Lectures on “Why Be Moral?” by Mostafa Malekian

Lectures

Why Be Moral?[1]

Mostafa Malekian – Vancouver, Canada

Summer 2019

Session One

A series of theoretical issues in our world, along with a series of practical problems, have combined to lead some thinkers to the view that there is essentially no necessity to live morally, and indeed, what necessity is there for human beings to live morally?

Although this discussion can be raised at an academic level, nevertheless, for you and me in ordinary life, this discussion may sometimes be raised and come up, especially when the cost of living morally in life becomes high, leading some to arrive at this opinion and view that when living morally becomes costly and imposes costs, why should I live morally at all? What obligation do I have to live morally? Can we not wash our hands of being moral without harming ourselves or others? Why not simply give up the blessing of being moral?

In this regard, friends have suggested to me that I hold a discussion on why we should live morally.

I must first lay out some preliminaries to arrive at the main discussion, which will likely be deferred to the second, third, and fourth sessions. But I must mention these points as an introduction for my friends.

The first point: We must not assume that every "ought" and "ought not" we have in life is a moral ought or ought not. We encounter and are bound and committed to many oughts and ought nots, but we must not assume that these oughts and ought nots are moral. To explain this, I must begin by stating that every voluntary action that issues from me, provided it is voluntary, meaning my will has an effect on it, before I undertake this voluntary action—even a billionth of a second before it—an "ought" must have been formed in my inner self and mind, so that immediately after this "ought" comes into being, I, for example, pick up the paper, and it is then that I extend my hand and pick up the paper. It is impossible for a voluntary action to issue from you without an "ought" having been formed in your mind and inner self beforehand. Now the question is: where did this "ought" come from?

Answer: My belief is that these oughts arise from 6 sources, which of course requires a detailed discussion that I will pass over, but my own opinion is that these oughts arise from 6 sources. Since these oughts arise from 6 sources, we refer to them as sources of norm-setting, meaning sources that determine norms and rules for me as a human being and tell me to do this and not to do that. These 6 are:

First – Law: When I drive on the far right side, this ought has been formed in my mind and inner self, an ought that the law of my country has formed in me, just as if I were in another country, I might drive on the far left side, and this ought would have been formed in my mind by the law of that country. Law, or more precisely, jurisprudence, determines oughts and ought nots for me.

Second – Customs, traditions, conventions, and habits: The law has not told me to go out into the countryside on the 13th of Farvardin or to sit at the Haft-Seen table, but the customs and habits of us Iranians have determined this ought for me.

Third – Religious rites and rituals: Neither law nor customs and traditions have told me to perform the prayer; I perform the prayer because I am a Muslim, and if I were a Christian, I would partake in the Eucharist.

Fourth—Aesthetics: Suppose my clothes are perfectly clean and my body is also perfectly clean, and you are not bothered by any bad smell from my clothes or body. Nevertheless, why do I iron my clothes? Why do I comb my hair? These oughts and ought-nots are determined by aesthetics. If we are optimistic about the world, the aesthetic sense tells me: make the world more beautiful; and if we are pessimistic human beings, we must strive, according to aesthetics, to reduce the world's ugliness.

Fifth—Prudence: If you have decided to become a doctor of medicine, because that is your goal, a set of oughts and ought-nots are thereby determined regarding the unavoidable means of achieving this goal—for example, you must study physiology, you must study anatomy, you must study neuroscience, and so on.

In life, for every goal a human being chooses, oughts and ought-nots emerge concerning all the inescapable means of attaining that goal; and if you abandon that decision, all those oughts disappear, and if you adopt another decision, other oughts and ought-nots arise. This is because the world has a cause-and-effect relationship, and for every means that is inescapable for reaching a particular goal, there are corresponding oughts and ought-nots.

Sixth—Morality: When I tell the truth, an ought has been formed within me that says you ought to tell the truth, be humble, and so on.

Therefore, according to the cases mentioned, the first point I must preliminarily draw attention to is that we should not imagine that every ought and ought-not is moral; rather, we must be aware that there are six sources that issue oughts and ought-nots. There is another discussion, which requires detailed discussions that I will pass over, which is: if these oughts and ought-nots come into conflict with one another, which one should we prefer?

This is a lengthy discussion that I have referred to elsewhere, and it involves complex debates; and of course, my own view is that morality comes first, then law, third prudence, fourth customs and traditions, fifth aesthetics, and sixth religion.

Here, among the sources of normativity, only morality is the subject of my discussion.

The second point is that from ancient times, whether in the Eastern world (China, India, and Japan) or in the cultural West (Greece, Rome, and Egypt), when morality was discussed, thinkers in ethics or moral philosophy believed that morality has two completely distinct parts: one part of morality concerns my relationship with myself, and another part concerns my relationship with others (human beings, animals, plants, and even inanimate objects). These two duties—the one I have in relation to myself and the one I have in relation to others—are completely distinct from each other. These two duties have been named with various expressions throughout history. Today, in books on moral philosophy and moral psychology, they say that the morality in which a person is in relation with himself is the morality of self-flourishing, and the morality that is in relation with other beings is the morality of benevolence. Self-flourishing is vastly different from benevolence. Self-flourishing has also been used in other forms, such as happiness—where a person strives to attain happiness and lead a happy life; well-being—where a person strives to lead a life of well-being; and even self-realization.

The moral duty I have toward myself is to lead a self-flourishing, happy, well-being-oriented, and self-realized life; and toward others, we only have a duty of benevolence. Benevolence, at the very least, is that we human beings, in relation to other creatures, do something to reduce their pain and suffering (reducing the pain and suffering of the other). I will later explain that this matter has several branches and precisely what it means.

Now, the issue is that at first glance, it seems that when a person is at the first stage of morality, they pursue self-flourishing and do everything only for themselves; but when they enter the second morality (benevolence), it seems that everything I do, I do for others. This second one appears bothersome. What debt do I owe to others that I should reduce their pain and suffering?!!!

The first ethics (self-actualization) in the modern era, that is, from the time of Descartes onward, was not much discussed or attended to and fell into neglect, but from the end of the First World War until now, attention has been paid to the ethics of self-actualization. Before the modern era, the ancients paid more attention to the first ethics.

The first part (the ethics of self-actualization) is very complex because it requires that a person has resolved many issues for themselves, which is very extensive and I will not address them, such as the issue that, firstly, if you want to be self-actualized, you must determine whether I am one-dimensional, two-dimensional, three-dimensional, four-dimensional, or... Am I only my body, or am I something beyond my body? If I am one-dimensional and consider myself only as my body, then all my effort must be to attend to my body; and do I have a mind in addition to my body? If I am two-dimensional, I must attend to my mind in addition to my body. Do I also have a dimension of the soul? Do I have a dimension of the spirit? And so on... The next discussion that arises here is our psychological type. Introverted humans and extroverted humans have different psychological types. Sensitive, thinking, intuitive, sensing, perceiving, and judging people... are all different from one another, and these very things cause the prescription that one individual writes for themselves to be different from the prescription that another individual writes for themselves.

The third point upon which the ethics of flourishing depends is the stages of human development and their differences. The self-actualization of a human being in childhood is different from that in adolescence, and likewise, adolescence differs from youth, and so on.

The fourth point here is that self-actualization depends on the image of life. What does this mean? Everyone, whether they are aware of it or not, has an image of life, meaning they have a metaphor for life for themselves. There are close to 40 such images. For example, one person's image of life might be the image of the marketplace, and they say I must behave in such a way that I do not incur loss and that I make a profit; this is referred to in the Quran, for instance, a person who sells their soul to God, a person who sells their wealth to God, and so on... Another person might have the image of a play and a theater, believing that in this life, a role is given to each individual, and everyone plays their own role and then exits the stage. Another group, like the Platonists and some of our mystics, have the image of a bird in a cage, where the human being is a captive of the cage of the body; and another group has Rumi's image, that is, the image of an individual imprisoned in a jail, that this world is a prison and one must find a breach and be freed from this world and prison. A group has the seesaw image, that for me to go up, you must go down, and vice versa (the image of competition), and so on... Self-actualization depends on many things. It is as if every human being is a rock, or has been given a rock, and has been told to carve your figure, a theory which is called the sculpting theory. Each of us is born like a massive rock, and a chisel has been placed in our hands, and we are like raw material; for extracting a specific image, the type of rock and the way we strike with the chisel are very decisive.

Now I must emphasize this point: regarding why I should live morally, the second ethics, that is, the ethics of benevolence, is taken into consideration. If you pay attention, you will see that the human being has a self-love, and the second ethics contradicts self-love. It is better here to refer to self-love. Self-love means that every being, more than and before anything else, loves itself, and loves the rest of the world to the extent of its proximity to itself, and loves it less to the extent of its distance from itself. In the words of Overman, the human being is everything to themselves and nothing to the world. My existence or non-existence makes no difference to the world, but to myself, I am everything. Self-love exists in all beings and has no exception. Spinoza proved that self-love is not at all exclusive to humans, and all beings in the universe possess self-love. From self-love, self-preservation emerges. When a human being loves themselves, they also become self-preserving, and self-love is the cause of self-preservation. From the discussion of self-preservation, two matters emerge: a) the attraction of benefit, and b) the repulsion of harm.

The mental-psychological structure of us humans is such that we are self-preserving, and for this reason, as much as we can, we attract benefits toward ourselves and repel harms from ourselves. This self-love demands that I think of my own benefit, but the second category of ethics, namely the ethics of benevolence, demands that I think of others, and these two are incompatible with each other. This problem intensifies when the costs of morality rise. If there is a society where social institutions are such that the costs of living morally are low, one can still live more comfortably morally and reduce the pain and suffering of others; but if the comprehensive systems and social arrangements are such that if you want to live and not harm others, you yourself must endure great pain and suffering, then the question arises: I have self-love, what necessity is there to be concerned for others?

Does living morally not entail losses for a human being? This question requires a very detailed answer, but in brief, I must say that living morally has at least 7 losses for a human being; to whatever extent one lives morally, to the same extent one incurs loss. In social life, a human being pursues 7 things, which, if I were to list them in order—the reason for listing them in this order is another discussion which I will pass over—are:

Wealth – Fame – Power – Respect – Reputation – Popularity – Academic Knowledge.

These are called individual social desiderata because these desiderata can only be attained in social life, and in this respect they are social, and since these desiderata are obtained for the individual in the course of social life, they are called individual. If we are people of success in social life, which is the case for the general public except for exceptions and rarities, we pursue all seven, although a group may pursue one or a few of these. We humans compare ourselves with others in these seven, and we also see ourselves in competition with others. Now, to whatever extent we live morally, we damage all seven of these. If I live morally, I will have an income of n tomans, but if I violate morality, I will have an income ten times n tomans. So living morally will inflict losses upon me; the more you observe moral standards, the less wealth you will acquire. The same applies to fame, power, reputation, and so on.

If throughout history, the shrapnel of a person's morality has not hit me, to that same extent their popularity is greater with me, just as we say about Anushirvan and Cyrus how good and just they were. We say these things very easily because our temporal distance from them is great. If you lived in the era of a moral person and were in contact with them, then it could be understood whether they are popular with you or not. Since we live at a distance from them, and their strictness does not apply to us, and we are not in the grip of their power, nor in the grip of the responsibility they feel, we easily say what interesting people they were, and we seemingly fancy that we would have liked to live in their time, whereas perhaps we could not have lived with them for even a single day and night.

Let me give you an example: You have heard how simply so-and-so lived and led a simple life. You say to yourself what good people there used to be, and you tell your spouse that you want to live completely simply (laughter from the audience). Simple living is good for those we look at from a distance. A human being who lives morally loses their popularity because anyone who lives morally approaches the boundary of justice, then approaches the boundary of compassion, and then approaches the boundary of love, and all three of these have requisites that cause others to scatter from around them. By living morally, we damage those seven things.

Now, a question: in order to live morally, and in order to live in such a way that I reduce the pain and suffering of others, I must distance myself from these seven assets. But on the other hand, I have self-love, and therefore I must pursue my own benefit (that is, attracting benefit to myself and repelling harm from myself). So the question is: why should I live morally? Living morally only brings me costs, and the fact that a rational person never does anything that incurs costs for them brings us to the next point.

The next point is that living morally is a type of action, and therefore it must be in accordance with practical rationality, and moral rules must not be violated. Since the time of Aristotle in the West and Confucius in the East, it has been an established principle that the most important distinguishing feature of humans from other beings is reason. Some said it is the only distinguishing feature. So, the more we want to live morally, the more rationally we must live, and it is as if humanity is a ladder, and its rungs are rationality; the higher you climb the rungs of rationality, the higher you ascend in humanity, and vice versa.

Philosophers believed that reason has two aspects: theoretical reason and practical reason. We are not concerned with theoretical rationality for now; we must see what practical rationality demands of us. In the theoretical realm, if we want to be moral, the essence of the matter is just one thing: "Accept no statement without reason" but in practical rationality, which is our subject of discussion, the essence of the matter is two things: "First—do not undertake an action whose cost exceeds its benefit" and "Second—if, in the middle of an action, you realize that the action you are performing has a cost higher than its benefit, you must abandon it and must stop it". Now, there is a point here that I will raise in the third session: "the benefit must be higher than the cost, or at least cost and benefit must be equal"—what exactly is the list of benefits? What is the list of costs? What things in life should be considered costs? What things are considered benefits? I want to make a calculation, and I must have a list of them. Let me give a simple example: is fame among the benefits of our life or among the costs? Most people might say fame is the greatest benefit of life, but another majority also says fame is the greatest cost. Benefits and costs constitute a very scholarly list and cannot be easily understood. In financial matters, it is easy to understand because it is measured in terms of money.

But practical rationality says the benefit must be higher than the cost. Its costs are clear: we must pay in terms of wealth, in terms of reputation, popularity, fame, and academic knowledge.

Now, what is its benefit? If its benefit is less than its cost, a conflict arises from the standpoint of practical rationality. Here, people find themselves at a crossroads. Those who want to act rationally must not act morally, and vice versa. Well, what is the benefit that must outweigh the costs? Well, what profit do I gain from being moral? Here, there is an old answer that does not have many proponents today but still has its adherents.

The ancients said we believe in two things: a) the existence of God, b) life after death. Because there is a God, with His absolute knowledge, power, and benevolence, He oversees life, and on the other hand, life after death also exists. I incur costs in these seven ways, but in the afterlife, I will go to heaven and will be far from hell, and heaven consists of infinite benefits. The length of the afterlife is infinite, whereas this worldly life is 70 or 80 years. In worldly life, we pay the cost of power, wealth, fame, popularity, reputation, etc., but we attain heaven with its infinite good and benefit, and we will be far from hell, whose sufferings are not at all comparable to the sufferings of this world.

Let me recount a story: One of Imam Ali's companions went to Mu'awiya, and Mu'awiya asked him: Who is the most ascetic person you have ever seen in your life?

He said: You. Mu'awiya was surprised because at that time Imam Ali was famous for his asceticism. Mu'awiya asked: Why did you say me? Why did you not mention Ali ibn Abi Talib?

That person said: Ali is the most covetous individual I have ever seen in my life, and Muawiyah's astonishment grew. That person said: You, Muawiyah, are very ascetic because you have abandoned the infinite and clung to this 70-year life, content with these 70 years. But Ali has abandoned these 70 years and gone after the infinite; well, it is obvious that he is very covetous.

The ancients had this very reason regarding living morally, because in the life of paradise they enjoy infinite blessings. Before modernity, this reasoning convinced everyone except rare and exceptional human beings. But from the 17th century onward, it is not very convincing. The ancients accepted both the existence of God and the existence of life after death. But in the modern era, many accept both, many accept one of these, and some reject both. A group does not accept the existence of God but accepts life after this world, and vice versa. Can it be shown through reasoning that the moral still win? And that those who do not live morally are losers? Without assuming that a God exists or that there is life after death?

Can we disregard these two presuppositions and say that living morally is still worthwhile? Can I demonstrate through reasoning that the moral still win and that those who do not live morally are still losers, without assuming that there is a God and without assuming that there is no life after death?

In these sessions, I want to show that yes, there are 4 major theories, and if you can accept one of these four through reasoning or intuition, then being moral finds a rational basis for you. Let me give an explanation about the intuition I mention here: this intuition is not what the mystics speak of, but rather rational, philosophical, Cartesian intuition. When you sit in a speaker's lecture and listen to their words for one to two hours, you hear several thousand sentences, and among all these sentences, you are certain that you have understood some, and you are also certain that you have not understood a group, and regarding some, you doubt whether you have understood them. Among the sentences you are certain you have understood, you are certain that you accept some, and you are also certain that you do not accept some. But sometimes, amidst a speaker's words, you hear a sentence and immediately slap your knee and say: Aha, you said it, aha, you said it. Psychologists call this approach the AHA Experience, meaning the 'aha, you said it' experience. That is, your entire being cries out that this sentence is true. Philosophers call this psychological experience intuition. As the youth say, a sentence that hits the bullseye and strikes the tower of your being. Regarding intuitive sentences, you do not go to the speaker to demand reasons or inquire about their documentation, because reasons are demanded for matters that are subject to doubt. Intuitive sentences are very important in life, but unfortunately, they are neglected. Just recently, I gave a lecture titled 'A Surge into the Stream' and there I spoke about the importance of these intuitive sentences in life. These intuitive propositions differ from one individual to another, such that if 50 copies of a book were given to all of us and we were told to underline the intuitive sentences, you would see that the results vary greatly. There are also times when you do not intuit the truth of a proposition and must accept it through reasoning.

I will mention the 4 solutions that modern philosophers have cited in this regard, that even without accepting the existence of God and the existence of life after death, living morally is still worthwhile, along with their various branches and versions.

Session Two

In the previous session, we said that if living morally is also to be rational, and when we live morally, rationality is also observed and no separation occurs between the two, we have no choice but for the cost of living morally not to exceed its benefit. If its cost is higher than its benefit, then if we live morally, we have strayed from rationality, because the essence and core of practical rationality is that you should not undertake an action whose cost is higher than its benefit. If this is the case, then the cost of living morally must not become higher than its benefit.

حال سوال این است: اخلاقی زیستن چه فوایده دارد؟ ما همه می‌دانیم که اخلاقی زیستن کمابیش هزینه‌هایی دارد، ولی آیا فایده‌ای هم از این اخلاقی زیستن حاصل می‌آید تا آنکه عقلانیت و اخلاقیت، با همدیگر عجین بشوند؟ در جلسۀ قبل بنا را بر این گذاشتیم که نمی خواهیم متمسک و متوسل بشویم به اینکه "زندگی پس از مرگ وجود دارد، خدایی هم وجود دارد" و نمی‌خواهیم بگوییم "حُسن اخلاقی زیستن را به این بگیریم که عوضش در زندگی اخروی و پس از مرگ پاداش بی‌نهایت حاصل خواهد آمد". حالا می‌خواهیم ببینیم آیا با صرف نظر از این پیش فرض ها، باز هم می توانیم راهی در پیش بگیریم که معین کند اخلاقی زیستن، فایده اش از هزینه اش بیشتر است. به عبارت دیگر عقلانی باشد که اخلاقی زندگی کنیم.

خب گفتیم که چهار تا راهکار برای این سوال پیشنهاد شده که هر یک برای خودش پیش‌فرض‌هایی دارد و لزومی ندارد که فرد، هر 4 تا راه را بپذیرد. همین که یکی از راه ها را بپذیرد کفایت می‌کند. هر یک از این 4 تا راه، برای خودش ورژن‌های مختلفی دارد و بنابراین در ظاهر، 4 تا راه هستند ولی با دقت نظر معلوم می‌شود، بیش از این 4 تا هستند. از این لحظه هر بحثی می‌کنم تا زمانی که اعلام بدارم که راهکار اول تمام شد، هر چه می‌گویم مختص به راه اول هست منتها ورژن‌های مختلفِ راه اول را می‌شمارم و تفصیل می‌دهم و روایت های گوناگون‌اش را بیان می‌کنم. حالا دوستان ببینند که آیا اینها مورد تاییدشان هست یا نیست.

راه اول: ما با اخلاقی زیستن، در همین زندگی جسمانی، منافع اجتماعی فردی می‌بریم (یعنی منافعی که از طریق زندگی اجتماعی حاصل می‌گردند و منافعش فقط اختصاص به خود من دارد) این منافع، 7 تا هستند: سعادت، شهرت، قدرت، احترام، آبرو، محبوبیت و علم آکادمیک. اینها همه در زندگی اجتماعی حاصل می‌آیند و به خودِ شخص اختصاص می‌یابند خواه یکی از آنها خواه بیشتر.

گروهی می‌گویند ما از طریق اخلاقی زیستن، به یک یا دو یا سه و ... از این هفت تا می‌رسیم. مثال: اگر من در کسب و کاری که دارم، کم فروشی نکنم، گران‌فروشی نکنم، احتکار، اختلاس، دزدی، رشوه خواری، تقلب، کلاهبرداری و ... نکنم، آیا قبول دارید که اگر من اینجوری رفتار کنم، یک محبوبیتی پیش مشتریانم به دست می‌آورم؟ احترامی کسب می‌کنم؟ آبرویی برایم حاصل می‌آید؟ خب، همۀ اینها سود اجتماعی فردی حاصل آوردند. اینها را فایدۀ اخلاقی زیستن به شمار بیاوریم و برای حصولشان، راهی جز اخلاقی زیستن وجود ندارد.

به نظر می‌رسد این راهکار مورد قبول نیست و دو تا نقد می‌شود برآن وارد کرد:

الف- نقد اول: درست است در مثالی که زدید، آن فرد آبرو و احترامی به دست آورد ولی آیا درآمد و ثروت همین فرد به اندازۀ کسی که اخلاقی عمل نمی‌کند هست یا نیست؟ کسی که اخلاقی عمل نمی‌کند، ثروتش 100 برابر بیشتر از این فرد هست. اگر من کسی باشم که برای "ثروت"، مقامی بالاتر از احترام و آبرو و محبوبیت قائل باشم، درآنصورت من که سودی نبرده‌ام من در برابر کسی که اخلاقی عمل نمی‌کند، قدرت سیاسی بیشتری به دست نمی‌آورم در نردبان سیاست هرچه اخلاق را بیشتر زیر پا بگذاری، قدرت بالاتر و بیشتری به دست می‌آوری. خب من بازنده هستم نه برنده. در این راهکاری که شما گفتید، بیان کردید و اشاره کردید به اینکه آن فردی که اخلاقی عمل می‌کند، چه چیزهایی به دست می‌آورد ولی به چیزهایی که از دست می‌دهد اشاره‌ای نکردید. اگر کسانی باشند که آن مواردی که از راه اخلاقی زیستن به دست می‌آیند برایشان به اندازۀ چیزهایی که از دست می‌دهند، ارزش نداشته باشد، آن وقت باید بگوییم که روی هم رفته زیان کرده و نه سود.

B. Second criticism: As long as moral living prevails, in the examples you gave it is true that the only cost was that more wealth was not gained, but popularity, fame, reputation, and respect were obtained—these are only in a calm and untroubled life. However, moral living is not even this cheap, and if we want to live morally, sometimes we must stand against political power, and then it is not only wealth or power that we lose, but we may even lose our lives, end up in prison, be tortured, and suffer mental and physical harm. You gave a superficial example, but many times you have to contend with oppressors, and if someone wants to defend the rights of the oppressed for the sake of living morally, then the costs of moral living rise so high that one cannot simply say that you gained respect in return. Especially since in the new, modern world, two phenomena have emerged that have greatly increased the costs of moral living, namely: 1- The emergence of totalitarian governments that seize control over all aspects of citizens' lives, such as the governments of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, and so on. If you have the slightest ambition to be moral, you must contend with these governments, where there is the danger of losing your life, and one's freedom and security are jeopardized. 2- Capitalism: The phenomenon of capitalism imposes a strange kind of ruthlessness upon human beings on the part of capitalists. There is no doubt that capitalism has benefits, but it inflicts harms and damages on humanity—we are not currently talking about capitalism, which is no joke at all, and the capitalist thinks only of his capital and his possessions, to increase his capital and acquire more capital, and the larger these become, the greater their ruthlessness. Now, if I want to stand against capitalism and defend the rights of the oppressed, again costs arise similar to the costs of wanting to stand against totalitarian governments. These two phenomena subject those who wish to be committed to morality to horrific costs. You have surely seen many books, reports, articles, and so on, regarding the costs that morally-oriented people have endured, such as what you have seen in the Soviet Union and America. Yes, if a very peaceful life prevailed, then one could say that moral living does not impose particular costs. In my view, this approach is not defensible. Yes, if someone wants to have a half-hearted moral life and remain only at an ordinary level, which has low moral costs, it cannot be forbidden for them, but in moral living in the true sense, it is not acceptable. In other matters, one can be a half-hearted follower—for example, in law or in customs and traditions, one can be a half-hearted follower; in aesthetics, one can be a half-hearted follower of aesthetics—but in moral living in the true sense of the word, one cannot, because the more the pain and suffering of human beings increases, the higher the sense of responsibility rises.

This first path has a second version, which was put forward by Bertrand Russell, the famous philosopher of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who articulated it as follows:

He said that living morally, from another perspective, has individual social benefits. He gave an example: Suppose I have a horse in the stable and my neighbor also has a horse. I am a person who wants to violate morality, and therefore I steal my neighbor's horse and become the owner of two horses. There is no doubt that I have benefited from this immorality because I now own two horses, but I, who violate morality, should not only see as far as the tip of my nose; I must also see further ahead. In that case, I will conclude that if everyone were to steal their neighbor's horse—meaning I steal my neighbor's horse, and he steals another neighbor's horse, and that one steals his neighbor's horse—then ultimately, in the end, all the horses will end up in whose stable? Answer: In the stable of the one who is the most powerful of all. Well, this is the result of theft becoming common: the most ruthless and forceful person will come to own all the horses. And since no equation has proven that you are the biggest bully, this means that ultimately, you will lose even the one horse you had—that is, in the final situation. So my reason dictates that I must either be content with this one horse and not steal my neighbor's horse, or if I want to steal it, I must consider that it won't be long before a bully emerges and takes possession of all the horses, including my own. So it is better to live morally and keep this one horse. Russell's presuppositions in this argument are that, firstly, if you go and steal your neighbor's horse, you have promoted the idea that anyone can steal their neighbor's horse. His second presupposition is that you can never prove that you yourself are the strongest member of society, and ultimately, you will lose this one horse as well; by living immorally, individuals lose their capital. And thirdly, immoral people are immoral because they have a short-term view; if they had a long-term view, they would see that in the long run, they themselves will be deprived of even what they currently possess.

Russell said that in all matters of society, we must promote rationality, because promoting rationality causes people to become far-sighted, and through this, moral living is promoted. In Russell's view, living morally is ultimately to our benefit. (Rationality means living morally with regard to far-sightedness.) I might gain a benefit through lying over the course of a day, two days, a week, a month, but ultimately it brings me no benefit. All people can be deceived in the short term, but not in the long term, and a lie, in the long term, begins to cause harm.

Critique: This version is also not defensible. What if I violate morality, and do so in secret? In such a way that it never becomes apparent; in that case, I lose nothing until the very end. You all imagined that eventually, one day, others would notice and learn from me and, for example, start stealing horses, but what if the matter is as I described? In Victor Hugo's novel, Toilers of the Sea, you see that there are individuals who live immorally until the end of their lives, yet no one notices, and the facade of their life is completely moral.

Another critique: If I want to start living immorally, it is true that no equation has proven I will be the strongest, but on the other hand, it has also not been proven at all that I will not be the strongest. You said that I am not certain I am the strongest, but I say we are also not certain that we are not the strongest. Both probabilities are high. I might start stealing, and in the end, it might be proven that I am the most dominant horse thief.

A third critique: This long term you speak of, what duration of time do you have in mind? How long am I going to live? What are the limits of this long term you mention? Because you have not specified the limits, calculation is also lost, and it does not solve the problem.

The third version of the first approach: The first and second accounts said that if you live morally, you will attain individual social goods. But they were mistaken, and we say that by living morally, we will attain collective social goods that are realized in society and whose benefit reaches the community. These five are: order, security, welfare, justice, and freedom. If we live morally, these collective social goods are realized and everyone benefits. So we live morally in order to reach a society with those characteristics, so that all citizens benefit. If we abandon moral living, we have created an obstacle to reaching such a society, and everyone loses.

Critique: If I, as an individual, want to live morally, society will not attain those goods; rather, it is when the overwhelming majority act morally that such a society is realized—otherwise, one flower does not make a spring. This view you have stated is accepted, but only on the condition that all members of society, or at least the majority, live morally. But what guarantee is there that if I live morally, the majority will also live morally? If I live morally and others do not go along, I have suffered a great loss. Moreover, as history attests, there has never been a society—as far as history and anthropological studies have shown—where all or the majority have been morally oriented. You must state conditions that make clear both the necessary condition for my benefit and the sufficient condition.

Some have come and tried to repair this third version, saying that to the extent that human individuals live morally, they also promote the thirst for moral living in others. This group says we advance morality through moral examples. In other words, moral living is contagious, and therefore, if you live morally, it is not only you who lives morally; rather, to the extent that you have influence in society, you raise and promote moral conduct to that same degree.

It seems to me that the principle of this statement—that moral living is contagious—is correct (note that what is meant here is acting morally, not preaching to others. Like that Christian theologian who said we have misunderstood Jesus’s words and therefore we preach, but Jesus said, be the sermon. Be a model yourselves, and through action, become a model, that is, an embodied counsel and advice). However, it does not refute the original argument, because while it is true that moral living is contagious, its contagiousness is not to the extent that it brings society to justice, freedom, welfare, security, and order.

The fourth version: The first and second accounts said that moral living brings us to individual social goods, and the third account said it brings us to collective social goods. This version says that moral living brings us to individual goods (psychological goods). Those goods are: psychological balance, psychological harmony, peace, happiness, and reconciliation with oneself. Of course, there is no agreement at all on the number of these goods, but there is consensus on these five. This version says that those who abandon moral conduct are deprived of these five goods. If you notice, the previous goods we wanted, we ultimately wanted them in order to attain these very goods. For example, I want to have millions of dollars in my bank account because that amount of wealth gives me psychological peace and happiness, and so on. Well, all the previous goods we wanted, we wanted them all for the sake of these goods.

Critique: The point that these are the most important benefits humans derive is beyond doubt, but does living morally really provide them? Here I must introduce a discussion under the heading of first-order satisfaction and second-order satisfaction. Suppose you are a thoroughly moral person and you hear that somewhere there has been an earthquake, or a flood, or famine and calamity has struck, and children, women, and men are being massacred. On the other hand, suppose another person who is not at all committed to morality hears the same things. Which of the two sleeps more comfortably at night? It seems the person who is not committed to morality sleeps more comfortably. The more moral a person is, the more they suffer, because living morally means having the concern to reduce the pain and suffering of others. So it seems that living morally destroys my peace of mind, and for that reason I cannot sleep, whereas if that immoral person also had anxiety, they too would not sleep. Someone who does not live morally carries only their own burden, and at most the burden of those they love very much, like a spouse, children, and a few friends. The moral person carries the burden of all human beings. It seems that the moral person is deprived of desirable things, but a discussion arises that changes the scene. Let me give an example: Suppose you are a father or mother, and your child is severely ill and suffering immense pain. You can do two things: either stay awake all night by your child's bedside, or go to sleep and wake up in the morning. If you stay awake all night, you will be tired in the morning and feel discomfort throughout your body. Someone might say to you, go to sleep, why torture yourself? This child is in pain and going through an illness; why do you afflict yourself? Your answer could be that I have two options before me, each with its own benefits and, of course, costs:

If I sit by my child's bedside, the cost is this very fatigue and pain, but the benefit is that my conscience is more at ease.

If I go and sleep through the night, I will have none of this suffering, but my conscience will be troubled. I have chosen the former so that my conscience may be at ease, and I want my inner self to have peace, and for this reason I have accepted its cost. I saw its benefit as greater than its cost, and I chose it.

This means that a person, under normal circumstances, does not consent to bodily pain, but when their child falls ill, and in this state they consent to bodily pain and suffering and endure sleeplessness, this consent is called second-order satisfaction. Let me put it more simply: No human being, under normal circumstances, likes bodily pain and suffering, anxiety, sleeplessness, sorrow, and the like, and has no first-order satisfaction with any of these. But sometimes something more important emerges in life, and that very thing to which we did not give first-order satisfaction, for the sake of attaining something higher and more sublime, we have consented and do consent to it; this we call second-order satisfaction. No father or mother, under normal circumstances, consents to sleeplessness and the resulting fatigue, but when their child falls ill, they consent to it.

On this basis, if in certain things you forgo other things (that is, you do not like those things but you submit to them), you have no first-order satisfaction with them. I do not like being humiliated, insulted, ridiculed, and so on, and I am not at all satisfied to witness or be subjected to them (that is, I have no first-order satisfaction with these). But sometimes something arises in my life for the sake of preserving which I become willing to be mocked, to hear insults, and to be subjected to contempt (second-order satisfaction).

If there are things from which I normally derive pleasure, we call this first-order satisfaction; and if there are things from which, under normal circumstances and in the absence of other things, I do not derive pleasure, but with the emergence of those other things I consent to them, we call this second-order satisfaction.

Now let us return to that example: as long as you are a moral person and you have heard that there has been an earthquake, a flood, and so on… you cannot sleep at night and you suffer distress on that account, while that other person who is not moral sleeps comfortably at night. And if someone were to say to you, “Be like that person,” you would reply, “I do not have first-order satisfaction with my sleeplessness, but if my sleeplessness is due to morality, I accept it”—that is, second-order satisfaction. Now I will use this discussion and return to that view which said that those who live morally attain psychological balance, tranquility, happiness, psychological harmony, and reconciliation with themselves. Those individuals do not attain these things through first-order satisfaction but through second-order satisfaction. They endure sleeplessness, but they do not wish to be hard-hearted people. If we pay attention to this distinction between first-order and second-order satisfaction, then we can say that this version is a defensible version. That is, human beings who live morally do develop anxieties and sorrows, yet at the same time they give them second-order satisfaction and take great pleasure in living morally. Moral human beings have two levels: one is the apparent and more superficial level, at which they have anxiety and are restless, but at a deeper level they are happy and at peace. They are happy because of these unhappinesses; they take pleasure in their first-level worries. So moral agents must be prepared to become happy from unhappinesses and to find peace from anxieties. If they can reach these limits, then they have indeed made the greatest gain, because we ordinary human beings, who do not observe morality, do not reach these limits.

Now a question: is the reverse of this matter not true? If we do not live morally, will we not attain these things? Will we necessarily be deprived of these five? So far we have spoken as if the only way to attain those five desirable things is to live morally, but does not living immorally not bring us to these things? If the only way to attain these five desirable things were solely moral conduct, your argument would be correct, but non-moral agents also attain these five, so it seems that being moral makes no difference compared to not being moral. Critics do not say that being moral does not bring us to these five; they have accepted that, but they say that perhaps not being moral also brings us to these five. In that case, why should we commit ourselves to morality?

I will answer this objection in the next session. In my view, this version is entirely defensible. Of course, we will also come to the second and third versions and approaches, and for now we are still on the versions of the first approach.

              Session Three

We have arrived at the fourth version of the first approach: this version says that the happiness of others is, in fact, a condition for your own happiness. You cannot be happy without the happiness of others. When you see others happy, you yourself become happy, and when you make others happy, you have essentially made yourself happy. Friends should note that social phenomena can be divided into three types. Some of them are such that they can belong to you while the rest of the people who are in relation with you are deprived of them; for example, you can have fame while none of your family members, friends, or colleagues have fame. Wealth is the same. The second type are those that you can possess only when others also possess them—that is, it is a matter of all or nothing, such as freedom and justice. In a society, it is not possible for a contagious disease to exist while you remain immune. The third type are those about which there is doubt whether they belong to the first category or the second, such as happiness. Can you be happy in a gathering where everyone is unhappy? Does happiness belong to the first category or the second?

This version is among the views that hold that one cannot have happiness unless others partake of it as well. You cannot be happy in a society afflicted by suffering, poverty, ignorance, and the like. This version says you must live morally because it is through this that you can bring about and become the cause of others' happiness. To the extent that you treat others morally, to that same extent you have turned up the flame of others' happiness a notch, and to that same extent you yourself enjoy happiness. This version has two presuppositions: a) happiness is one of those things that cannot be possessed alone, and b) if you wish, to the extent of your ability, to increase others' happiness, you must behave morally to that same extent, and it is through moral action that others' happiness increases.

Critique:

This view that your happiness depends on the happiness of others seems to depend on the individuals themselves and is not a universal rule, because there are people upon whom the unhappiness of others has no effect. Now, statistically speaking, which side has the greater population and number? It seems that the majority of human beings are unhappy at the unhappiness of others, but a minority exists who do not care in the least what state the rest are in.

Aristotle believes that all human beings have two characteristics that separate them from the ranks of animals; that is, the human being is a rational-social creature (meaning sociality is part of human nature, and because this is so, one becomes unhappy at the unhappiness of others: see the Politics and the Nicomachean Ethics). But the research of modern psychologists refutes Aristotle's statement.

Their second presupposition is that "to turn up the flame of others' happiness, we must live morally."

Is this presupposition correct or not? It seems to be correct, but as a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. That is, if I truly treat you morally, this moral treatment increases your happiness, but the happiness of your life does not depend solely on this moral treatment from me; it also depends on other factors.

What is its sufficient condition? I will discuss that in the next section.

These accounts and versions all pertained to the first solution, which was that the ordinary human being benefits from living morally. And now we arrive at the second solution and its specific versions, which have nothing to do with ordinary human beings at all. Since ancient times, philosophers, mystics, and some founders of religions have said that each human being has a real self, the "self" meaning "you as you really are." But each human being has a conception of their real self that does not correspond to that real self, which they call the ego. Here, this ego is called the "I." Sometimes we imagine a particular characteristic exists in us, whereas it is not in our real self at all, and sometimes we imagine a particular characteristic does not exist in us, whereas it is in our real self.

In other words, some have said that every human being has an objective identity, which is their self, but this same human being also has a subjective identity, which is the ego. Example: I may in reality be an arrogant person, but suppose I am a humble person; now the ego is humble, but the self is arrogant. I may imagine that I am a scholar (ego), but in reality I am not (self).

Most of us human beings live our lives with the ego. It is by means of this ego that I befriend you, break off with you, make enmity with you, and break off with you... What reason do those who have made this distinction have for their claim?

They have offered several reasons, which philosophers and mystics and others have stated, and if I were to address them, the discussion would become lengthy, so I will forgo them, but I will address one of them:

Everyone loves themselves—"self-love"—which itself causes the human being to become self-preserving (self-protection). From this self-protection, two offspring are born, which are the attraction of benefit and the repulsion of harm. If this is the case, why are we unhappy? You (meaning the human being at whatever level they may be) have, to the extent of your ability, attracted every benefit toward yourself; so why do you lack peace? Why do you become depressed? Why are you distressed? Why are you not joyful?

Let me give an example from Rumi: In the Masnavi, Rumi tells of a person who went to the marketplace and engaged in trade for 30 years, amassing a great fortune. With this fortune, he purchased a very large piece of land. Then he went and worked for another 30 years, again accumulating vast wealth, and with that vast wealth, he built a very magnificent and grand palace. When he wanted to move into that palace, the city officials told him, "Your land was further over there; you have mistaken the land and built the palace on someone else's land, while your own land has remained barren." This person had focused on a piece of land he considered his own and spent all his wealth on that land, but he had developed someone else's land. Rumi uses this story and says that you and I are just the same: we have one piece of land called the body and another piece of land called the soul. We think our body is our land, and we spend everything we have on this body. When we are about to die, we are told that our land was the other one, meaning your soul. We have cultivated the body but neglected the soul.[2] It is for this reason that he says:

Do not build a house on another's land; do your own work, not the work of a stranger.

So, a human can engage in cultivation but cultivate another's land. We, who have made efforts for the sake of self-preservation, to attract benefit and repel harm, why are we now sorrowful? Because we have attracted benefits for the ego and repelled harm from the ego, but the self has remained neglected. In many instances, a person imagines they are attending to the self, but the reality is that the ego has been attended to. If we were to film a person's life, one would say: "This individual spent their entire life thinking only of themselves," but in reality, they are not satisfied with themselves because they have mistaken themselves for something else. Every human being loves the man they believe to be their father, whether that man is their real father or not. We are constituted in such a way that we love our father, but we are not constituted in such a way that, at a very young age, we can distinguish our real father. Now, we are fortunate if the man we suppose to be our father is indeed our real father.

We said that a human being has self-love, meaning they love themselves. But in reality, do you know what we should say? We should say: "Every human being loves that which they think is their self, whether that self is their real self or not."

The second approach says: In the first approach, with all its versions, we were dealing with the ego. But we set the ego aside and say that living morally benefits the self, not the ego. You previously said, "If I live morally, my wealth will decrease, my fame will decrease, my popularity, respect, etc., will suffer." But be aware that wealth, fame, respect, reputation, popularity, and academic knowledge all belong to the ego, not the self. The ancients used to say that all these things you possess are with you only up to the edge of the grave, meaning they all pertain to the ego.

This second approach also has versions:

The first version of the second approach: Not living morally harms the self because when I want to do an immoral act—for example, if I want to commit an injustice against you, violate a right of yours, etc.—I must first generate anger, malice, and hatred towards you within myself so that they cause me to commit that injustice against you. That is, before I slap you, I must first slap myself internally. If I want to steal your property, I must first create something called greed within myself so that I can stretch out my hand to encroach upon your property. If I want to sabotage your work and get you fired from the office, I must first generate envy within myself, and then, as a result of that envy, carry out the sabotage and get you dismissed from the office. The meaning of all this is that every time I want to live immorally, I must first strike one or several blows against myself. Not living morally means striking successive internal blows against oneself. It is certain that I am striking blows against myself. Let me tell a story:

A man harbored intense hatred for his neighbor. He said to his slave, “Cut off my head on my neighbor’s rooftop and throw it into my neighbor’s yard, so that the police will come and execute my neighbor.” It is certain that in this scenario you will be killed, but it is not certain that your neighbor will also be killed. Perhaps the evidence will not convince the judge; perhaps your neighbor will bribe someone and go free; and there are other possibilities.

When we do not live morally, we first inflict several moral blows upon ourselves in the hope that we might inflict a few blows upon another. When we commit an injustice against an individual, our ego is gratified, but our self is made unhappy.

This version seems entirely defensible, because when I act immorally, I have certainly destroyed myself beforehand, and for that reason I proceed to commit the immoral act. This account is attributed to the Buddha.

The second version of the second solution states that the difference between the ego and the self is that the ego is constructed in such a way that it only narrates its own interests, whereas the self is constructed in such a way that it considers both its own interests and the interests of others. Human beings are made in such a way that sometimes they derive no benefit at all from a particular act. For example, you are passing by somewhere and you see a sparrow freezing. You pick it up, take it home, care for it, and after a few days it recovers, and then you release it. What benefit do you gain, and what benefit did you gain?

William James had a dispute with one of the philosophers of his time, who argued that it is impossible for a human being to do anything unless they derive some benefit, whether directly or indirectly. James said: We human beings are made in such a way that we become happy both when joy comes to ourselves and when joy comes to another, alien creature. If, on a snowy day when a meter of snow has settled on the ground, you see an old man or an old woman who cannot cross the street and you go and help them cross, you have gained no benefit there, but you have experienced pleasure. Now, if one of your friends or acquaintances had seen you while you were helping, you would not experience the same degree of pleasure you felt before.

That philosopher said: That is not the case at all; whether directly or indirectly, some benefit has accrued to that individual. One day, William James was traveling by carriage, and it was raining heavily. When he reached a bridge, beside a stream that had flooded due to the heavy rain, he saw a piglet trapped in the mud by the riverbank, in a very bad state. James went and helped the piglet and returned. He thought to himself that this was a perfect example, and he recounted the story to that philosopher, saying, “I gained no benefit whatsoever from that incident, yet I helped. What profit did I gain?”

That philosopher said: “If you had abandoned it and gone on your way, for as long as your memory served you, a guilty conscience would have come to haunt you, and to free yourself from the bitterness of your soul, you went and helped.”

It seems that the philosopher won the argument, but James would ask: Why did I feel a guilty conscience when I was passing by? Because I am made in such a way that the suffering of others causes me suffering. Human beings are made in such a way that not only does their own suffering cause them pain, but the suffering of others also causes them pain. In addition to being self-regarding, human beings are also other-regarding; they are happy both at their own joy and at the joy of others. The self, in addition to self-love, also includes other-love.

This account is entirely defensible, but there is one thing: a human being can live in such a way that this sense of other-love diminishes within them.

Plato asked us to take a piece of paper and quickly write down, without thinking, everything that is desirable in our lives. “Desirable” means something that has two characteristics: first, things we would like to have; second, things we do not have.

Suppose a list of 500 items is drawn up. Plato would say, now think about them and reconsider these 500—that is, reflect and pause, and see which of these you want for their own sake and which you want because they lead you to something else. For example, we want money so that it leads us to buying a house, a car, excellent living appliances, and also so that if we fall ill, we can go to a hospital with excellent doctors, or pursue physical beauty, or buy cosmetics, and so on. We want money in order to attain those things. That is, a group of items become steps to take you to something else.

With this exercise, that list is reduced to, say, 100 items. For instance, money helps us attain popularity through reaching those things. Plato says here, eliminate the previous ones and keep doing this continuously. In this way, the number of items becomes fewer and fewer.

Plato said that whoever does this sincerely will ultimately arrive at three things:

a) Truth: Human beings hate being deceived. They dislike falling prey to illusions and falsehoods. (The world of contemplation)

b) Beauty: Human beings take pleasure in beauty, and from this pleasure, they do not seek to arrive anywhere else. (The world of sensations, emotions, and feelings)

c) The Good (The world of action)

The human soul loves these three.

Question: Are we really like this? That is, do we love living morally for its own sake? Consider two ways of life: in the first, you can violate all moral rules and turn your back on the good, and in the second, you observe all moral rules and are oriented toward the good.

If you were told that if you choose the first, you will attain certain things and excellent benefits, and if you live according to the second way of life, you will attain exactly the same goods. Which would you choose? In response, you say, if I am to arrive at exactly the same thing, then it is better to observe moral rules. Plato says that human beings like moral living itself, but why do they sometimes violate it? Because if I tell the truth, it harms my fame, popularity, reputation, and so on. I love being moral, but I also love these things, and I even prefer them. If I see that these two ways of life lead to exactly the same result, I will, without any doubt or hesitation, choose moral living. We are created in such a way that we are lovers of the good. For the ego, these things are important—namely, fame, power, popularity, reputation, academic knowledge, respect. It is for the sake of these that we violate morality. If we attach importance to the self, we will attach importance only to those three: Truth (mathematics, logic, philosophy, empirical sciences, history, mysticism, and some also say religious sciences), Beauty (communion with nature and entering the world of art), and the Good.

If we turn to the self, we will see that we have greater peace, less stress and depression, and our happiness is greater. So, I live morally because of paying attention to the self, and the self benefits from moral living, but the ego does not benefit.

In the next session, I will address the third and fourth answers and approaches, which say, respectively, that human beings "share a common fate" and that human beings "share a common nature."

Session Four

We arrived at the third answer and approach:

The first merit of this answer is that it says, I have nothing to do with the ego and the self; whether you are a person of the ego or a person of the self, you benefit from moral living, and I do not distinguish between these two. This approach says that we human beings, in any case, "share a common fate," and moral living makes life better for all of us.

Suppose all of us are the passengers of a single ship, and there is no other ship at all. Well, if it sinks, we all perish, and if this ship encounters a problem, all human beings must strive to fix the fault, because that is how the matter stands. We all strive wholeheartedly and unanimously to resolve the problem, since our fate is shared; for this reason, everyone works to fix the problem, and each person knows that fixing the problem is to their own benefit, and at the same time their own benefit is intertwined with the benefit of all. Do you know who does not show empathy? Someone who has a separate boat for themselves, and this person may not show empathy, but the rest share the same fate—in both profit and loss. In reality, all human beings are inside one ship, and there is no spare boat. This theory is a sociological theory, whereas the previous ones were all psychological.

This theory asks: if we want society to be desirable in every respect, what should we do? In response, this view says there is no need to go into details, such as legal and economic institutions, etc. This view says a healthy society has four characteristics, and your rational intuition also accepts these four:

First characteristic: Society gives every individual whatever they "need." Note that I say need, not want.

Second characteristic: The citizen places whatever they can at the disposal of society. They should not withhold from society whatever they are capable of. This characteristic itself has two subcategories:

2-1: Firstly, they should undertake a task whose performance they are capable of, meaning they have the knowledge and ability for that task.

2-2: After undertaking a task that I can perform well, I should carry out that task as it ought to be done, not for my individual interests or the interests of my group and my party. That is, I must do that task properly and according to the principles of that task itself, and I must not do it in a way that aligns with my individual interests and deviates from its own principles.

Third characteristic: If an individual has entitlements beyond their needs, society must also grant these entitlements to the individual. That is, that individual has received the needs they had, and society has provided them, but this individual also has other entitlements that society must grant them. Because a good society is one that provides the ground for the individual's growth and flourishing. If you are only given your needs, there is no opportunity left for flourishing. Now, if this same society gives each individual their needs, but this individual also performs good and virtuous deeds that make them deserving of more things, a good society also pays them this right that is additional to and beyond their need.

Fourth characteristic: Everyone in this society should be able to possess whatever they have obtained through the first and third characteristics until the end, and no one should be able to usurp or confiscate it from them.

This solution says that all the things you say must be done in various institutions are just these four. A completely ideal society is one that has these four characteristics. If you consult your intuition, you will see that it confirms them. These four are what make human beings share a common fate.

Critique: This theory is beneficial only when, if I act morally, you also behave morally... everyone observes morality. This society does not come into being through the moral behavior of just one person; it does not come into being through the moral living of 2, 3, 4 people... rather, everyone must live morally.

In my opinion, this view is theoretically very profound, but the realization of such a society depends on the moral living of all individuals in society. Two things must be appended to this view to resolve its problems. First, this theory must realize that the most important institution that must change in society is the cultural institution. The moral culture of everyone must change. Therefore, this theory must devote all its efforts to cultivating culture in individuals from early childhood.

Second, one must not oppose the efforts of other individuals to reform society and must try to show that every effort you see is reducible to our fourfold efforts. For example, someone who works in the field of economics is ultimately a subset of these same four, meaning socio-cultural work.

My personal opinion is that humanity will gradually move toward this theory. This theory does not have strength and power at the present time, but it will gain power in the future. In my view, it is obligatory for every individual to only take on the work they can do, and it is obligatory for society to place a specialist in their specialized work. The very duty of managers is that when they see an individual is a specialist in a particular profession, they should employ them. On the other hand, every individual, if they see they are not suited for a particular job, should step aside themselves. For example, an individual with a PhD or post-doctorate in a specific field who is incapable of teaching should step aside themselves, and if someone truly has the ability to teach, they should teach as they ought to teach, not in a way that their personal interest is taken into account. It is the same in every case: worker, farmer, services, industry, trade, and politics...

Consider the very corruption of political regimes; for instance, suppose I am a critic of a regime. Do you know what my greatest criticism could be? That in this society and country, work has been undertaken by those who are incapable, or they have undertaken work they can do, but they do that work in such a way that the interests of themselves, their group, and their party are secured. Is political corruption anything other than this?

Let me make one point: In a healthy society, two other factors must also exist that are not within human control, which are: first, wealth and natural resources such as oil, silver, gold, mountains, forests, rivers, lakes, etc. This theory does not address these matters. Second, events that occur, such as earthquakes, floods, etc. These can be managed through specific actions to reduce their casualties, but their occurrence is not within their control.

The Fourth Theory: This theory goes beyond shared destiny and says that human beings are of one nature. When it is said they share a destiny, the implication is that you are you, and I am me, meaning there is separation and distinction. This fourth theory says we are all a single entity, and here we have nothing to do with the ego and the self. Consider a heap of wheat, in which there are, say, a billion grains of wheat, all of which have the same structure and function. This heap as a whole has a single function; for example, it has the property of satiety. Any property that exists in the heap also exists in each grain of wheat, meaning the first grain + the second grain + the third grain, and so on. The type of function of the parts is the same type of function as the whole, meaning the whole equals the parts.

Consider a radio, which has various components. In the previous example, the structure and function of the parts were identical, and the parts were identical to the whole. Here, each part differs from the other, both in terms of structure and function. One is made of glass, another of plastic, copper, aluminum, etc. One is a cube, another a cylinder, and so on. When these parts are scattered on a table and separated from each other, they have a separate structure and a specific function of their own, but can you listen to the radio? No. These parts must be assembled in a specific way, and as a result, the radio acquires a different function, meaning the function of the radio is something else, and it can do something that the various parts cannot do when they are separate. If one part loses its function, the structure and function of the other parts remain intact and healthy, but since we could listen to the news through the whole, we can no longer listen. Here, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, but this whole, in order to perform its work, needs all the parts. Such wholes are called mechanistic.

Consider a third case: compare the human body to a radio. It seems the human body as a whole performs a function higher than its parts. The function of the body is not the function of any of its organs alone. The function of all the parts together as a whole is also not the function of the body. In this respect, the body and the radio are alike. The whole possesses something additional over the parts. However, if one component in a radio breaks, it no longer produces sound, but the rest of the components have not lost their structure and function and remain intact. But in the body, if, for example, your tooth aches, all the organs of your body are affected. If one organ develops a defect, the entire body changes.

Here we have a whole that, besides having an art superior to its parts and besides needing all its parts for its healthy functioning, if one organ develops a defect, the other organs do not remain unaware of it and are affected, and they too become unwell. These wholes are called organic.

Now the question is whether the whole universe is like the first or the second? This view says the entire universe is a single organism. This theory was proposed by mystics from ancient times, but they could not prove it in academic disciplines. It was discussed among mystics and remained as such, but from the early 20th century onwards, serious tendencies towards this approach emerged, and they said the world is an organism; if we have effects on the world, the whole world is affected, and if this point is true, it means that each of us is a cell of this body. These entities have two characteristics: first, the transformation of any part undoubtedly causes the transformation of other parts. Second: if a part wants its condition to improve, the whole must improve its condition. The whole cannot independently remain healthy while its parts are unhealthy. The improvement and deterioration of the parts are related to the whole, and vice versa. This theory says that since this is the case, if this entity, that is, the world, is in a good state, then our state is also good, and if it is bad, we are all bad.

This view says that living morally makes our state good and also makes the state of this whole good. If the state of the whole is good, the state of the parts (that is, us) is good, and vice versa. This theory has prominent proponents such as Giordano Bruno, who was burned for this view, Schopenhauer, Josiah Royce (the famous American philosopher of the late 19th century), Erwin Schrödinger (the famous 20th-century physicist), Fred Hoyle (the top-tier scientist in physics, biology, and biophysics), Freeman Dyson, Alan Watts, and others.

Critique: In my opinion, this theory is not defensible for two reasons:

I still have not understood how a human being can go to the rooftop of existence and look down from above and say a whole exists. They speak as if they have gone to the rooftop of existence and are looking down from there. Theories that speak of the whole universe, from where can they arrive at these statements? A human must have encompassment over something to speak about it. How can we, who are living in the early 21st century, speak about the entire history of humanity? Suppose a caravan is passing by, and a person goes and stands on a mountain peak and looks at this caravan. This person can speak about the whole caravan, meaning this person's perspective can make statements about the whole caravan, and those are general statements, though they cannot make detailed statements. This person can say the caravan has turned three bends, the dust at the front of the caravan is more than at the end, and so on... But a person who is inside the caravan cannot see such a scene and make such statements. This view is a kind of over-ambition.

Mystics say the limited human mind is incapable of perception, but we have reached these through mystical experiences. But we ordinary humans who do not have mystical experiences cannot attain this knowledge.

We ordinary humans state a matter either through sensory perception, or through introspection, or through memory, or through intuition, that is, rational insights, or through the testimony of others, or through reasoning, and reasoning is of three types: deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and inference to the best explanation. These are our sources of knowledge, and with these six sources of knowledge, how can one attain knowledge of the whole universe and speak of it?

Let us suppose the entire universe is organic, and we are its cells. And let us suppose that if the state of this whole is good, the state of each of us will also be good, in which case, by living morally, we try to make the state of the whole good. On what grounds do you claim that the goodness of this whole's state depends on living morally?

What reason do you have that the state of the whole universe becomes good only when we live morally? If you confine your claim to the human world, we accept your point, but when you speak about the entirety of existence, your argument does not seem reasoned or justified.

.

---

.

[1] . Published on Mostafa Malekian's Telegram channel at (https://t.me/mostafamalekian)

[2] . This discussion reminds the writer of these words of Mostafa Malekian's lecture on Ethical Materialism.

.

---

.

Audio of the First Session of the Lecture Series