The Kitchen Formula Calculator v3

The Geometry of Morals

Some Prologue

is there a symmetry at all between the types of systems that mathematicians use, and those that Ethicists use? Does an ethical system operate the same way as a system of Geometry for example. Geometry is a good choice for comparison because it's a deductive system that proceeds from a set of unprovable postulates about ideal entities that help define physical space and objects in space. Postulates are essentially just stipulations, or suppositions that form the basis of the entire system. Ought not an Ethical system, if valid, have the same sort of deductive heft? Ironclad conclusions about acceptable human behavior, what constitutes the Good and Evil, derivative of the ideals it supposes, in this case virtues, as useful as those of Geometry...points, lines, arc, objects in space, etc. 

Geometry doesn’t proclaim the Truth of its axioms, because by definition "axiomatic" means assumed to be true, but not provably so. Much akin to the tenets of religious faith in this respect. Is Geometry a faith based system? That would make for another interesting thought ramble. What Geometric axioms are about is "necessity". Whatever is deducible depends on whatever is postulated. If one wants to explain mathematically about ideal constructs; points, lines, dimensional space, and objects in physical space, it begins with a set of postulates. In Euclidian Geometry, the stuff of 9th grade math classes, and what is commonly understood to be what is Geometry, the axioms, aka postulates are the unprovable foundational assumptions that are the necessary framework for the system; foundational stipulations having no "Truth functionality", i.e. cannot be said to be either true, or not true. The Postulates of Euclidian Geometry, for example, function much as do the Rules of Inference for Informal Logic, except Geometry is deductive logic, Informal Logic is inductive. Based on the 10 postulates of Euclidian Geometry a few hundred theorems can be deduced. These theorems are useful for working out calculations regarding such stuff as surveying, and understanding area relationships. Euclidian Geometry is the epitome of an Axiomatic-Deductive system. Deductions can be made from the assumptions (and theorems) that have practical ramifications. Mathematical proofs can be constructed that have practical applications. How does an Ethical system compare?

As long as a deductive system is internally consistent it has validity, but the system itself is not talked about as being  "true", nor are its axioms which posit the "ideal" entities upon which the system is based: points, lines, parallels, and such. One or another geometric system may describe physical space better under certain conditions, or can do more than another in specific applications, but they are not held to be more true of things, than the others, just more useful given the application. There are several major developments in Geometry since Euclid. I don't intend to do a historical review of the development of this branch of Mathematics. However, it's interesting to note that the development of Non-Euclidian Geometry in the 19th century began as an attempt to demonstrate the impossibility of some challenge to the postulates, one in specific, the so-called Parallel Postulate. Instead, they discovered that alternatives to this postulate could be formulated, and yet the system as a whole remained consistent. Simply because Euclid's system can't help us to put a man on the moon, this doesn't mean it has been discarded for constructing walls on Earth, and Non-Euclidean Geometry has not supplanted Euclidian geometry among masons.

Moral systems also begin with such axiomatic assumptions, similarly lacking Truth functionality, but from which all derived values, and behavioral standards can supposedly be deduced. Even if the postulates themselves cannot be proven true, it's still possible to make statements about values that are true or false. Values don't exist much as points and lines don't exist, except in the imaginations of humans. Values are the ideal entities of Moral Systems, and what corresponds to points, lines, and arcs etc for Geometric ones.

Solely as a way of framing the following discussion, I propose to call these sort of value systems Moral Geometry. What moral deductions can be made are based on the prime tenets regarding interesting stuff such as God, Man, Law, the nature of "Good", and of "Evil". All moral values are derivative, in the same way that mathematical results depend on the elements of an equation. Purporting to be deducible from the axioms of the Moral system, and as long as the system is internally consistent, it is valid. The question this article considers is, "Is Moral Geometry internally consistent?".

What is the central feature of the idea of Moral Law which might help to answer that question? Moral constructs, aka values, are ideals, but unlike the ideal entities of Geometry have these have no relation to the physical world. There’s no moral concept corresponding to physical reality. Moral systems are an emotional reality, and as far as we know, the sole experience of a single sentient being, on the only place in the universe we can be certain such beings exist. The physical world doesn’t operate according to emotional constructs. The Moral world is built upon them. 

This isn’t what the idea of Morality proposes however, and it isn’t the main point of these notes. It may well be that other sentient beings have rudimentary moral systems, or that unknown alien species do, but certainly, here on Earth, no others do to Sapiens’ extent. That is also the case for Geometric systems which are purely the imagination of Sapiens. What I always have found interesting is how do the two types of human imagination compare, Geometry and Ethics.

The interplay of ideas such as God, Mankind, Law and Religion testify to the breadth of ethical thinking, and its practical ramifications. Just as masons build straight and plumb walls, Ethicists of all stripes build edifices out of values. One system has physical reality as its focus, the other has Sapiens' emotional reality. Nevertheless, the system of ethical thinking can be valid if it is internally consistent, and if it can be usefully applied to manage collective behavior. Is it? Does it?

The axioms of our notable Ethical systems are not postulates about physical ideals, they posit emotional ideals, values, framed as necessary, often in the form of imperatives, or at least one can demonstrate them as such. if you accept the idea of Judgement Day, or of Karma, then it's imperative you pay heed to the rules about it.

What are the axiomatic assumptions? For Christians and Jews, The Ten Commandments; for Buddhism, The Eightfold Path; for Islam, even though it refers to the same God, and prophets of the Old and New Testaments, the Ten Commandments aren't its guiding principles. Islam posits about 10 equally laudable, and sensible rules, among which it is notable that Man has Free Will. This is bound up in its rule about Beliving in Judgement Day, and that nothing occurs without God's knowledge. It is a notable difference between Geometry and Ethics that an All-Knowing deity is not among the set of ideal geometric constructs. For any Ethical system to hold water, Free Will is a requirement. Do we have such a thing? Neuro-Science is our best bet for understanding what this feeling of "will" is, and currently seems to be divided on that question, but philosophers and scientists have long believed that Free Will is directly incompatible with the deterministic universe. The modern thinking among those that question it is fairly simple: the idea of human will is a "feeling". In other words, an emotional state.

As for internal consistence, and system validity, there are all manner of problems with moral systems that make them appear to be inconsistent, or

ambiguous, and therefore difficult to make deductions. Often, what is deducible in an Ethical  system is merely further stipulation; ad hoc, mini axioms. Ethical systems differ from Geometric systems in that they purport to prove things based upon its axioms, but it is not so clear that they amount to true Axiomatic-Deductive systems. If its ideal constructs, aka values, are really just names for human emotions that can be virtues or not, what are only the ones presumed to be positive feelings part of the system? What is the sorting process at work? The fact that there are many different ethical systems and that these have changed over time doesn't necessarily mean anything more than there's evolution of ethical thinking in the same way that there has been evolution in Geometric thinking, and systems. However, we know that the Geometric systems evolved as our understanding of physical space evolved. Better data sponsored different systems that simply had application differences. Can the same thing be said of Moral systems?

Does the idea of what is Good, what is Evil evolve? Is it better at one point in time to honor thy father and thy mother, and unimportant or even bad to do so at another point in the evolutionary arc of Moral Geometry?

There’s no argument presented below to deny the need for behavioral guidelines. The thoughts presented amount only to stuff I ponder, and to a depiction of the difficulty of devising such guidelines without lots of additional stipulations that need be sorted out, and added in as societies grow more complex. To point out that the internal inconsistencies are not mere niggles, that they’re obvious, and abundant, or that the entire system becomes dependent upon continual resort to ad hoc assumptions, more or less like fingers in the dike, isn't the same as arguing for nihilism or anarchy in it's rawest form. As human communities grow in size, in contact with other collectives, systemic problems arise within and without. One simple example: from the axiomatic "Thou shalt not kill", we more or less get a host of qualifiers, i.e. “unless we say so”. If so and so does any of many inappropriate things, so and so can rightfully be killed, or if so and so belongs to another collective, then so and so can also be killed if the "others" are deemed to be unacceptably at odds. The numbers of exceptions for when killing is rightful make the axiom merely a nice idea instead of a necessary, and controlling prohibition. Does the fact that there are exceptions to "thou shalt not kill" mean that a rightful killing is Good? I think this is a logically equivalent way of seeing it. Islam sort of skirts around this obvious issue by saying "do not murder unjustly". What then is "unjust", and who gets to decide? At least it's spelled out quite plainly among the foundational rules that murder is ok "if", and not simply provided for later on with bunches of conditional qualifiers.

Unlike Geometry, ethical systems, if it's true to say they evolve, are built upon a body of axioms that all subsequent calculations for the range of decisions, and the interplay of individual decision makers must routinely be refined, particularly as the complexity of societies increases. Is my god is better than your god? Is "Right" whatever the most powerful in a collective, or among the many collectives say? Is it valid if the conditions for rightful murder changes over time. Again, is the ideal of Good or Evil, the sort of thing that can "evolve"? 

Here's an important difference, do the ideal constructs of Geometry continually evolve? Only one postulate, the one that imagines (postulates) what is a parallel line, has changed whatsoever, and the change hasn't really been evolution away form the Euclidian fifth postulate so much as expansion upon it. Different notions of parallelism apply to different systems of Geometry, but each system remains internally consistent, and has valid applications depending upon what expanse of the physical universe the system is being applied to. These are mathematic systems.

Where does the world stand now? There are very divergent understandings of what is Good or Evil. It’s not a hopeful thing if one values peace, love, and understanding. Something as simple as the strictures of Veganism, the idea that eating other sentient beings is not Good is based upon moral grounds; there's not science or mathematics to it. The moral grounds are examples of emotional states, but of only one specie, and they oblige only one specie to behave this way. These strictures also defy the natural instincts of that one specie, which is clearly the historical record, and it must also ignore the actual fact of all other species' behaviors. Thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not eat flesh is a Sapiens thing. To raise it to the level of universal truth requires the elevation of Sapiens to the upper most rung of the great chain of being, just below, the postulated gods. Sapiens must argue that it's a special kind of being. Nevertheless, there is no consensus among Sapiens that eating flesh is not Good, and of course, killing to do so is a given. What did God mean by "thou shalt not kill"? We make up the answer as we go.

I suppose an interesting conclusion to my notes would be to construct a moral system that represents actual Sapiens behavior, not an imagined preferred behavior. Isn't it easier, and if there's anything True about morality, isn't it more true that "Thou shalt murder if necessary" is more apropos than "don't murder unjustly", or "thou shalt not...unless"? Unless what? Suppose, you’re really hungry, or better put, your community is facing imminent food insecurity on a scale critical enough to mean complete community breakdown, chaos, and death, and though there’s a not too far away community of “others” that you’ve come to a tentative agreement with not to kill each other, but now it seems has more to eat than yours, is this an ok exception? There’s lots of instances of when not to kill, but ought the ones that make it ok be explicit?. No such detailed stuff exists in Geometric systems. Things can be proven based solely upon the 10 postulates. Everything flows deductively. No ad hoc hypotheses or mini axioms required. It's pretty clear cut stuff. 

The trick of redesigning a moral system such as this real-world-of-human-experience alternate would be of course complete internal consistency. A truly valid system useful to all, and at all times. My guess is by starting from different axioms that correspond more closely to human behavior one can do so. "Kill when necessary" is just as clear (or as ambiguous) as "thou shalt not kill" when all the conditional qualifiers are added in, but it's easier to apply because it's more streamlined. What would we call such Ethics? Would we even regard such a realistic system as "Ethical"? Well, the age of AI and the coming of artificial sentience may well create its own very much more rigorous Axiomatic-Deductive rules of the road. Should we assume such a race of artificial sentient beings would regard Ethics quite the same was as does their designers? It's an interesting thing to ponder if this questions is not the same that applied to the supposed creator beings. It thought that the ethical system was clear and sensible, but Sapiens set about right away behaving in ways It hadn't expected.

If Sapiens disappears from the face of the Earth tomorrow, does its ethical rules still apply? This seems on the face of it kind of preposterous. Or, what if artificially sentient beings take over after Sapiens disappears? We have to accept that AI took its behavioral programming based on Homo Sapiens' ethical rules, but it has also already shown it makes very different, surprising, and "unacceptable" sometimes deductions about problem solving or task completion. Does this represent the real evolution of Ethics? 

The Geometry Of Morals

Life has taught me two things. One is that God loves you, and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth, and you should save it for someone you love. 

That, pilfered from a source I can no longer credit properly, but apropos my erstwhile religious studies, and perhaps more so my general outlook regarding Ethics. The two are, in any case, inextricably entwined, are they not?

Ethical theory, any of the many, has no absolute Truth functionality. In other words, what’s supposed “ethical” can be neither true, nor false. Some thought, or action, or failure to act can be regarded as good (or not) if it echoes a body of accepted pro-script and taboo that, if applied consistently, can become a useful way to organize a community along rules of preferred behavior. That behavior is usually deemed to have pragmatic value, and more so, spiritual value, and one's actual behavioral record most often portends some relevant and lasting implications beyond this vale of tears. It condones things agreed to be conducive to a greater “good”, and denounces things in varying degrees of vehemence according to how far outside of the lines the actions are viewed as not so. For example, the developing community agrees to stifle anarchic behavior for a balance of collective security, and perceived decency. The first is an evident condition, the latter is a determined condition, the parameters for which depend upon a collective community “hashing-out” over time. What gets hashed-out becomes, at a point long enough in time, community tradition. Community culture is based upon aggregate tradition, and shared experience. Ethics evolves. This is not an acceptable interpretation because the power of the Ethic is better if it's not just some stuff made up around campfires over the eons. Authority is preferred, thus divine doings are helpful. 

What is not convenient for a particular set of values is that tradition varies place to place because what’s hashed out, although often bearing similarities, is not identical, and sometimes quite divergent. Different communities have different experiences, develop different traditions. They also adopt different divinities, and the related lordships. Eventually, opinions about meaning differ, and schism occurs, often not peacefully. Communally shared experiences are not identical from place to place, and what cultural stuff comes of those experiences varies widely, taking time also to percolate into full fledge. Since it’s largely a matter of what’s entirely experiential, and which experience is filtered, philosophized about, revised, updated, fought about over centuries, there’s nothing that can be said to be true or not true about it. It merely has or has not been a community’s experience. 

What we call morality is not a natural fact, such as are the elements, it’s a human fact. There’s no moral imperative at work in the cosmos. If it were not for humans there would be no such stuff as moral precepts. Would nature cry if rivers run like bile, or skies turn into effervescent goop? This may seem debatable, but only if you are willing to concede that stuff like planets and asteroids have preferences, that those preference have consequences for events, and what Science describes as natural fact is insufficient.Physics is fundamentally wrong. Gods are useful concepts, helping to inspire, govern, and control collections of humans; making community tradition seem both natural, and imperative. Morality is a historically derivative function of spiritual belief, but it’s possible to construct moral laws in the absence of, or without reference to divinities. Why do atheists content themselves with decency and compassion? What holds them back from being disagreeable nasties? There is no such thing as Moral Law such that can be found somewhere in a distant nebula as well as in Ouagadougou. Moral Law applies only to the extent that Sapiens exists, scientifically derived rules that describe the natural world. They are rules of preference, and apply for the convenience of the community that applies them.

The specific content of sets of religious imperatives that are the foundational elements of most Ethical systems, and how those imperatives get breathed to life, just depends. It’s a flux of content, or deliberate omission depending upon the community, and the historical and experiential context from which it emerged. What’s contained, or omitted just depends. A classic feature of moral thinking applies to all, each and every community regards its own as fundamental, necessary, and absolutely, indisputably True. Despite that, what’s foundational to any given tradition of moral thought just depends upon a communally shared set of unique experiences over time. Consequently, what’s possibly derivative from the foundational tenets can be at odds, one communal system to another. 

What is a Geometry of Morals? Well, that’s a title meant to stimulate thought. It might just as well be titled Is There A Geometry Of Morals? Geometry is a logical system that attempts to describe the real world, and to do so relies upon its own set of mythical beings: points, lines, perpendiculars, parallels etc. Points and such do not really exist. They're useful concepts. In much the same fashion is the mythology behind Ethical systems. Gods rule, we obey. But there are interesting and important distinctions. Geometric systems begin with a set of axiomatic assumptions which are usually foundational observations, unprovable, but from which useful stuff can be derived. The systems are valuable if they are internally consistent, and the mathematics that follows is helpful.

Ethical systems begin with axioms as well, but they are expressed not as necessary assumptions, but as imperatives. These typically consist of a set of divinely given statements such as the biblical commands well known. There are often quite a few more of these conditions that will govern the system, and its subsequent uses than for Geometric systems. Nevertheless, the idea is the same. As long as a system that follows from the stated postulates is internally consistent, it is said to be valid. Ethical systems can have the same degree of validity (usefulness) as do Euclidian, Riemannian or Lobachevskian geometries, all of which dispute parts of the others (mainly regarding parallelism), but each of which is internally consistent, and useful under certain circumstances. There’s nothing True per se about Geometry, but it has proven to be very useful stuff. 

Can the same be said for Moral systems? Are they internally consistent? The Geometry of Morals considers this question. Do moral postulates have Truth functionality? It seems the answer has to be no. Can "thou shalt not kill" be said to be True, or False? No. That would be like saying "go to your room" is true or not. One can say it's true that "thou shalt not kill" is axiomatic, but not that the statement can itself be true. Axioms are the foundations, beyond true / false. Yet the systems as a whole are always regarded as Truth, and adherents regard the axioms as Truth itself. This is fundamentally different from such stuff as the Rules of Inference for Informal Logic, or the postulates of Geometry.

A further complicating factor exists. There’s no complete agreement upon the supposed foundational Truths, the axioms of Morality. Even though these often feature shared assumptions, the derivative stipulations are often remarkably different. Religious thought, and Law for example, and even the source of the basis of  the religious tradition, or for the codes of Law vary almost always even among closely related, but distinct community traditions. One only has to think of Texas, then California to understand this point.

Not only the historical and sociological contexts vary one community from the other, but what’s seen as despicable or taboo, or righteous & encouraged can vary within a particular singular community context as well. Nothing is agreed upon completely, nor is a postulated prime tenet necessarily ironclad; there’s always dissension, and confoundingly, lots of exceptions. Usually the dissensions result in undesirable, often nasty behavior to sort out which is more absolutely true than the other; the process of sorting it out typically bearing little semblance, in fact, most often abrogates, one or another of the prime tenets. In other words, absolute truth of moral imperatives is a work in progress. Much vituperation, and oftentimes carnage is required to get it right. Meanwhile, the number of ad hoc refinements of what is supposed axiomatic are multitudinous. Consider that, in practice, there are far more ad hoc conditions that allow abrogation of the prime tenets under a wide range of mitigating circumstance than the numbers of prime tenets themselves. Thus, we understand "thou shalt not kill…unless". In fact, there’s plenty of killing that's actually not just exempted, but required by the evolving body of ad hoc nuance per each community. Witness geopolitics of all ages. So much so that the prime tenet, is more reasonably assumed to be general advice than absolutely binding. Usually, post hoc jimmying around with things is required to keep the whole system looking well thought out, consistent, and binding. The logic of morality is quite distinctly more complicated than the logic of any of the various Geometries of earth and space. 

Nevertheless, the various communities of thought speak of their own disparate notions as moral Truth. Moral “truths” can and do vary. It’s clear that moral truth is not the same as logical, or mathematical truth, both of which can be said to have truth functionality, i.e. their statements, hypotheses, propositions are either True or False. However, we also know that bivalent logic has limits. Not everything in the physical world can be explained as strictly T or F. Some things can only be said to be more or less true, or not. Certain types of observable natural events fall into this category, or if those natural events occur within a subatomic scale, bivalent logic is out the window. Is such ambiguity as this a comfortable condition for moral Truth? I think most would say not. 

What’s more, consider how morality can only be talked about using statements. Here's a curious little thought project. Imagine if there existed a community that only spoke in interrogatives? I can do this. “Are you hungry?” “Does a chicken have lips?” “Why did you slap the child?” “Did you notice it was eating my taco?” etc. Is there a case for slapping children? Under what conditions? Or, is it a definitive proscription to not slap a child? We know we should honor thy father and thy mother, but whether or not to slap a child is not well defined. Actual practice is different from advised practice. In lieu of being clearly provable based upon the tenets, and even debatable, the child may get a slap, maybe not. Both might be acceptable. It’s like the moral equivalent to the uncertainty principle. 

An Ethical system for such a community of questioners is not out of the question, even though interrogatives are not the sorts of things that can be true nor false. What ethical rules could be founded within this curious linguistic community? Either someone develops a system of the logic of the interrogative (no one has as yet), or perhaps it’s an anthropological fact that Ethics, all of moral behavior can simply be extracted from facial gesture, body language, in which case perhaps the querulous folk will have evolved into very expressive beings. We now have neuro science (much as taste sensation is a perception over time and space), how are moral sensations processed? If it turns out to be part of brain physiological/electrochemistry, morality is ever more obviously a sapiens thing, very marginally a natural fact, and only as long as there are sapiens. Based on what we now know about brains, one can legitimately ask, is there such a thing as Free Will, and if not, then is there such a thing as culpability, of responsibility? Does the hypothetical Ethical system of the Querulous, because interrogatives are neither T nor F, eliminate the very notion of True, False, Good, Evil? If there is not truth functionality for interrogatives, would the very concept of such a thing as morality, culpability, consequences, approval, or disapprobation of behavior exist in such community? it’s obvious that there’s no truth nor falsehood that can be said to apply to moral dictat. Would there be any reason for moral systems among questioners? Would such folk understand what Ethics means? “Why did you do that to the child?”… “Why didn’t you?”, the reply. Behavior can be explained how?  It’s neither true, or not true that one ought not slap a baby, or that one ought to slap babies because there is no truth functionality with interrogatives, but in this odd commune, no one does, or almost everyone does slap babies. Would we ascribe the alternate behaviors in this instance as part of a moral code, or just how it is? Interrogative Volk don’t conceive of good, or bad, but simply as phenomenon that are perceived/explained/communicated only in terms of this curiously interesting dialectic, but with never the synthesis. What’s most curious to me is that the same questions about slapping/not slapping babies apply to statement making folk. Moral law can be whatever a community develops. That most have not developed purely pernicious codes is beside the point. Like monkeys locked in a room full of typewriters, it’s only a matter of time before sonnets occur.

(I need to reread and edit all of what follows)

As for the evolution of moral thinking, an additional turbidity comes from whatever powerful ruling elite attends the scene. Each scene has its own ruling group, or competing groups, usually representing different sets of experiences. Power, belief systems, and political goals always differ, from one community to the next, and so, portend different control and suppression features, which over time dissolves into an overall amorphous body of moral dictat. Ruling elites, and the attendant politics that attend these groups can change. Thus, what’s viewed to be necessary dictat depends accordingly. What is true we imagine to always be true, not at one time true, and later false. In which case, if it's not ironclad, then everything about what’s Right, or not so, just depends. Has so called Moral Truth evolved, or did it occur like a big bang, and we are just absorbing the cosmic ethical background radiation? 

What of Geometry? Euclidian geometry is very useful if applied to terrestrial space, and valid because the system itself is internally consistent. Validity is not the same as True. Ethical systems, define morality differently, just as the different Geometric systems describe things such as lines and points to some accord, but disagree in another (what does "parallel" mean?), in like respect, what can be regarded as Ethical system A or B’s “postulates”, whether these be called commandments, moral imperatives, or whatnot, they act axiomatically just the same as Euclid’s postulates do. Geometric thought is logic at work. The foundations of Informal Logic, the so-known logical “rules of inference” that govern rational discourse, describe what is sound argument form, and can “lead” to conclusions that we can say logically “follow”. All of which is very much akin to Geometry, and the “logic” that holds in those various systems. 

The various systems of Geometry begin with axioms, or as Euclid put it, the postulates, of which he gave five, and from which all Euclidian geometric thinking “followed”. In that historical context, the observed and understood to be “natural” facts, were enumerated in the postulates; idealized concepts, but which had real practical applications. These ideals were assumed to be true descriptions of the two and three dimensional world until guys like Riemann came along. Euclidian geometry differs in surprising ways from other systems of geometry, which systems, as it turns out, represent natural fact much more closely. Both systems are useful, and applicable, though how so just depends upon the context of their application.

In like fashion, we might propose that any system of Ethics can have validity to the extent that the system is internally consistent. The systems of Ethical thinking, and what constitutes moral and immoral, can be likened to systems of geometry. Each Ethical system differs from any another. Each can be internally consistent, therefore valid; contingent upon the shared communal experience from which it emerged. Each attempts to describe important values that are believed to embody "virtue", aka ethical truths. The main difference is that geometric truth (and how that truth developed) accords with the increasing body of scientific knowledge, understood cosmological verity, and each system, though the explanations vary, can be useful if applied correctly. Euclidian, for terrestrial, Riemann and Lobachevsky (for example) if vaster expanses are to be accurately described. 

Ethical thinking has no similar knowledge basis. It’s purely a result of divergent communal experience, mythology, and cultural tradition, what power apparatus exists, and the nature of the power base. Nevertheless, adherents of one or the other all claim Truth. Not simple truth, but Absolute truth. Consequently, one need not “know” much except what the power/spiritual tradition states is so, and no amount of empirical knowledge, logical disputation, or some other contrary tradition can disconfirm the typically divine imprint of one’s own.  It would be a different essay if Ethical systems proclaimed themselves useful, not Truthful.

An “adherent” is not what someone who measures lines, and angles in order to construct a wall would be described as. The builder simply applies a useful set of geometric principles appropriate to that task. Even though there’s no such thing as lines or points, if the overall system is applied consistently, it’s deemed useful. A proper wall gets built. Walls and foundations are never described as true or not true, and a person that skillfully uses imaginary geometric concepts is not seen as anything but prudent. Rarely would that person suffer because he believes in things like lines, points, or parallelism, or proclaims them not to be ontological inventory items, but rather just good ideas.

If Geometry purports to describe aspects of the physical world, what then does the Ethical system describe? Can it be said to apply to the real world? Is it solely a system of thinking about Homo Sapiens interacting with, and  "in" the world? What can be said to be "universally" true about such systems? Consider that Science doesn't purport to make universally true statements; it merely posits conditionally true stuff, that can adapt to better understanding of the physical world. The simple question, are there moral rules that exist if Sapiens does not? Natural law exists despite life on earth disappearing. What of such stuff as "Moral Law"?mDo other sentient beings possess a Moral instinct? Even if so, do these feelings apply in Nature, independent of the creature? If other sentient being possess a moral instinct, can we assume it is inferior to the moral instincts of Sapiens? Is it likely that it corresponds to the instincts of Sapiens? If not, does that indicate there are levels of Morality? Does it support a contention that there is an absolute quality to the concept of Moral Law?

With Ethics, the rules are always true. This is almost a requirement of the system because of the nature of what the system purports to describe, and what it applies to, i.e. all of human interaction. Universal, even absolute truth is assumed, maybe even a necessary condition, even though these systems of moral thought can vary from one community to the next, change over time, and have lots of built in exceptions that are deemed to be legitimate as well. Continual ignorance, or abrogation of a system dictat can be unfortunate. People adhere to their own particular system, the one they belong to by quirk of birth, because it has been agreed that it’s divinely decreed, and has been rigorously drilled into the collective consciousness by the ruling group. Usually the divine source is seen as the one and only, and the ruling group has been divinely ordained (at least historically so it has been). Ethics is useful, but morals and law can be neither true or not true. These are mere advisements, usually encouraged with some manner of suffering or inconvenience if abrogated. There are numerous ethical systems. They all describe uniquely human experience, having nothing to do with the physical world. Absent Sapiens, nothing remains of these.

There are some similarities between the First Postulates of a given Ethical system, and its logical flow to the axioms that govern systems of Geometry, but this is a case of similar, but different. There are no ad hoc exceptions to geometric logic, and still the consequent geometric proof be valid. This does not mean that some walls are good, some are bad because they are not perfect examples of lines, parallelism, or perpendicularity, it just means the builder didn’t suffer over details. He might not get paid in full for his efforts, but would likely never end up condemned or dead because of it.

Among the community of interrogative Volk: “Why didn’t you make that row of brick look like this one?” asked the man. “Why do you value what’s plumb?” the querulous mason replies. “What do you mean by value?” came the man's retort. “Do you have my plumb bob?” asks mason. “Have you checked your tool box?”... “Where is it?” ...“How did you walk right past it?” ...“When it’s this dark, who can see?”..."Do you need to eat, would you like a ham sandwich?” ...“Can you see that I’ve got mortar on my fingers?” ...“Would you like me to wash them for you?”, and so life goes on.

These are silly, simple interrogatives, but more interesting ones are not hard to imagine. I think one can write a play with only interrogatives, but it would be useful to make a point about something important than plumb lines, and ham sandwiches. In my case, can a useful Ethical system be derived from a strictly interrogative basis of communication? Or, is Truth functionality essential? If you undertake to write the play, you might imagine other important ramifications, or completely irrelevant ones. Something to think about anyway.

It’s interesting to me that what’s good or bad can only be noted using statements, which of course are the only sorts of things that can be true or false, even imperatives are exempt, are they not?  Whereas thinking critically depends on asking the right questions. Interrogatives are not true or false, they are simply thought provoking to varying degrees, or one might say “that’s a good question”, but no one believes in the goodness or evil of the interrogative itself. It’s just a question. Statements can be used to communicate given rules, the system's axioms, which are not really true/false themselves. They’re simple declarations; assumptions that the entire system is based upon, but which cannot be proven. All of the consequential formulations about good or bad actions must be provable based upon reference to the axioms. 

Same as geometry really, although it seems to me that unlike geometry, the Ethical system has to continuously expand well beyond the logical implications of the axiomatic stuff, and in doing so it quickly becomes internally inconsistent. So, for instance, do the Ten Commandments yet speak to the modern world of actions and behaviors; to modern morality or law?  It is presumed to be so. Large populations suppose the commandments are still the basic governing principles, a common heritage, even if it’s all gone schismatic. But, power blocs change, rules get amended, cultural traditions evolve over centuries, and efforts are made to demonstrate the updates still accord to the axioms. This requires constant ad hoc development, and post hoc justification. not withstanding. Ecclesiastical conventions, papal edicts, homeowners association committees, and congressional get togethers have intervened. Fistfights at the ball park, shootings at the Halloween party. Things get sorted out as usual. There were probably good reasons (morally acceptable circumstances) he smashed that guys face in, and she stabbed her honey in the abdomen.

Isn’t it interesting that no real deal new belief systems have taken hold since Jesus and Mohammed? No one is inventing new axiomatic stuff anymore, It’s apparently been decided that we got all we need, or maybe too much already. Although one might claim that Democrats and Republicans are trying hard, political belief systems being religious in their own special way, but before that, well, I suppose you can count the founders of The Church of Latter Day Saints. Since then… there’s been what? Jim Jones, and what’s his face in Waco, but admittedly I’m not a student of belief systems, so maybe there are many more. Despite my lack of awareness of this sort of stuff,  I’d offer to say that apparently, new ideas about Ethics are not really welcome. Needless to add, neither has been much of the philosophical critical analysis of Ethics. Case in point,  the Jim Jonestown scene was a more brutally self destructive incidence of the Lutheran schizmatist (excuse me, “Separatists”) group in Harmony, PA. The Harmonists essentially decreed there’d be no next generation of believers required, opting for celibacy, on account of staying pure for the return of Jesus, and so…they are no more. Was their system True? Was Jim Jones", The Branch Davidians? As for the Harmonists, Jesus is still on hold. It's been a couple hundred years and counting. 

As for me, I like the opening lines from the Tom Waits song. Jesus Gonna Be Here:

Jesus gonna be here, he gonna be here soon, he's gonna cover us up with leaves, with a blanket from the moon, with a promise and a vow, and a lullaby for my brow, well, Jesus gonna be here, he gonna be here soon.

As always, love 

Georgii