Group Feeling, Morality, and Justice

The previous section explained that fellow-feeling, instead of the need for self-preservation, is the real cause of society.

All animals have a self-preservation instinct, yet not all come together into a society.

Personal feelings lead to personal actions just as group feelings lead to group actions which manifest in:

• political events such as elections, declaration of war
• economic events such as a stock market crash or the heating up of the property market
• social events such as marriage or funerals

Group feelings is therefore an important aspect of society.

Moral Phlosophy applies both to personal and group morals.

Pleasure Versus Peace

Western moral philosophy focuses on the feelings of pain and pleasure as the basis for morality.

The problem is that such feelings can either be physical or metaphysical (mental).

• Physical pain can manifest as a wound or a toothache
• Metaphysical pain can manifest as:
  • the pain of seeing your ex-partner happy with someone else, or
  • the pain of not seeing our loved ones for a long time

Moreover, pleasure is usually associated with physicality such as eating delicious food, listening to our favorite music, having a relaxing massage, doing sexual acts, etc.

We do not usually associate the word pleasure with giving relief goods to victims of disasters, or in solving the problem of our friends or customers.

• In these cases, we get a warm, lightweight feeling in our hearts instead of strong pleasureable semsations in our brains.

This is why our basis for morality is not pain versus pleasure, but peace versus anxiety.

Casuistic Moral Systems

According to our Anunnaki Hypothesis, humans were created by the Anunnaki aliens through genetic manipulation in order to mine gold. This made them suddenly intelligent enough to follow orders, but ignorant on everything else.

The Anunnaki imposed moral rules that are based on their arbitrary whim instead of on logic and reason.

This led to Casuistic Moral Systems wherein specific actions are decreed on a case by case basis.

The problem with such a system is that it forces dynamic minds into a static moral box, hindering their reflection on causes and effects, and therefore moral growth.

Morals are ultimately based on feelings, and feelings change through time since feelings are a wave and waves always change.

Therefore, the moral rules made in 500 BC will work well for the feelings of 500 BC, but might be incompatible with the feelings of 2020 AD.

If we were to view moral rules as a kind of forced logic, then the casuistic moral systems in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity would be like hard-coding, whereas the rules in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism would be soft-coding.

An example of hard-coding is:

if x = '1' then decision = 'A'
elsif x = '2' then decision = 'B'
elsif x = '3' then decision = 'C'
elsif x = '4' then decision = 'D'
elsif..

Here, you compare an action x with whatever is exactly listed beforehand and then get a corresponding punishment or reward. This system makes rules as they go, adding them to existing ones, and is based on effect.

This method is easy to set up, but will show cracks in the long run.

For example, it was easy for Moses to come up with Ten Commandments to bring his people into Israel. But it later led to internal conflict because the rules were too simple.

The latter Jews like Jesus added on new laws that contradicted the old laws and created confusion. This contradiction caused his revisions to become totally different from Judaism, as a new moral system or program called “Christianity”.

Non-Casuistry is Better

An example of soft-coding is:

if x is between 1 to 10 and z is between 1 to 10 then run function A(x)
else if x is between 10 to 20 and z is between 1 to 10 then run function B(x)
else if..

Here, the rules are flexible, accepting a wider range of situations, each processed differently, before coming to a judgement. This system relies on having the whole purpose thought of beforehand and is based on cause.

This system is more difficult to set up since a lot of forethought is needed. But after it is set up, then it lasts for a long time.

Examples are Confucianism and Hinduism where the rules are based on general principles, such as filial piety and dharma respectively, which can have various interpretations.

Mencius could update the precepts of Confucius just as Buddha updated Hinduism without much conflict or confusion between them.

But who would dare update the Ten Commandments or overhaul the Quran?

A Dynamic Moral and Healthcare System

Unlike the old casuistic system that is static and forces reality to conform to the system’s rules, such as “Thou shall not steal”, this new system is based on principles which allow reality to be dynamic, as “Thou shall be provided for by society through employment depending on your capacity and needs.”

This new version is open-ended. It requires the lawmaker to actively check the supply and demand of each entity in order to prevent inequality and theft. It is very different from the old system where the lawmaker merely waits for a theft to occur before springing to action.

This new system removes theft by pruning away the propensity and desire to steal before it actually becomes a need to steal. It would be like a gardener regularly cutting off parts of a shrub to mold it into an ideal shape.

This is different from the current system where the whole shrub grows unchecked and is chopped down if it becomes too ugly. This means that the underlying principle of the current system is mere chance. There is a chance that the shrub will grow well, a chance that it won’t.

You could say that convicts are those shrubs that were neglected by society so as to grow ugly. They are then imprisoned or chopped down (given the death penalty) in order to prevent them from messing up the beautiful society of shrubs which had better chances.

This new system is much more sophisticated as it gets data regularly to plot the behavior of each self. It then matches their pattern acccording to the general moral template or general moral principles.

If each soul has 3 billion selves in a lifetime and there are 1 billion people on earth, as a set population, then a global lawmaker must do 30,000,000,000,000,000 observations (30 quadrillion) in a year! This is impossible for any person or even groups of persons. But is possible for an artificially-intelligent lawmaker such as a computer which can handle thousands of computations per second.

This is the idea behind ISAIAH or the Impartial Spectator Automated Inteligence Aggregation Host which processes user data and compares it with a moral template to assist in making moral judgements in real time. With ISAIAH, the following moral decisions can be made:

• help decide if a convict that was caught for homicide has fully changed his self or not. This prevents career criminals from being released back into society, and allows morally-renewed criminals to be released earlier*
• decide whether a corporation is too monopolistic and should be broken up because it is merely profiteering, or still needs to stay as a corporation to pool more resources for true research or capital investment
• decide whether sanctions against a country should be lifted or not

• ..and so on

This is also the principle behind our proposed Constitutional Virtues and annual Confirmation Elections

Harmonizing Personalities: Love Versus Money, Heart Versus Intellect

A common philosophical question asked by young people is whether to go for love or money, or follow the heart or the intellect.

• Romantic people and idealists will go for love and heart
• Pratical people and materialists will go for money and intellect

The proper answer is to know the personality structure of the people.

• If the person is idealist, then he will accept the answer of love and heart.
• If the person is idealist, then he will accept the answer of money and intellect.

However, since our goal is to unify and balance the pepole in society then the better answer is:

• love and heart for idealists, but the advantage or benefit of practicality and intellect should be planted
• money and intellect for materialists, but the advantage or benefit of love and heart should be planted