Moral Certitude

We the People of the Me, in Order to form a more perfect world, do hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that there is no universal morality, that there is no definitive right and wrong, that only reason can guide us on our path.

How can right and wrong be defined if there is no supreme example of what is right or wrong? Simple: it can't. This should be abundantly obvious, as there are clearly moral gray areas. Is it immoral to steal if you are starving? The more appropriate question is whether it's moral not to give food to a starving person. The answer to this question is rather straight forward, but the reasoning isn't immediately obvious.

If we rely on the above givens, logic can give us a list of moral priorities. These are not moral certitudes (with one exception), but priorities.

1) Survival of Life
2) Survival of the Habitat
3) Survival of the Species
4) Survival of the Individual's Genes
5) Survival of the Individual
6) Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
7) Property


The only moral certitude is that life must survive. This is the highest priority on all scales. We must not allow any event so destructive that it will wipe out all life, be it by our own causing or of otherwise natural causes.

The notion of Darwinian Natural Selection could be taken to imply that the survival of one's own genes is the highest priority. This is true, but it has many levels. As we share genes and DNA with all life, we are also responsible for the survival of our genes at that level. We are responsible for protecting the survival of our genes, but this directly includes our own immediate family. We are therefore also responsible for protecting the genes of our ancestors, but not at the expense of our own species. We are responsible for protecting our species, but not at the expense of our own habitat.

Does this mean that we can't exploit our own habitat? No, but only as long as we aren't destroying its usability for the propagation of life--as long as we aren't wantonly destroying life. Is it our responsibility to prevent the natural extinction of species? Not necessarily. It's our responsibility if we are the cause. It's our responsibility if we are affected. It's our responsibility if it affects the entire planet.


This much should be abundantly obvious. What about less obvious questions? Is it moral not to give food to a starving person? This starving person shares our genes. It is to the benefit of the species for each individual to be willing to come to the aid of another. This has the benefit of making the species more cohesive. This is what makes society work. This general concern for the well-being of the species causes the (communist) voluntary redistribution of wealth that is otherwise known as charity. There are a select few that take advantage of this generosity. This behavior has not been selected out because it does work--but only when there are a relatively small number following this behavior. The reason this obviously bothers us is because it involves blatantly putting the survival of an individual’s genes above the survival of the species. It puts us directly in competition with each other, as opposed to having us help each other.


What about marriage? Birth control? Celibacy prior to marriage? Choosing not to have children? Feminism has done wonders in that it allows women (and men) the freedom to be themselves--the freedom to choose for themselves.

This is wonderful, but there are downsides that have come with the feminist movement(s). If everyone were to choose a career over family, then there would be no children to propagate any of our genes--our species would fail. If intelligent people were less likely to have children because they are too busy supporting their own desires, then intelligence would be selected out of the gene pool. Obviously, even a small number of intelligent people will benefit the whole species, but even small selective pressures can remove genes in their entirety over the vast spans of time that are considered by evolution.

The capitalistic society of the United States has reached a point where the people best able to thrive within the society are the least likely to reproduce. You don’t see the scientists and engineers that make technology and medicine producing a dozen offspring. No. This only occurs in cultural groups that are not educated enough to understand the biology behind sexual reproduction and cultural groups that can’t afford the birth control to stop having children. The problem isn’t that these groups are reproducing in large numbers. Absolutely not. These are large groups and within them are many people with various incredibly useful genes. Unfortunately, these people are more likely to succeed in leaving these cultural groups, and as a result, they are less likely to have as many children. (I wish I had research to back this up… but these claims just make sense to me.)

Am I claiming that birth control is bad? No. I am claiming that choosing to not having children is bad. In choosing to not have children, you are accepting that there is nothing in your genetic structure that is worth passing on to future generations of the human species. Am I claiming that we should have rampant sex and create as many children as possible? Well, if that’s what the competition is doing… (just kidding.) No, we should have as many children as we can support. It’s important that our offspring also be capable of using whatever beneficial genes they have. If they are raised to be incapable of taking advantage of their inherent gifts, then they will have difficulty properly offering these genes to the benefit of the entire species.

Marriage is not morally critical. This falls into the pursuit of happiness. It is important that each and every child has enough support to be able to grow to his or her full potential. This does not necessitate that the parents be married. This does not even necessitate that both parents even be around. It’s entirely possible to raise children in a single-parent household. It is, however, easier to provide for the children if there are more adults providing. It is important for the parents to do what they must to promote the survival of their own genes within their offspring. What logically follows is hard-wired into most species: that the parent will protect their offspring with their own life. Unfortunately, this could involve protecting the offspring from the other parent.



Lastly, what about religion? Any religion which conflicts heavily with the above will have dire effects on one of the following: a) the followers b) the rest of the species/world c) the religion itself. Christians once went on crusades to destroy all non-Christians. This form of Christianity no longer exists. The Christianity of the bible no longer exists. The various Christian sects each have their own interpretation of what should be followed and what should be ignored. Radical Islam is currently attempting to destroy all non-Muslims. They have really pissed off a large group of people, and now the dumb want to wipe them out. Eventually, one of the above three possibilities will occur, and as a result, the world will be very different.



This is by no means a definitive guide to how you should live. This is simply a proof-of-concept that a god is not necessary to define right and wrong. Much of what I have claimed is speculation on my own part. I do not expect all of this to hold up to rigorous scientific research. This is simply meant as a strategy guide for approaching your own decisions. I suspect the top five items in my list of priorities are not likely to change. The remaining two could easily be expanded, but this expansion has been left out of this first write-up.