The philosophy of Rationalism encompasses a science of the mind. Mind is equivalent with choice mind being the choices we make and consciousness is the result of those choices. Consciousness is generated by the choices we make or harmed by those we do not make. Mind encompasses the ideas of free will and the ethical concepts of right and wrong.  If humanity is capable of choosing and if we are to make choices are we not obligated to make the right choice? Is this not the rational thing to do?

If humanity is subject to a moral ought then there is more to the real world than inanimate matter. The physical world cannot be constrained by moral precepts of right and wrong. If it could be then a car is morally wrong for breaking down. The moral ought or the existence of a moral ought and the philosophy of materialism are incompatible.

If we postulate the existence of choice, as this site does we must determine how decisions are made? The physical world cannot tell us what is right and wrong. It cannot say which option a morl agent should exercise. As materialists often point out nature has no moral values - killing in nature is neither right or wrong it simply exists.

As sentient creatures humanity needs to discern right from wrong. We cannot have choice unless we are able to discern differences in value. The differences or values between things or choices have to be meaningful. Choice ned to be made on something more than the differences that exists amongst snowflakes, for example. If everything is just different as with grains of sand the differences are meaningless and choice is no more than grabbing nuts from a bin.

Good and evil logically and empirically has to exist if mankind is to have or if we have the ability to choose. Meaningful choice demands a gauge by which alternatives can be compared. In economics a monetary system organized on the decimal system allows us to compare the value of one product or service against another.

Christians being aware of God and the devil assumed this dichotomy formed a moral scale that had absolute good at one end and absolute evil at the other, and humanity in the middle. However this 'scale'leaves us all in the same relative position - in the middle and we can all claim to be not as bad as the worst if not as good as the best. A finite value cannot be compared realistically to an infinite number. The 'scale'produced an infinite number of shades of grey.  From the saint on down to the sociopath each of us knows we are not infinitely good or infinitely bad our behaviour in every case fits somewhere in the middle between the two extremes.

We need a new way of looking at good and evil. The old method not only put good infinitely far from evil it created an infinitely large gray area in the middle in which all actual behaviour could be contained. It allowed us to feel comfortable about ourselves. But actual behaviour is not made up of shades of grey. People do good and bad things. Moral behavior is discrete and absolute.

The mind sees things in terms of choices. Choices are made on the basis of their relative values. The rational human being chooses the path or product or option that has for him or her the most value - compared to the competing or alterntive options. But choices have consequences. If we choose to build war machines rather than farm equipment this choice has costs. The cost is direct and indirect. There is the direct cost of the manufacture of weapons and the indirect costs of all the options that cannot be exercised because of the choice that was made.

A choice is good or bad depending on the economic results. The ultimate test of whether a choice is positive or negative is whether it contributes to the value of the planet or removes value. Just as a business justifies a program or administrative decision by the profitsit creates the justification for our actions comes from the effect these actions have on the rest of the community. Bad actions harm the community. Good actions create development and economic activity.

When the community values an object or when an object has economic value in the eyes of the community it contributes to the wealth of the community. Whether this thing is a park bench or the park itself wrong actions reduce the value of the bench or other community good. There is always an economic loss that comes from wrong acts. Stealing destroys the value of what is stolen and the wealth of the person robbed. Whereas buying a product gives you something you value and produces value for the person from whom the good was purchased.

From the viewpoint of the community actions either add value or detroy value. From a community perspective a person is either good or bad depending on whether that person’s acts help or harm the community. If our actions hurt the community, even if we have made billions for ourselves we have damaged the community. If we have spent our life on an acre of land and have done little more than support our family and ourselves we have helped the community more than hurt it. So there is a dividing line between good and evil based on whether we have made the world better or worse. This has an economic spect and can be determined by economic measures of assets and liabilities, credits and debits to determine the Balance of your account with the world and the community.

The ultimate or objective measure of good and evil then is the economic value of the world divided by its popuation. Ultimately the indices of the moral ought is tied to the value of the earth. We are to improve its value. Those acts that make the earth a less valuable asset are wrong objectively and categorically. If we do not do what can create the most value for the earth we sin. We do that which adds the most value to the world.

Human life has the greatest value of all earths assets and therefore is an asset that automatically takes priority over other assets. There should never be any moral equivocation about saving life unless it is to save other lives that add more value to the earth.

Home       About Us      Basics      Main Pages      Programs  Contents Page

 

 

 

 

 


Philosophy Overview