We Have Two Critical Types of Morality Situations

• Countless Innate Individual and Group Moralities Exist over the Earth.
  Evolution designs humans, not to be “better”, but to be better adapted to their native environments. Consequently, rather than one universal innate morality, there are countless versions of innate morality. (Figure 2.2.4-1 in the book depicts global human migrations over the last 100,000 years). As an example of varying moralities, homicide rates vary widely over the Earth. (See Figure 5.2.2-1 in the book and on this webpage.) Of course, this variation can now be a problem when we migrate or mix. Table 5.3.1-1 in the book lists moral precepts of the five largest religions. The precepts could augment the basic morality. The precepts are examples of moral behavior that could increase the probability of freedom.
• Neither Species Morality nor Ecosystem Morality Exist for Novel Modern Situations.
  Even though humans have evolved over 2.5 million years, we have not yet evolved morality for situations that are novel within approximately the last 7,000 years; these situations are too recent for evolution. Approximately 7,000 years ago, capital (i.e., knowledge and its manifestations), which increases exponentially, reached a rapid rate of development that whelmed the relatively slow rate of evolution. Consequently, there are many novel types of situations for which we have not evolved morality – and we have only dilemmas. The seriousness of this cannot be overstated! It is estimated that delays in the evolution of species morality have caused billions of humans to be killed by conflicts and wars. We have evolved moralities for individuals and our group, but not for strangers or the ecosystem. It is eerie to realize that in these situations our moral judgment applies only to ourselves and our group – but not to strangers or our ecosystem: Our moral dilemma is analogous to this: How can we hit the bulls-eye of a target that has not yet evolved? Was Christopher Columbus to blame for coming to the “New World”? We don’t have the moral ability to answer this type of question; it requires species morality. Similarly, most people have a “feeling” about the conflicts in the Middle-East, but none of us have the species morality to make a “moral” judgment. Figure 8.3.1-1 in this book is an interesting frequency diagram about the Industrial Revolution and world-wide slavery.

Accurate Definitions of Important Parameters

In this book, we have developed a few simple and accurate mathematical models for the following four parameters:

• moral behavior,
• individual freedom as a function of moral behavior (See Figure 6.2.2-2 in the book and on these webpages.),
• accuracy, and
• market freedom as a function of accuracy.

Moral Behavior, Freedom, and Capital are Three Mutually Augmenting and Exponential Parameters

All of these three parameters are exponential because they change in proportion to the amount present (e.g., interest paid on a bank balance). The relationships among these three parameters can be stunningly effective and productive.  (See Figure 7-1 in this book.)

Productivity is the ratio of production and consumption:

Productivity = production/consumption.

The productivity of the food cycle is 1. That is, in the food-cycle, production = consumption. In fact, without capital, productivity cannot exceed 1! The rates of capital development and productivity have increased so dramatically that human evolution has been left far behind. Capital has facilitated migration, and this has allowed our environmentally designed moralities to become mixed. It has also caused huge disruptions and exposed large vacancies of species morality and ecosystem morality.

Naturally Opposing Binary States

Because capital is unnatural, it can enable both good and bad results. Some unexpected disruptions have also occured within naturally opposing binary states. In various forms, naturally opposing binary states have intrigued mankind for centuries, and in China and Asia, they are called Yin-Yang. Following are four examples of naturally opposing binary states:

• consume-produce,
• supply-demand,
• risk-reward, and
• rights-responsibilities (e.g., freedom-moral behavior)

What happens when capital alters or defeats the relationship between naturally opposing binary states? Below are a few examples.

Consume-Produce

Consume-produce was the food cycle, but now, because of capital, it is much more for humans. Figure 8.3.4-1 depicts the six stages of the food cycle in the book and in these web-pages. The more capital has been available to humans, the more they have risen to the top of the carnivore stage of the food-cycle.

Supply-Demand

Supply-demand is a market phenomenon that indicates the price of a good or service. The values of goods and services in modern markets can be inaccurate if either supply, demand, or both are manipulated. However, in a free market, the price indicates the true value of a good or service.

Markets can also be corrupted by selecting an individual for a position because of the individual’s identity rather than the individual’s merit. (Natural selection is merit-based; it is a natural law of life.)

Risk-Reward

Risk-reward has been altered or defeated by capital in some cases. For example, when a bank goes broke, the public, not the bank, assumes the risk.

Rights-Responsibility (e.g., Freedom-Moral Behavior)

Rights are a subset (i.e., a type) of freedom, and responsibility is a subset (i.e., a type) of moral behavior. Undoubtedly, rights-responsibility, is the most dangerous and insidious binary pair.

Because of entropy, humans are frequently looking to others to assume some of their responsibility, but, when governments assume their responsibilities, they also take their rights. It always happens. Socialism and communism are examples of governments that assume individual responsibilities. It is only a matter of time before individual rights vanish. See Figure 8.3.5-1 in this book. It is a perfect depiction of the economist Frederich Hayek’s book,  “The Road to Serfdom.”

This book explains why we believe that morality is innate. Countless environments design our moralities to increase our probability of freedom in the environment in which we evolved. Knowing that our moralities are necessarily varied and that we do not possess either species or ecosystem morality should encourage us to judge each other with more understanding. I really hope it will.