I.ve been reading a lot about the moral imperative lately which states that we should use the 5 year old test to find out if we are sticking to it. The moral imperative states that we should think about the future as to making it as good for them as the past did for us.
Unfortunately the Me me me
society we live and adopted from the past has only concerned itself about itself, while paying lip service to the future and living with the threart of armageddon in the back of its mind, until we find ourselves there and wondering how we could have let it get this way?
This is a long read but I quote this section to get to the relationship between these stories.
His response to Descartes famous quote- Cogito ergo sum or "Je pense, donc je suis" or I think therefore I am and the golden rule-
XVI) The Categorical Truths
http://www.geocities.com/donaldwroberts ... ology.html
For humanity to the very best of my knowledge, the only categorical truths that have been thus far discovered are 1) the cogito, that because we think, we can know we exist, 2) that life is good, and, 3) the most important discovery in the history of human discovery, the Moral Imperative of Life, that it is immoral to detract from the prospects for the future.
The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.
By applying in every instance of our action these categorical truths we can find veritable truth as it is tested and proved by the categorical truths. As philosophers, we can discover more categorical truths that exist, what is true in every instance, and true without any exception.
The paramount moral obligation we all have is to the future. And while I have had some express to me that they cared not about the future, it is clearly an immoral sentiment when it is expressed. It is a selfish sentiment.
The superficially good moral instincts of secular humanists who care immensely for their fellow human beings, are, when applied without the restraint of the moral imperative, selfish as well. Caring for our currently living populations and, the living individuals that make up present humanity at the expense of those who will live in the future, is simply and utterly morally wrong regardless of how it might cause us some discomfort to find the means to justify somehow ignoring some of the perceived needs of those alive today.
That discomfort is not importantly, the result of the actions of those in the future, but instead, it is always the result of the actions of either those in the past, or those in the present, either of whom may have over reached their morally acceptable footprint and posture causing a situation to arise where the needs of those alive today cannot be morally met, because meeting them will detract from the more morally paramount prospects of the future.
Rationalizing cumulatively detracting from the prospects for the future by the easily perceived and apparently endlessly arising wants and needs of the present is simply immoral.
Thus, when our efforts entail the production of food, or, the maintenance and development of water resources for current living populations without coupling these efforts with parallel efforts designed to control the easily foreseen growth of populations, our net effect upon the future of humanity is negative.
Malthusian equations are not just generally true, they impose upon us a duty of better judgment in our humanitarian efforts. If we do not act accordingly, we simply increase human suffering by the capacity that greater populations have to suffer more and, because larger populations generally exist more precariously upon the short cusp that is the most common basic human condition of the sustenance of life.
The male population of the world has been required to restrain its sexual instinct. It is just as important to cultivate a similar restraint upon the female sexual instinct to bear offspring. The children of a woman who has more than one or two children take nourishment and resources from the children of a woman who has but one or two children. This negative impact can be seen in the present.
The impact over time is stunningly negative for humanity.
What is the optimal human population for the world? This is a difficult question to answer, but, it seems clear the optimal human population is at least half the current population of the world, and more likely much less than a quarter.
Of course, anyone who would suggest immediately culling the earth's human population to these more appropriate levels, would be immoral. This is not the sort of world anyone would by example wish to bequeath to the future. But we also must become more aware that within a closed system, such as our human reality, such an immediate culling of humanity has happened before and could easily happen again due to some catastrophe remotely linked to our immorally unnoticed course where we have by our humanitarian instinct allowed the current population to rise to such perilously unsustainable levels.
We must remember, we have a moral duty to seek and maintain a permanently sustainable planetary population. Otherwise we cumulatively take from the future due to the closed nature of the natural and humanity-made systems that support our humanity.
The medical industries have a twofold negative impact upon the future. First, they increase populations. And second, they increase the virulent nature of pathogens that effect humanity by their treatment of humanity afflicted with these pathogens.
Economists who want humanity to adopt more efficient economic methods similarly impose upon the future increased populations, increased movement of pathogens and invasive species, as well as they increase the speed and efficiency with which many other empirical mistakes are being made.
The word empirical must simply come to mean, poorly thought out. For, that is what it is.
Empirically driven political scientists and economists who want to bring modern Western political and economic theory to the whole world also increase the efficiency of the destructive inclinations of ever greater populations of empirical humans. Western political and economic thought based upon absurd and populist notions of progress are clearly suicidal.
The correlation between readily observable, and, easily measurable worldwide population increases and the qualitative measure of the standard of human life long ago reached and surpassed a perilous peak. The sharp decline in the average quality of standard of living of all humans will accelerate for at least sixty years due to natural and irreversible progressions in population growth, and likely much longer because humanity has not yet geared up to what we now know because of the discovery of categorical knowledge.
Were we immortal observers we would see more disease, more pollution, more war and more suffering in the world due to the desires and action of humanitarians bent on making the world a better place and the empirically driven efforts that are always destined to fail to attain those ends, because of an unappreciated complexity inherent to the thing in itself. This is true because the ends pointed to by humanitarians are meant to address the needs and the suffering of the present, when the only cogent approach is to address the needs and the potential suffering of the future.
Humanitarians have not made the world a better place. They have made it worse for humanity by addressing the suffering of living individuals and groups while ignoring the downside effect of their efforts upon the future of humanity.
The only viable moral focus is the future. And the only possible future equal to our own experience or better, includes a smaller human population footprint.
Mankind has sat upon the precipice of destruction slowing tossing the future of humanity over the edge since the dawn of the scientific era. Popular culture today accurately portrays a numbed empirically driven population unsure of the rapid progress made toward a future that is bent upon self-destruction of the species and the planet.
Empirical humanity now half-heartedly awaits an empirical messiah. Such an empirical messiah is seen as the only hope humanity has to avoid a fatal collision with our own empirical barbarity.
It is an illusion, and a deviously circular deceit. Our empirical world is the sure manifestation of our barbarity, a barbarity that is destroying humanity and the world of humanity.
This is an exciting time for humanity.
Kant's reference to and notion of Categorical Knowledge was a huge discovery left two centures unrecognized by philosophy for what it was, until Kant's querying conjecture about a Categorical Imperative was answered and proved true by the discovery of The Moral Imperative of Life.
The vast difference between Categorical Knowledge and Empirical Knowledge can only be compared to the difference between superstition and science that came to the fore before it.
Philosophy has at long last substantially regained the mantle of truth, its pinnacle.
Empirical knowledge has been put into its rightful place, not leading, but subservient to a suspicious and more learned humanity.
And in a bold paradox contrary to the beliefs spreading since the Enlightenment, religion, common sense, superstition and folk wisdom each stand as potentially greater sources of the inspiration to discover Categorical Knowledge than does science.
Science is clearly the great danger. And, any other historical method of comprehending the world or, any part of it generally has greater depth and a far more diverse set of mental processes upon which philosophic explorers can draw from for inspiration and ideas.
Because of the nature of empirical research, theoretical or observational, the empirical sciences are dead and sterile by comparison to what is the potential for searching out categorical knowledge. The empirical sciences actually lead away from categorical knowledge. For empiricism is a method by which scientists inquire by chipping away at some medium to create a model of reality. Such a method will always yield mere approximations and half truths. And for anyone who might question and doubt this assertion, the question arises, why then did not the work of some empirical scientist discover The Moral Imperative of Life?
This would have been impossible. There is no moral variable in any empirical science. This is why categorical knowledge is so important to the understanding of any truth. For humanity, when we seek truth, we must admit to our static limitations, and know that we can only find human truths that categorically moral.
But never mind and pay no attention to all that now. Its importance is only to note it. These problems and revelations will not cease anytime soon in our history.
The great door to Categorical Knowledge has however, been thrown wide open with the unveiling for us of The Moral Imperative of Life. From there only, can humanity build free will. Free will is at long last within our human grasp.
The very survival of the human race has been no more accountable to good moral judgment than it has been to just fool luck until now. Until the discovery of The Moral Imperative of Life, the arguments concerning free will have all been mute.
It is easily surmised no human acts of their free will, if they do not know what is moral. There we have finally set before a now freed humanity the quest for the next thousand years, the discovery of the great wealth of Categorical Knowledge based upon philosophy, moral philosophy, the cogito, the notion that life is good, and The Moral Imperative of Life, all so we might express our free will as moral, sentient beings.
It is surely is not enough to be sentient alone. The practicioners of witchcraft were and are sentient beings.
Categorical Knowledge alone will, and, alone can sustain life and give humanity its first civilized civilization.
And all else that would otherwise be left for humanity is no better than witchcraft, a humanity made of cunningly sentient automatons, far more dangerous and infinitely more immoral than the witchcraft of old is our humanity when it empirically detracts from the prospects of its own future. The empiricists are all but cannibals by their caustic and imperious results.
We can only hope we have grown from our experiences and will get to the process of caring and sharing soon! We have to all be together on this if we are going to make it work. We have to adopt the moral imperative and forget the golden rule- we've done enough of doing unto others what they have done to us.
Is this how we should remember our ancestors and thank them for what they have given us?
Or is that just the sound of silence we hear from our past that we pass on to the future?
PS- here's an example of the Malthusian Equation on population dynamics- http://brneurosci.org/population.html