Chapter
28 - The Theory of Moral Deposition
X0 = An earlier unknown tribe or
various earlier religious affiliations or identities
X1 = Ancient Egyptian beliefs or the
Babylonian belief system
X2 = Judaism
X3 = Christianity
X4 = Islam
X* = "religion" to
Philosophy (the materially predicted future) without "religion".
Despite its various application of
both observed principles - the 'Abhorrence of Murder' and the 'Abhorrence of
stealing' - , both are still observed by all or most of the above identities.
All or most of the identities recognize these virtues as socially applied and
relevant principles. The different interpretations and various applications by
the above participants is a moral subjective exercise but its survival through
human history or through social evolution makes the principles uniquely
objective. The reason of why it is objective is because of its survival through
dialectical and material history.
The theory of deposition is to
expressly state that these social virtues are objective because of the process
of human (or sentient beings) trial and error over several years. Through the
example of Human society, being the lab of experimentation, these virtues will
be proven to be objective.
Here we introduce the intramolecular
forces of water. Water is defined chemically as having two hydrogen atoms and
one oxygen atom. The bonds that attaches these elements of nature are known and
termed to be - "covalent". These bonds are "covalent"
because they are more stronger attachments that make elements into compounds or
molecules rather than weaker bonds that attaches two or more compounds
together. For example, compounds or molecules are a group of elements attached
together by these bonds. The "deposition" is when the molecule or
compounds are translated into another phase of their existence - from gas to
solid. For instance, in the case of water (H2O) it exist in three phases:
solid, liquid, and gas phases. Water has a triple phase where all three phases
exists simultaneously together.
Before presenting the evidence, let
me address an issue of concern. I am not violating the Humean philosophical
observation: The error of deriving an 'ought' from an 'is'. In other words,
defining a new theory from a scientific or factual observation to define a
philosophical phenomena. Furthermore, that is to define an immaterial concept
from a material construct or factual observation. This error has been observed
to exist within the social philosophical program of Herbert Spencer, the author
of 'social darwanism', where the application of such idea resulted in socially
disastrous consequences. The Theory of Moral Deposition does not destroy the
greatest happiness for the greatest good principle. While 'social darwanism'
has committed such a flaw because of its unfilled explanations and
expectations. The observation by David Hume, where the Humean dictum derives,
is an observation proven true by the attempted applications of 'social
darwanism'. Herbert Spencer's attempted application was an attempt to forcibly
create bonds with non-related forces: natural selection(observed by Charles
Darwin) and economics. In other words, biology and capitalism. The result of
these attempted merging is the reason of its failure to be a reasonable
philosophy. Herbert Spencer mistake and error comes from extracting a
particular study of biology and then attempting to merge it with economics. In
other words, the subject of 'natural selection' is more constant and not
variables like economics or capitalism. The reason for the previous statement
is because "economics" and/or "capitalism" has been molded
or reformed over time without the usage of "natural selection". For
example, through social evolution, modern secular democracy derives from the
repulsion of "divine" monarchy which through its repulsion created
other political systems. These other political systems created, and through
consequence, ushered in socialism and other forms of economics. While natural
selection is a constant concept which could not be reformed to fit with the
variables of economics. For example; a person with no substansive material
wealth, or background based on wealth, could become a leader of a nation. The
previous observation would make 'social darwanism' contradictory. The
"survival of the fittest" does not apply among sentient species who
have developed, through social evolution, systems which take care of the
economically weak and socially disenfrenchised.
The theory of moral deposition would
present a new way of seeing the relationship between its two functions of
morality - objective and subjective forms. The intramolecular forces of water
would show this relationship while not violating the Humean dictum. Let us
return to the previous presentation of the evolution of "religion",
and some of its principles, within some segments of human society. While it is
termed "human" society it could also be applied to all or most
sentient beings. The previous statement or observation will be addressed much
later. The above presentation shows the letter "X". Imagine that this
letter is the Oxygen element of water. The "X" is the objective
principle while its attachments makes it subjective.
For example, Oxygen by itself is an
element but when attached by two Hydrogen atoms it transforms into a water
molecule or compound. Oxygen despite its relationship with other elements is
still an element of nature. Only when it is attached with other elements,
described as the intramolecular force, the relationship transforms the elements
into a molecule(compound) of water. Through the example of water, the
"bonds" could now be identified. The existence of objective morality
exists along and within of what is described as subjective morality and not as
seperate concrete concepts. These "bonds" are social practices.
Alasdair MacIntyre is the first doctoral scholar to have identified the
importance of social practices but he has not identified the intra-relationship
between objective and subjective morality. In the above examples, the numbers
above or numerical values(0,1,2,3,*) are the particular social practices or a
particular "religion" attached to a proven objective principle:
(X) = Objective principles like the
'Abhorrence of murder' and the 'Abhorrence of stealing'.
(0,1,2,3,*) = Social practices
attached to objective principles during a particular era which temporarily
transforms an objective principle into a seemingly subjective one.
The application of the Theory of
Moral Deposition would present a unique view and prove the above presentation.
The meaning of the theory of Moral Deposition is to convey that an idea or
moral principle is no longer subjective but rather objective proven through the
timeline of history. In other words, the theory is expressing something similar
to a 'gas to solid' phase or transformation of an idea or moral principle into
something concrete or real in the physical world. For example, 'gas to
solid'(chemical deposition in nature) or 'theory to practice' or 'ideas to
practical application'. In contrast, sublimation - 'solid to gas' transformation
or 'practical application to theory' observation. The "attachments"
to objective principles are the social practices which transforms it,
temporarily, into subjective principles/practices. The survival of ideas within
the marketplace of ideas is a proper example of the "survival of the
fittest" in comparison to Herbert Spencer's 'social darwanism'. The ideas
that survive through social evolution becomes over time social concrete
principles therefore becoming objective.
Another example would be to use a
political science idea from E.E. Schattschneider's political theory of
"agenda universe" to illustrate another angle of the argument - the
introduction of the principle from a theory area. Here is E.E.
Schattschneider's theory of the evolution of an agenda:
Agenda Universe --> Systemic
Agenda --> Institutional Agenda --> Decision Agenda (Legislation of a
Bill that becomes law).
Let us replace "agenda"
with "moral theory" then imagine the social evolution of a moral
principle over several years. It started earlier as a "moral
theory"(agenda universe) and then was proven to be a "moral principle".
When it transforms into a "moral principle" it became a legally
unsaid social contract, i.e. natural law. The social evolution of a "moral
theory" would become practical when proven to be as such through social
trial and error. The change of status from subjective to objective principles
which are then adopted by other groups and tribes is a natural process.
Therefore, it is neither a supernatural nor an ultra-natural process.
The above eliminates the idea that
our laws derive from "divine" inspiration or more specifically that
the law(s) of Moses are divinely inspired. The so-called ten commandments of
Moses derive from natural observations which are an interpretation of the
material environment. In the case of the Ten Commandments, the laws are both a
product of the previous "commandments" within the previous Egyptian
belief system and Moses' new laws deriving from particular new circumstances.
Then Moses' circumstances developed or evolved into customs and social
practices which are subjective. For example, to "follow the Sabbath"
is a particular Jewish social practice and command which has nothing to do with
the recently extinct ancient Egyptian custom(s). The command - "Follow the
Sabbath" - is proof of the opposite observation: The eventual sublimation
of some social practices attached to a particular belief structure. For
instance, the growth or the increase of a particular brand of Christianity, Pauline
Christianity, may make this particular Jewish observation extinct. Let us
imagine if all of the stated "religions" disappear. Then only the
proven objective moral principles will survive.
The last part of the equation
presented above is noted as - (X*) - , a dialectical and historical material
prediction, when the increase of technology followed by new discoveries results
in the gradual sublimation of "religion". In other words, any type of
"religion" is sublimated through the historical material timeline.
Furthermore, only the proven objective moral codes are deposited in the
historical material timeline. Moreover, the last segment of the equation
represents a variable which is all around us presently and also a prediction of
the eventual triumph of materialism. The question is would this materialism be
molded to conform to material justice or material injustice? Moreover, it
represents the variable of infinity and also the eventual sublimation of
"religion". In other words; the other numerical values, within the
presentation above represents "religions", and the absence of it,
with the complimentary social practices. Therefore, what is the relationship
between "religions" and philosophies? "religions" are
philosophies but not all philosophies are "religions". For example,
the philosophy of social darwanism and the philosophy of communism are both
derived from philosophical materialism. Hence, the reason why general moral
objective principles outlive their shells called "religion" and even
philosophies.
The problem of social darwanism is
not that it derives from philosophical materialism but that it violates
material development of society and therefore material justice. The material philosophy
of communism has been proven to be flawed because it concentrates power
unjustly into one important segment of society - the state. The achievement of
material justice in society is the democratic possession of wealth, and the
flow of materials in society, between three important segments - the worker (or
the people), the state and the corporation entity. The new forms of socialism,
recent interpretations of Karl Marx ideas developed after world war two, have
tried to achieve the balance of material flow in society and therefore material
justice. The two individuals, within the human timeline which are well known,
developed two outcomes with precise and accurate predictions: Adam Smith and
Karl Marx. These are the two outcomes combined with my own observations in
order: (1) The existence of material justice creates the mechanism for material
circulation. (2) The existence of material injustices creates the peripherals
of social tensions.
Are materialists generally without
moral principles? This is an unfair question because of the known social
evolution within human history. Let me present, as an example, W.D. Ross' six
Prima Facie duties: Duties of Fidelity, Duties of Gratitude, Duties of Justice,
Duties of Beneficence, Duties of Self-Improvement, and Duties of
Non-Maleficience. All of the previous "duties" were simply natural
observations and could be followed without a "divine" command. The
question is given and followed by an obvious answer: Is there morality without
god or a creator? Yes.
Another colonial revolutionary, also known importantly, as one of the American founding fathers was Thomas Jefferson. The founding father was known to say relevant opinions during his time. Many of his quotes could be found in the founding document concerning the foundation of the United States. One of his quotes reflected his opinion concerning Christianity:
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814.
"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law"
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.
The previous statement was meant and intentional to create a separation of powers which was earlier expressed by Baron De Montesquieu in The Spirit of Laws. The previous statement also expresses the separation of history between Christianity and the legal codes.
"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814.
"As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819.
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors" -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.
The previous volumes of quotes from one of the founding fathers gives us all hope that the future will be bright for humanity as it clears away superstitious beliefs and so-called supernatural events with rational explanations with the tools of science and reason.
Unfortunately, there are too many indoctrinated human beings on Earth and the followings of irrational belief systems will only lead to the complete destruction of the human race because of new destructive weapons.
Thomas Jefferson, one of the most important American founding fathers, left us a quote through history concerning his opinion of the Book of Revelation:
"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.
Furthermore, not only has Thomas Jefferson refuted the Gospels but also the Book of Revelation which leaves us wondering if he foresaw and envisioned the collapse of the Abrahamic belief system?
Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted out of context by radical cultural demagogues. Thomas Jefferson was a patriot but for non-Christian expressions within society:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God"
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)
Is it possible that such sayings could come from an American founding father? It has been documented and saved for all to see and observe.
The foundations of Christianity is weak and unsound without concrete proof and evidence. The last quote will end this book to present the future as laissez-faire liberalism of Thomas Jefferson which partly as important as laissez-faire market mechanism and its twin laissez-faire constitutionalism. The evidence that is plentiful is the behavior of those who call themselves Christians:
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity"
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.
