I3.6. Consistency of the universal intellect and the origin of moral laws
© Dr. Eng. Jan Pająk

I3.6. Consistency of the universal intellect and the origin of moral laws

The existence of moral polarity (i.e. moral or immoral behaviors), as well as the existence of the moral laws which refer to this polarity, introduces numerous consequences. One of these consequences, which probably is the most noticeable amongst all facts referring to moral matters, is that people who are enough totaliztic to stick in their activities to moral laws, are always acting "consistently".
The term consistency applied to moral issues can be defined as "conforming to a single set of universal principles". When analyzing this term, it become obvious that it expresses the abstract essence of moral laws, morality, etc. People who are highly moral, are also highly consistent in the entire their behavior.
If one considers theoretically any group of people which adhere to different moral values, such group must form a whole spectrum of behaviors, starting from absolutely inconsistent, and finishing on fully consistent ones. At the very bottom of this spectrum adherers of the philosophy of parasitism will be placed, who display a very low consideration to moral rules in whatever they are doing. Therefore, their behavior in given situations is going to be erratic (i.e. displaying a very low consistency), because it will depend on momentary caprices, moods, desires, predicted benefits, needs, etc. This is because of this, immorality and consistency are always contradictive to each other. By being inconsistent, it is impossible to be moral, and vice versa - by being always consistent, it is impossible to be immoral (to confirm this, consider a joke "'bit me' said masochist, 'nooo' said sadist"). Thus people, whose life is increasingly governed by moral laws, must display behaviors, which are increasingly consistent. Such people, in morally similar situations are going to display similar behaviors, independently what their personal feelings are (e.g. independently whether they like a given person or not), and also independently of moods, wishes, interests, etc. Therefore the most important property of people who are obeying moral laws is, that these people always are acting consistently (i.e. consistently moral). This in turn means that the vital property of consistency is that it is proportional to someone's morality. Therefore consistency can be used for measuring the state of someone's philosophy. For example, perfect totalizts would always strive to display consistency close to ς=1 (or 100%), while the full-blown adherers of parasitism always would display consistency close to ς=0 (or 0%).
At this point it is worth to consider what would happen, if into the spectrum of all possible intellects, we also include such a morally perfect being, as the universal intellect. Because this intellect is going to be on the very top of the spectrum discussed here, this means that the actions of this intellect must be absolutely consistent (i.e. display the consistency equal to ς=1 or 100%). Such a perfect intellect, in all identical moral circumstances is going to display identical behavior. This means that it is going to follow the same repetitive rules of behavior. These rules would be so selected from the moral point of view, that there would be nothing better then they are. Therefore, they would represent the essence of the moral behavior, and as such they would need to represent the "moral laws". Therefore, the above reveals another, alternative definition of moral laws. This definition states that "moral laws are simply principles of behavior of an intellect, which is absolutely perfect and absolutely powerful". This definition has a huge advantage over the definition of moral laws, which is provided in subsection I4.1. This is because it allows to theoretically deduce the content of moral laws, which we have not discovered so far. So for people who practice totalizm, this definition allows to increase their consistency without waiting until all moral laws are discovered. Furthermore, the knowledge about the existence of this definition provides another theorem (and proof), which confirms the actual existence of both, the universal intellect and moral laws. (This is because this theorem discloses that "the universal intellect must exist because moral laws do exist and work in practice, and also the moral laws must exist and work in practice because the universal intellect does exist" - see subsection I3.3.1).
The need for consistency is permanently build into our minds. We have something in us, that could be called a "counter-organ of consistency". Most probably it is a component of the "counter-organ of conscience" described in subsections I4.1.2 and I5.3. Even very small children are able to perfectly detect (and to respect or to disapprove), who amongst adults behaves consistently, and to distinguish such a person from those who behave erratically. Therefore we expect, and seek, consistency everywhere, and from everyone, although not always we are aware of this. All forms of our intellectual progress are expressed in the increase of our consistency.
In spite that we live in civilization which is overtaken by parasitism, people who behave consistently are already treated with a greater respect from people behaving erratically and changing their stand "like a flag on wind". This is because people intuitively feel that consistency is expressing the essence of morality, intellect, intelligence, worth of trust, dependence, communicativeness, etc.
Consistency of a given person can easily be quantified and measured. It is possible to work out tests, which would reveal quantitatively how consistent a particular person is in his/her activities and views. This test could be so designed, that it could not be passed by a person who do not have a clearly defined system of moral principles and values. From the moral point of view, the consistency test would probably be a much better measure of intellectual perfection from contemporary IQ coefficient. In turn, when we know someone's morality, it would be much easier to detect who is already a victim of a moral disease which in chapter JD is called parasitism, how much progressed already parasitism of such a person, etc. This would allow us to select more correctly people for a given jobs, to choose who should get a promotion, who could be a better manager, etc., then we do it presently on the basis of education, experience, or the course of professional career. (For example, before we decide to vote for some politician, probably we would like to know the level of his/her consistency, and thus also morality. In turn before the choice of a bank, we would like to learn the level of consistency and morality of directors.) It is easy to predict that if one day our society starts to recognize and appreciate totalizm, most surely such a test soon will be developed.
The quantitative value of consistency could be expressed by a "coefficient of consistency" (ς) which would assume values from ς=0 to ς=1 (i.e. if expressed in % it would take the range of values from 0% to 100%). This coefficient would represent a reversal of the "coefficient of deception" (φ) which is already introduced in subsection JB7.2. The mutual correlation between these two coefficients would be expressed with the equation:
ς = cos (φ/2) (1I3.6) For this reason, if someone is able to determine one of these two important coefficients, is also able to calculate what the other is. This is an extremely important capability when someone needs to quantify people's behavior and philosophy.

=> I4.
Antworten to top

Gehe zu:

Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste