient, not complete, i.e. it needs propagating which embeds the concept of choice, then right and wrong becomes an issue because someone needs to make the choice. Who is the one making the choice is a separate question concerned mainly with the bounds of consciousness and the individuality.

Now we can make an assumption that no choice equals no ethics and the existence of choice (in whatever form) entails ethical consideration (to a various degree and extent).

If existence is propagated by choice, then there could be a completely random choice or a fully informed choice and anything in between. A fully informed choice is the one that assumes a perfect and conclusive knowledge of all influencing factors and outcomes. And if this is even hypothetically possible (which should be, because there is a concept of an absolute or perfection) then the concept of choice drops out again because there is no need for choice as perfection pursues a goal with a complete determinism. Even choosing a goal is no longer relevant because perfect knowledge also entails knowing what will be (through a perfect insight or a de facto knowledge of all outcomes). However, if one perpetually knows what there was and what there will be, won't they be left with only one thing – looking for a meaning? Yes, but only if they are aware that there might be at least a single unknown, even most improbable, which implies that the system is not absolutely perfect. An absolute perfection would also have a knowledge of meaning, wouldn't it? So, in such a hypothetical case, would this perfect system have any reason to sustain itself perpetually? It seems very inappropriate, though, to talk about reasons in the context of an absolute, but perfect knowledge of all causes and effects, including past and future, will have to collapse all at once or render them all accomplished immediately. So, there cannot be any logic for such system to sustain itself, at least from the standpoint of our logic, i.e. narrowly speaking. An absolute perfect system would automatically reduce itself to nil, shut itself down, because all past, present and future causes have effectively been resolved and there is nothing left out. Such system would accomplish itself vouching space-time no longer relevant since it has all the past and future information necessary to accomplish anything now (knowing the outcome would be no different from having the outcome). Or for this matter, we can say that it will shut itself out of space-time, for these dimensions are no longer necessary or informative to such system. Beyond that, we can only speculate about what form will this system assume outside of space-time, outside of reason.

However, there is one even greater problem with the absolute perfect system: it cannot be conclusively certain of its perfection even if it ensures by all means and tests that it has a hundred per cent all encompassing knowledge. The reason for this is that the concept of infinity, even if proven not real but only conceptual, still leaves some uncertainty. This uncertainty can still result in an unknown variable. Therefore, we can say that even a perfect system can be biased, means never absolute or never deemed hundred percent full. So even if we imagine an omniscient system, let's call it God, to be a representation of an absolute perfect system, he/she/it will be at fault to claim omniscience and be, in principal, only an extended version of any other finite being.

On the other hand, we must be ourselves biased with the idea that logic and reason can extend infinitely. Shall we otherwise hypothesise that there could be indefinitely vast areas of possibilities outside of logic and reason? Considering this, we may agree that something like absolute can potentially exists in the realms beyond logic and reason, or in the realms of a completely different logic, for this matter.

Based on above, we can conclude that if there is anything like a complete absolute perfect system, it would only exist outside of space-time and outside of logic.

This means that our world existing in space-time must be either incomplete and imperfect or, otherwise, all together non-existing (non-existing to the observer in further realms, while still appearing 'real' to those inside).

For the imperfect and incomplete system, or world for our cause, there must be an element of choice implying ethics. Now, looking at random choice, is there really such a thing? A completely random choice is only possible when it is unconditioned. But is there really anything that is unconditioned or unbiased? Similar to the idea of an absolute, so is the idea of randomness should be ruled out into the realms beyond logic.

So, we are now left with the 'something in between', a sliding scale between the completely random choice and the fully informed choice (with the latter and the former being ruled out on grounds of unreasonable). This kind of choice will assume a certain degree of conditioning and a limited level of knowledge concomitantly. By implication it means a least one thing – the need for an intelligent entity (of some sort) to propagate this type of existence through choice. There must be a separate entity with a certain degree of intelligence. Thus, the world without/outside the intelligence must either be absolutely perfect and illogical or non-existing. This brings us back to where we started – individuality as a measure of rights and wrongs. Now, depending on what we consider as an intelligence will have an impact on the outreach of ethics.

Lets say people have the intelligence, then what about the machines, what about animals? What about insects, plants, cells and atoms? If we dismiss all and attribute the intelligence only to people, which in fact has been the case for the most time in modern human history, then we'll run into a series of problems connected to the idea that only people make choices and justify the existence of the world. And since we have deduced that existence needs choices to prolong itself, then the world outside people's intelligence would not exist. What about people themselves, is there any proof that someone next to you has the intelligence, or for this matter, you, yourself can prove to someone that you are capable of intelligent choices? Then the existence of people, including yourself is now under question.

I tend to think, however, that the individuality and hence the intelligence, to a varying degree, is integral to anything and everything we see or know to exist including the existence itself. However hard it is to prove that the atoms, electrons and photons or even the Universe has the individuality and thus the intelligent capability of making choices, they are still unquestionably subjected to the influences of the environment and their own inherent qualities. In the same context, I view the individuality's bounds as rather amorphous, infinitely stretchable, characterised by the inherently adaptable qualities. Therefore, I repeat the initially stated view that it is an indistinct and expandable border between the perceived self and the others that provides the scope for ethics, or no ethics for this matter.

Lets pause for now and review our assumption. We have mentioned that the absolute perfect system would be be de facto complete due to perfect knowledge of all outcomes, hence nothing else to resolve and no 'purpose' to continue. Were such a system to sustain itself it would mean one of the two things: either it is not truly perfect and is 'in search' of some hidden variable, which is rather plausible, or it sustains itself for 'no reason', which is somewhat counter-intuitive. The implications are huge:

If it sustains itself for 'no reason', this would mean that there is no right and wrong per se and existence 'doesn't care' of what happens because it is already accomplished. In fact, it's sustaining itself maybe only a mirage, a shadow or a lingering hologram, thus whatever is in this world has no value to it. In such world ethics has no value and is not needed.

If existence is not truly perfect, it must be looking for 'purpose' in order to enhance itself. This means that there is an intrinsic right and wrong, i.e. anything that enhances this search has value and is by the definition right. Looking for purpose or hidden variables becomes eventually a process of self discovery (you have already included everything you could, and now you are in search for an unknown indigent – the meaning). Therefore, anything that helps its self-discovery would be regarded as 'good'. More over, it would be plausible to imagine this type of existence 'creating' indeterministic world/s in order to enhance its self discovery process. So, “God playing dice” is not such an absurdity after all.

It makes a perfect sense to me that the idea of choice and randomness can, if not must, be introduced deliberately by the near-perfect intelligence in order to facilitate the exploration of its own possibilities. It's like organising sports games in order to simulate the competitive environment and see how far human capabilities stretch. As if in the simulator game, the only valuable takeaway is an enhanced experience, and thus greater understanding of own capabilities. An avatar may die at the very beginning of the game or may last till the very end, but the 'game- developer' is not interested in outcomes of individual games despite the fact that the players are making choices and learning during the game. A 'free choice' within the game equals to 'no choice' on a broader plane, i.e. free choice is a facility inside the game only made to facilitate the process. Ethics or moral, like the rules in the game, is only an adjustable parameter to supplement the game and of no real value for the 'Game' itself.

A purpose is the only thing there be left unresolved. All the knowledge in the world will not be enough to resolve this last and foremost ever hidden variable – purpose. Even when you prove by all means that there is no purpose, there will be a lingering feeling that something is amiss, the last piece of a puzzle. And it doesn't matter whether there is purpose or not, but it is this incompleteness that forever propels the world of ideas, the world of intent and the Universe. A search for purpose fuels the process of self-discovery, evident in everything from the smallest particle to the extent of worlds and galaxies. Without this search we are none.