Absolute Morality.

Morality, what is right and what is wrong, is based on beliefs.

Therefore, what is right and what is wrong is based on what I believe about each situation.

The point is that morality is not something that everyone deduces for themselves and then applies.

Well, yes, there is a morality that everyone deduces. But it is not social morality.

Morality is applied in what we call ethics.

And, also, it forms the basis of laws.

Morality, therefore, we must respect it or there will be punishments in the form of legal sanctions.

Morality is decided at the societal level.

And it is brought to the highest levels through politics.

And the representatives of moral ideas will decide the laws, as a reflection of their morals.

But the prevailing morality is relative.

It depends on who wins the election.

The laws will reflect the moral ideas of those who have drafted them.

So, I am obliged to comply with laws that may clash with my private moral ideas.

Laws are not absolute.

They are very, very relative.

Every historical moment has had its laws.

But, and this is the big question, is there an absolute morality?

A morality that does not depend on the beliefs of each moment?

I think so.

That absolute morality should be based on criteria as objective as possible.

Bearing in mind that it is almost impossible to get rid of our subjectivity to define what we call objective.

We have objective ideas, for example, about suffering.

But this objective idea varies according to who is talking about it.

Thus, someone may believe that an animal does not suffer, but I am sure of the opposite.

We will both say that it is an objective criterion, providing evidence.

However, objectivity should not be based on subjective evidence, i.e., based on beliefs and/or experiences.

Objectivity must be based on unquestionable factors.

The objectivity I propose to define absolute morality is based on the following principle.

If I want to know the state of mind of a population, I can assume how they feel, or I can ask each of those inhabitants.

I can ask everyone, or I can ask only a representative number.

But if I take everyone into account, then I can have much more objective data about the general state of mind.

Well, always bearing in mind that the state of mind is, by definition, totally subjective, the key is that, if I base my objectivity on detecting factors common to all Identities, I will be as objective as possible.

Let me explain.

The interests of each Identity are the most important to it.

Without exception.

It is because of the inevitable subjectivity that conditions the experience of every being.

Thus, for a plant, its life is the most important thing.

So it is for a fox.

And for a bacterium.

Why is this so?

Because every living being constantly repairs itself and tries to survive, without exception.

Every living thing shows an intention to stay alive.

This is observable in 100 % of living beings.

So, an absolute morality should start from the assumption that every Identity has a genuine interest to stay alive.

Unfortunately, before we get to this point we have to overcome a much bigger hurdle.

Which Identities have interests and which Identities do not?

This is where subjectivity always makes its appearance.

Is it the capacity to feel?

That is, without the central nervous system, there is no evidence that a plant feels.

Nor a bacterium, nor even a starfish.

The sensocentrist criterion is not the most objective.

It is based on a subjective belief.

And that is that the capacity to feel, as I feel, makes a difference in experience.

Nevertheless, in all living beings we have observed the primordial intention to stay alive.

Without exception.

All are repaired.

Is the type of experience more important than the experience?

Is the debate whether an Identity experiences, or does it not?

Or is the debate how it experiences?

There is an objective fact.

The Universe can be differentiated between living matter and inert matter.

This is quite obvious.

The inert and the living are nothing alike.

The living possesses a will that allows it to interact with the environment and make decisions, acting accordingly.

This does not apply to inert matter.

The latter reacts to the environment according to physical laws and there is no will that conditions anything.

In fact, we could say that the Universe is differentiated between Something and Someone.

Matter is Something.

Life is Someone.

To interpret the scenario and interact with it, there must be Someone, a mind, even the most basic mind in the world, having a subjective experience.

Subjective experience is the basis of the ability to interpret and possess will.

So, if Identities are Someone, why do I apply a criterion to differentiate between one kind of Someone and another kind of Someone?

That is, am I going to apply an absolute morality by relativizing the importance of the interests of a living being according to a relative and subjective criterion?

If I look at each Identity, I will be able to see some interests in that Identity.

Well, in order to apply an absolute morality, the previous step is to define if I want to apply it.

Let me explain.

If I understand that life arises by chance in the Universe, without an intention, emotions are a simple chemical reaction to certain stimuli.

Interests would have no value, since they are just chance.

There are living beings experiencing suffering now, but in ten billion years there will not be.

So, the interests of a bacterium are meaningless.

Now, if we believe that Consciousness is the origin of the Universe, then things change quite a lot.

Then, the Consciousness would experience in each Identity and the existence of interests inherent to each being would be a fact.

And the need to define an absolute morality would have a foundation.

But only in that case.

Would it not be necessary, then, to find out if the Consciousness is prior to the Universe?

No one can be sure that something can exist without being perceived.

That is one of the great mysteries of quantum physics.

It is something more than a curious fact.

It's an enigma.

I think there are ways to prove whether Consciousness is the origin of the Universe.

And, if it is proven, then we will have to consider the need to create an absolute morality.