NATURAL MORALITY

For several years I have been seeing regular full-page advertisements (public service announcements) in DISCOVER Magazine saying that a man in the 1950s discovered the "law of absolute right". The ads never reveal the heretofore unknown natural law of social behavior; you have to buy their books to get the inside scoop. But the key insight seems to be that "right action gets right results, and wrong action gets wrong results". Well duh!

That axiomatic tautology seemed trivial and obvious to me at first, but I was curious to see how the author would formulate such an important law of nature so that we could reliably avoid making the wrong moral choices that so bedevil human societies. However, I have never followed through on that mild motivation. Yet now there are two reasons my interest has again been piqued. First, as an offshoot of my emerging Informationism Theory, and my understanding of Memetics (cultural evolution), I have come to the conclusion that there probably are natural governing factors (metaphysical laws) underlying all of the artificial moral rules developed by philosophers and priests over the millennia. Second, the repeated reference to "The Creator, whoever or whatever is responsible for what exists", sounds like the anonymous deity of Deism.

I may add some musings on the topic of Natural Morality later. Meanwhile, has anyone here read any of the books from Alpha Publishing House? If not, I may have to break down and buy one just to satisfy my curiosity.




NATURE'S SOCIAL LAW

Knowledge of nature's social law changes people's lives: improves health, enlarges opportunities, and explains what it takes to get right results.

The social law states that only action that is logical, appropriate and moral gets right results. When wrong results develop, the workability, practicality or honesty of the action is flawed. Nature's social law was identified by the late Richard W. Wetherill in the 1920's. Wetherill called it the "Law of Absolute Right": Right Action gets Right Results. He taught his students the following steps to learning:
1. Receive information,
2. Look at the reality that it represents,
3. Study the implications of that reality,
4. Take the action that reality calls for.

Those steps are taken instinctively many times in daily life so, whether trivial or vital, any subject is a suitable example. Someone remarks, "It's two o'clock." A listener consults the clock to check the reality, then recognizes the implication that he is late for an appointment and hurriedly departs.

Sometimes those steps bring unattractive information. For example, when people are told about mistakes, they frequently avoid receiving such information, ignore the reality it represents, and thereby miss its implications and corrective action. Because people ignore those steps of learning, they do not easily correct their behavioral mistakes.

Wetherill observed that reality is disregarded most often when the risk involved seems remote. For example, people tend to disregard the reality of a risky lifestyle. They want to do what they want to do when they want to do it. Then they wonder why they experience burn out, accidents and physical ills.

When people fail to take the right steps of learning, they take wrong steps. After receiving information, they get emotional and form judgments. Later those judgments might be forgotten, but from subconscious levels, they influence every decision to which they relate.

In past times, people were ruled by royalty who ascribed their authority to rule as the divine right of kings. Today that concept has lost credibility, but people should now apply that same usurpation of authority to their judgments.

In forming judgments, people elevate their own opinions above the authority of nature's social law. The Creator, whoever or whatever is responsible for what exists, created a world controlled by natural laws. Over the centuries, people unknowingly have ignored the social law and have been ruling their actions by the "divine right" of their judgments.

As a result, society suffers from all sorts of antisocial behavior. Who gave people the right to form judgments of reality? Are people in the position of the royals who ruled by fictional divine right? Wetherill's students know that nature's physical and nonphysical laws rule. They are inviolable and self-enforcing!



http://www.alphapub.com/index.htm

I haven't read anything by Alpha Publishing House but what they are pushing sounds very common-sensical.

If you are interested in Memetics I'd recommend this site as a good starter.

http://www.spiraldynamics.org/

and this pdf file...

http://www.spiraldynamics.org/pdf_resources/SD_MiniCourse_H.pdf

And this series of videos...

Sounded harmless until that last bit where we're warned not to let our judgements get in the way of natural law.

I think we have every right to use our judgement to determine natural law. Of course, having not read the book, this just might be a semantics thing.

Hope gnomon reads it, so he can let us know!

Quote :

I have come to the conclusion that there probably are natural governing factors (metaphysical laws) underlying all of the artificial moral rules developed by philosophers and priests over the millennia.

Yes, I have also come to the conclusion on this and actually have had many fruitful discussions 'round these parts on it.

I think my summation was that just as there are natural laws governing the physical world, there are natural laws governing the moral world.

So it would work the same as the physical world. It doesn't matter what we think, what laws we come up with the physical world works just the same, in fact it worked the same before humans were around.

And same, therefore, with the metaphysical or moral world. I think there's natural laws governing it, and it doesn't matter what we think, or say or postualte. They're just there.

Helium wrote:

I think my summation was that just as there are natural laws governing the physical world, there are natural laws governing the moral world.

So it would work the same as the physical world. It doesn't matter what we think, what laws we come up with the physical world works just the same, in fact it worked the same before humans were around.

It would be helpful to see those metaphysical laws defined as precisely as the physical laws we use to enhance our technological control over the natural world. A legitimate "social physics" might give us more precise governmental and personal control over unruly human nature, without the unintended side-effects of most social experiments, such as political revolutions. Unfortunately, materialistic physics is utter simplicity compared to the chaos and complexity of idealistic (informational) metaphysics. That's why I'm still skeptical that Wetherill has found the holy grail of human civilization : a secret formula for universal peace and prosperity.

Helium wrote:

...
I think my summation was that just as there are natural laws governing the physical world, there are natural laws governing the moral world.

So it would work the same as the physical world. It doesn't matter what we think, what laws we come up with the physical world works just the same, in fact it worked the same before humans were around.

And same, therefore, with the metaphysical or moral world. I think there's natural laws governing it, and it doesn't matter what we think, or say or postualte. They're just there.

This too is my belief. Like the physical laws, these are discovered, not created, by humans. We have spent centuries figuring out what they are. The ancient Greeks did some really fine early work, and Thomas Aquinas did some of the most famous work. Locke's writing influenced Jefferson and others we know as the founders of the U.S.

There is a ton of excellent material online. I don't know if I would spend a lot of money on just one more view on natural law.

Gnomon, I'm sorry, I deleted your interesting post on memetics and evolution by accident and can't get it back. I hope you have it backed up somewhere.

The question at the end went something like this.

Quote :

Can anyone think of a way random variation can give rise to regulatory laws and functional selection without the aid of mind?

Perhaps the "regulatory laws" are more like ""regulatory habits". They are like random deer paths that became cow paths that became country roads that became paved highways that became superhighways etc...

Aaron wrote:

Gnomon, I'm sorry, I deleted your interesting post on memetics and evolution by accident and can't get it back. I hope you have it backed up somewhere.

The question at the end went something like this.

Quote :

Can anyone think of a way random variation can give rise to regulatory laws and functional selection without the aid of mind?

Perhaps the "regulatory laws" are more like ""regulatory habits". They are like random deer paths that became cow paths that became country roads that became paved highways that became superhighways etc...

Nope, no backup. I was very sleepy, so I'm not sure what I said, except that it sounded good at the time.

The "regulatory laws" of nature are indeed regular "habits" that add-up to reliable patterns. But the key point here is that mindless randomness is "the null set of patterns". So the pattern-making effects of the universe must come from something other than blind chance. Since patterns are the essence of information, and information is the substance of minds, my guess is that natural laws are habitual patterns in the memes of a Universal Mind.


PS---Deer paths may be habitual, but they are not random. They are wear patterns resulting from common intentions (finding food) adapting to natural terrain.