First Principles

For over twenty five hundred years philosophers have been looking for universal principles of ethics. If, what could be called "first principles" do exist they would be universal and binding on all people in all historical times of social evolution. This seems an improbable task in light of what appears to be evidence to the contrary. The observable presence of cultural and ethical relativism is difficult to dispute. A credible theory of ethics, therefore, must explain how there can be firm first principles while at the same time acknowledging that ethical views can vary according to time and place.

A good theory, whether it is in science or ethics must integrate well over a broad spectrum of human knowledge. Seminal theory does not always have direct and provable evidence at its inception. For example, string theory is is a rising star among competing theories in physics. Here direct evidence and proof of this theory is difficult to demonstrate yet it is reasonable enough in other ways to qualify as good theory. Likewise, proving the existence of first principles in ethics relies on the reasonableness of the arguments and not the exactness of the arguments. Evolutionary ethics presents a dynamic state of affairs in which ethical systems are evolving. This is not unlike the problems of analysis that structural engineers are faced with when calculating the dynamic loads on a building that is constantly moving as people walk about or being shifted about by the winds or movement of the earth. The engineer is not looking for an absolute value of a load rather its load in a moment in time calculated as the sum total of loads in that instant. The analysis of ethical evolution requires the same type of consideration to determine what is going on in a particular instant of time. Cybernetic science presents us with a method of reducing extremely complex circumstances to understandable proportions. The evolution of ethical systems can be analyzed in a more scientific context that could be described as cybernetic ethics. Any social rules that evolve from the informational feedbacks of human events would be categorized as cybernetic ethics.

Cybernetic science is a relatively new science first conceived of by Norbert Wiener nearly sixty years ago. This a very short duration of time thus few people in philosophy have had time to contemplate its effect on ethical theory. When ethical analysis it put into a cybernetic context the very language of ethics changes to a form slightly alien to both formal ethics and formal cybernetic science. The focus of analysis here looks at factors of systemic feedback, efficiency, stability, and the dynamics of social power. Cybernetics become the door to discovery of a much larger universe and it is a necessary door to pass through to unwind the mystery of ethical relativism and first principles.

Key to understanding the relationship between cybernetics and ethics is to be found in the concept of survival. The word survival itself is a vague term that could mean many things, thus it must be defined contextually in terms of actions that sustain, not destroy a living system or cooperative of systems. The focus in cybernetic ethics is on the long term survival of an animal, organism or insect. The dynamic component of "survival" might be thought of as a wire-in component of existence. One does not need to immediately know why the instruction sets in life-forms commands a degree of self-serving survival, only that this is likely true. In highly efficient systems their is a high degree of organization and prioritizing of the various parts and needs. Competition between the various biological systems increases the dynamic power of organic life as a whole but compared to what remains to be suggested. Nevertheless systemic competitions do occurred in which some systems become extinct and others thrive.

There are some competing factors here that in theory exist in a dynamic balance to one another. There are the needs of the organic whole of life which may be a small but significant force in biological evolution and the needs of a particular species to survive. Within that species there are competitions for dominance in which some approaches to life disappear and others survive. Again there is a superior organic system that is sustained by the more subordinate special systems that contain subordinate subsystems. Each of these system maintains systemic stability by way of informational feedback loops. Each system or sub system must attain a high level of efficiency and creative ability to adapt to survive. It is in the interest of each biological component to be selfish but not so selfish it undermines the survival of a larger world of organic life.

The compulsion to seek survival likely emanates from wired-in instruction sets in all life-forms. Why these instruction sets exist or who or what put them in place is a fact that is not necessary to immediately know. Initially, one only needs to know that the existence of wired-in instruction sets exists—and that these instruction sets are a part of a feedback system definable in cybernetic terms. In other words the analysis of a complex system must begin somewhere and this approach to reasoning the system is adequate even though everything is not know in the begriming. When the periodic chart of chemicals were first proposed its ultimate utility and relevance in the world of physics was not known. But, this lack of ultimate purpose deter the development of the periodic chart.

........

proportionate considerations

For instance, a particular species of birds reasons or reacts to the environment in terms of maximizing its survival and the survival of all of those like itself. The proportionate balance between responding to individual needs and/or the needs of the greater population of birds is built into the ordinal design of the birds. To says that a particular species of birds has a built-in set of behavioral instructions would require scientific examination for its merits. However, there is sufficient anecdotal and sensory information evident to posit that animals, organisms and insects are born with wired-in instruction sets. Moreover, those instruction sets generally define certain behaviors that benefit the species as a whole, families, or individuals. Given that instruction sets in living matter does exist then one can reasonably move towards the idea of cybernetic principles governing most every action and reaction of that life-form from birth to death. For example, a rocket is programmed to send a probe into space to visit the planet Saturn. The destination of the rocket is a wired-in state of affairs in much the same way that the ends of human endeavor might be a wired-in state of affairs. In the instance of the rocket's guidance system its sole preoccupation is on attaining its goal. All known deviations from that goal are reported to the guidance computer. This cybernetic, informational feedback, initiates changes in the direction of the rocket if it is discernable, by calculation, is off course. It is more complicated in issues of human endeavor because not only might the instruction sets be wired-in but the sets themselves is interpreted in terms of the need to survive individually or as an entire society. The rocket is surviving without contemplation, while the human is contemplating the same end in a different way. In this respect the word "survival" is presented to the mind as a complex idea. In the process of competing with other organisms insects and animals for scarce resources the human strategy is to creatively try all possible combinations and permutations of behavior. Thus, from the beginning the absolute state of moral wrong is not theoretically possible given the ultimate, long-terms survival of the human species. Moral right and wrong only apply to secondary behaviors.

When survival is defined as the key component in human evolution other factors tied to that compulsion to survive become evident. These factors can be conceived of in scientific terms of systemic analysis. There is dynamic balance to consider. There is systemic flow, positive and negative feedback. And more importantly there is systemic efficiency to consider. A system that is efficient is likely to be a surviving system. Translating this idea into a social setting one would thus view the world of human evolution as comprising of many and varied social systems. The Eskimo in the arctic would be a distinct system as would a nomadic tribe of Arabs in the hot desert another. One could reasonably assert that the values of the Eskimos would vary slightly from the values of the nomadic tribesman given the differences in climate. The eskimo in his or her own way strives to extend their survival as does the nomadic tribesman. Simply because they define their behaviors differently does not diminish the notion that both ultimately are seeking to maximize their survival. The underlying principle here is surviving societies. But, there are other factors to consider. Survival is a complex and creative process constantly extending the boundaries of human invention to satisfy that need. The survival of the local tribe and or the larger surrounding community or nations is at stake as is the survival of the entire human population. Survival of the species is not so much at question here as how to go about it. Therefore, under these conditions the rule of systemic efficiency intervenes to maximize not only individual needs but also the needs of the species. Considerations of efficiency force hierarchical order on the entire world population. While the tribal mores have value they do not have sufficient power to support the evolution of a world community. The more basal, and much older portion of the brain, forces upon the world a form of order that in that moment of world growth is the most efficient to the end of maximizing human existence. The intellectual not of moral right and wrong is secondary to the primary wired-in compulsion of humans and their society's to survive. Were the human population to be killed off to only a few people the primary instruction sets would reproduce the world again starting from what most people would view as a very immoral world of leaders who seemingly only were thinking of their own ends. Nevertheless, finer distinctions of moral right and wrong would again begin to assert themselves because those fine distinctions would slowly fine tune the social growth by injecting efficiencies here and there that would give dominant political players more power to dominate over human affairs. Those who dominate, more or less call the shots of what moral system will be promoted and which will be driven out of existence. This is an ongoing process today that can be seen as the strong driving other strongmen out of existence who use questionable means of behavior to sustain themselves in power. If a leader sustains themselves in a regime of fear that approach may be quite efficient in surviving the leader but in the process disrupting lives of the nations around the ruthless dictator. The dictator represents a state of affairs that once was in existence but has since moved on to more enduring, secure, and efficient ways of holding power in the world. In order to hold world power players must creatively adapt to needed efficiencies to win popular support.

It is not that the morals of the Arab tribesmen are wrong in a transcendent sense, they are wrong if one wales have a voice in the shaping of world moral, economic and political policy. Surviving the human species is an implicit consideration in the gargantuan struggles between nations. Ultimately it could be said that if you do not want someone telling you hat to do you must acknowledge the values of people and nations who have proved the worth of their moral, economic and political ways. Defining morality is as much a part of what is right and wrong as it is an issue of defining behaviors in a way that extends the existence of all people and nations best. Why eskimos and nomadic tribesman cannot posses nuclear weapons is a part of this human moral dynamic that gives power to the most efficient and stable systems and depriving power to others. Humans evolution moves forward and not in reverse. When systemic stability and efficiency are interjected into moral analysis it is not relativity, arbitrariness, and self serving ideology that benefits some with nuclear weapons to some and with hold from other it is fundamental principles of a surviving world at work.

On the one hand moral creativity and differences are needed to maximize the overall growth and survival of humanity and on the other firm principle of civilization that maximize systemic efficiency and stability. Cultural and ethical relativity is important but there is a hierarchy of importance here that sets first principles above moral relativity. Ethical relativity is an absolute and essential component of a surviving human species. In a well-designed biological system there must be compartmentalization of the system. A ship is built with many separate compartment to prevent a hole in the hull from causing the entire ship to sink. Likewise, a world in which there was one moral system would be susceptible to compromise disrupting and destroying order in the whole world. First principles of human behavior and relativistic division in human morality are necessary to survive the species. In this respect there is no conflict between simultaneous existence of ethical relativity and first principles.