Empathy; (the Golden Rule, trust, honesty, fairness, emotional contagion, body language,
perspective taking, sympathy, mind-reading, sense of separate self, targeted helping,
evolution, circle of concern, cooperation)
Evolution; (the Healing Principle, empathy, cooperation)
Fairness; (reciprocity, egalitarianism, proportionality, justice and rights, objectivity,
Perfect Compassion, cooperation, empathy, sharing, the Golden Rule, relative flourishing)
Morality can be thought of as similar to mathematics, in that (at least at this interpersonal
level) it consists of a collection of facts, logical relations between the facts,
and principles (of thriving cooperatively) arising from this situation.
The moral principles outlined above are simply necessary when people interact together
in small groups, with certain goals in mind. Probably, a computer could be programmed
with those facts and goals, and would arrive at the same principles.
Importantly, these principles are closely linked, in that any one contains elements
of others, and they are generally used in combination and balanced together. For
example, the Golden Rule contains elements of reciprocity, fairness, mutual respect,
and potentially, all three kinds of empathy (cognitive, emotional, empathic concern).
We may employ any and every principle at any one time.
Some aspects of morality have ethical content – they represent what is considered
the best of moral behaviour, since they are directly concerned with primary goals/values
(such as thriving). The corresponding interpersonal moral principles, concerned
with maximising these primary values or goals in a cooperative way, would probably
consist of: helping in response to need, fairness, unconditional love, and at least
in the West in the 21st century, human rights.
... the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also
bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even
Paul the Apostle – Romans 2:15
We all need some kind of moral authority to refer to. This makes perfect practical
sense, as morality can be considered the art of living well. Religious people are
able to refer to God as the authority, which is perfectly valid, except that opinions
vary widely over what “God” thinks is the right thing to do.
We may construct objectivity by several different means, for example:
the universal ethics that all healthy people feel in their hearts (in fact, every
healthy individual member of any Homo species).
ethical principles that achieve what are universally considered the “highest” values.
Currently in the West, the highest value seems to be “thriving”, in that human rights
are considered paramount in every situation. (See Perfect Compassion.) Other ethical
systems may prioritise other values, such as “controlling female sexuality”, some
cultural values, or perhaps “warriorship”, “loyalty”, etc., whatever it might be.
If we prioritise human rights, we are saying that people are the most important thing.
If we combine these two kinds of objectivity, and choose cooperative thriving and
fairness as our primary value, then we arrive at Perfect Compassion, and by extension,
human rights and unconditional love. This has the automatic corollary that encouragement
and enforcement of some kind are necessary, in order to help prevent people from
defaulting on their moral obligations.
Moral realism and the sense of objectivity
A moral realist might say, “it is the case that” X moral statement, e.g. “it is the
case that I am responsible for the consequences of my actions”, or “it is objectively
true that I am responsible for the consequences of my actions”.
Someone who is not a moral realist might say, “it is the case that I have a sense
that” X moral statement, e.g. “it is the case that I have a sense that I am responsible
for the consequences of my actions”, or “I have a sense that it is objectively true
that I am responsible for the consequences of my actions”.
Evolutionary ethics attempts to explain the evolutionary source of this psychological
Map of cooperation
The concepts are arranged by association with each other:
from the beginning modern humans possessed early humans’ second-personal morality
for face-to-face interactions with collaborative partners, so they did not have to
create an “objective” morality from scratch, only scale up their existing second-personal
morality to fit a cultural way of life. ...
Cultures build on top of individuals’ natural morality a cultural morality encouraging
conformity to norms designed for maintaining social order in particular ways of life.
Michael Tomasello – “A Natural History of Human Morality”
The moral compass
Left-hand side constructed by symmetry with the existing right-hand side.
Self-other equivalence as part of a shared collaborative endeavour; mutual respect
and deservingness; fairness; impartiality
we = me
Identification with the group; “I am a member of Team X, cooperating with other X”
you > me
Self-sacrifice; altruism; deference
we > me
Relinquishing some personal control to group, internalised as responsibility to others;
commitment to agreement; responsibility to uphold collaborative role ideals; partner
control; moral self-governance
you ≠ me
“we are working in parallel rather than together”; “we are not interchangeable within
the same role”; “we are not equivalent”
we ≠ me
“I am not one of ‘us’;” “I am not one of ‘you’;” “we are not in a cooperative relationship”;
“we do not share the same goal”
you < me
“I take from you”
we < me
“I am dominating the group”; despotism; no responsibility or commitment to others