Laws and enforcement exist in every culture. However, such culturally relative artifacts are not what holds societies together. Without the inner sense of right and wrong (ethics) and the personal suffering people experience from not obeying it, all would be lost. If everyone thought might makes right and the trick in life was getting away with whatever we could, a brutal pandemonium would reign. The British philosopher, Clifford, concluded: "What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves."1
 
We normally look to books, institutions, prominent luminaries, and tradition for moral rules. But when the huff and puff is sifted away, all such rules turn out to be the creations of humans. The natural question should then be: Who are other people to tell us what to do? There is no law written across the sky demanding that some people be rule makers and everyone else rule followers. Yes, rules laid down in society in order to maintain order are necessary. But those rules may or may not be ethical.
 
Let's not get the reality of ethics confused with failed attempts at it. For example, when religions ruled the world, right and wrong were clearly defined. Was that ethics? Not really. It was just a system of rules imposed by people who figured they had a hot line to God. Through history, hundreds of thousands of religious leaders have dialed the same number but have all gotten a different message.
 
All the contradictory views about right and wrong do not prove that there are no ethical absolutes any more than getting lost in the middle of a city proves the destination desired is not there. Nor do the ghastly things done by arbiters of morality void ethics—like burning people at the stake for heresy, removing tongues for blasphemy, and disemboweling inquisitive seekers who gaze into the sky and speculate about planetary movements.
 
Clerics pronounced the Earth to be flat, motionless, and destined for an apocalyptic end. They have attributed disease to devils, and taught that boring holes in the skull to let evil spirits out was the cure for mental illness. The failures of people and institutions that have traveled the deeply worn path of conviction and piety establish only that people are fallible.
 
Science makes errors too, but we don't discard it. We continue to explore nature to find its laws and get nearer to its absolutes. People changing their minds, as well as ignorance, are to be expected in the march toward scientific—and ethical—truth.
 
Even animals display forms of ethic. Bands of carnivores don't normally eat their young or turn on one another when they get hungry. They could, they are free to do so, but they don't. Pets and farm animals also don't normally harm one another or turn on their caretakers. They are not taught such rules and they do not reason on what to do; it is innate. Ethics (dos and don'ts) in one form or another evidently extends throughout nature.
 
Although history may suggest that there are no carte blanche ethical absolutes that can be applied to all people regardless of circumstances, that conclusion does not preclude that there may be ethical absolutes for us individually given the particular circumstances of our situation. Just because we are confused and do not see at a particular moment a clear course of action, does not mean we are justified in any choice. Moral uncertainty is simply a holding pattern waiting for more data.
 
I would like to propose that, in spite of all the failed attempts at ethics, there must be such a thing as ethical absolutes. I say that because we are a part of the universe, and absolutes are what our universe is made of. We can end a dispute about the length of a fish by measuring it. There are tried and tested mathematics, and laws of chemistry and physics upon which everyone agrees. The rules governing inertia, magnetism, gravity, chemical interactions, and geometry have universal consensus. There are no Jewish or Muslim laws of algebra or gravity.
 
Banks in all 192 countries exchange currencies and agree on the numbers. If there is a dispute, there is a rational mathematical basis for coming to agreement. Similar agreement occurs in the sciences of engineering, automobile manufacturing, and computer electronics. People everywhere exchange parts, technology, and know-how. Scientific laws we discover are always testable and repeatable. That's why we can build dams that hold and motors that run, again and again with certainty. On the other hand, people bitterly disagree on what is ethically right or wrong and are willing to kill one another over beliefs for which there is no evidence whatsoever, other than, "somebody told me."
 
If we dig deep enough in the treasure chest from which we find true scientific laws, why would we not also find sure and true laws governing human behavior? I am not talking here of a law like stopping at a red light, but a law of process within each of us that lays out right and wrong choices based upon the circumstances. There is no reason to believe that a universe that reveals predictable law in every place we can check, has a void that permits arbitrariness and excuses any sort of activity just because we have free will. Arbitrariness, uncertainty, and dispute in science are only signals that we have not yet uncovered the real fundamental truth. That should drive further investigation. It is not justification for people to believe whatever they like. We press onward because we intuitively know, and experience has taught us, that there is truth to be found.
 
Ethical truth should be every bit as real and inescapable as rules governing the beating of a heart, the program in a computer, and the orbit of the moon. The rules science discovers are used to build bridges, put men on the moon, and do brain surgery. To the degree we discover and obey such laws, technological advance can occur and bring us the wondrous benefits of the modern world. Why can't we use the same process of discovery to bring us closer to the even more wondrous benefits of a world in which everyone is in tune with ethical law?
 
One way to know if you happen upon a law is to violate it and see if there are consequences. If there is ethical truth, it must exact penalty for disobedience just as there are consequences for not operating or maintaining the lawnmower properly. Although it is typical for us to think that the world 'out there' is different from our will, and that we can set our own rules, such is not the case. Law, whether ethical or physical, must extend to all activity, from the chemistry of liver metabolism and the forces in our ball and socket hip joints, to our decisions about how to behave at work today. This is not to suggest that ethical law would negate free will. We can decide to ignore the law of truth and jump off a cliff; we can decide to ignore the law of truth and rob a bank, then get shot trying to escape or suffer the pangs of guilt for life.

⌕ Click to enlarge

​What about the argument by materialists that ethics is mere artifice, an invention of the material human brain and its invented culture? They say that ethics is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. By this reasoning there is no right ethical choice just like there is no right painting, color, or sound. But things only seem subjective because we try to apply blanket laws to situational matters. There is a right painting, color, and sound for a particular situation. A fire engine red car is the correct car for a particular person, given the premise that preference can take precedence. Similarly there is always a right ethical choice given a particular situation, and assuming our starting premise that long term human welfare must always take precedence.
 
Belief in an anything-goes relativism is also self-contradictory. A belief in relativism is a belief. A belief is a sure thing, it is not relative. Saying that one believes in relativism is as self-contradictory as believing that one can prove there is no such thing as proof.
 
Moreover, for the materialist, the argument of arbitrariness fails because a mind that is solely brain matter would be governed by fixed physical laws: If the mind is mere chemistry, it should behave like every other test tube and create predictable results. But it doesn't.
 
If the brain is matter, but does not behave in predictable ways like all other matter, what is going on? The answer lies in the underlying nature of physical reality itself. Evidence from quantum physics shows that matter (including brains) is not really substance all the way down. Neither are the laws that govern matter made of matter. The laws of motion, for example, cannot be put in a box, weighed, or viewed under a microscope. Atoms—with their textbook billiard ball electrons and nuclei—are not fundamental material units. They are infinitely reducible
 
to pieces so small they cease to be pieces and resemble something nonmaterial—like a thought. Thought cannot be reduced to matter or its laws, but matter and its laws can be reduced to thought. Thus the thoughts that create ethics are not confined to the sort of precision of mathematics, but that does not mean they are not subject to law.
 
Understandably these are difficult concepts. I will explore them with more detail and proofs in Solving The Big Questions. But for now, understand that just because something like ethics cannot be put on a scale and weighed is no reason to dispute its reality. If matter and the laws governing it are actually non-material and yet we can come to agreement on truths about the physical world, then there is no reason why the non-material sphere of ethics cannot be reduced to certainty as well.
 
The parallel between scientific and ethical truth is also manifest by results. Think of Truth (big T) as the all-embracing underpinnings of reality, not in the way opinionated people toss truth (small t) around unattached to any evidence other than their desires, faith, and beliefs. Mere claims about truth get us nowhere because that which is asserted with no supporting evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence. Big T Truth, on the other hand, applies to every spin of an electron, every apple that falls from a branch, and to every thought, word, and deed. Physical truth and ethical truth aren't two different things. There is just one Truth with different manifestations. If we ignore any aspect of Truth, consequences are sure. Don't duck under a low hanging limb, get a knock on the noggin; don't duck under a wrong ethical choice, get a knock as well.
 
If we apply bad science that does not reflect underlying physical truths—we scientifically lie—disharmony and discord result. Engines quit, floors collapse, bridges buckle, and planes will fall out of the sky. Why? Because what is mechanically incorrect—inconsistent with scientific truth—doesn't work. If we apply improper math to our budget, too much month remains after the money runs out. Don't keep gas in the car and end up stranded along the road. We have to get things right. No fudging, no sloppiness, no arbitrariness. Nothing that is wrong, no matter how small, ends up being right or okay.
 
Whenever ethics is violated, there is also a penalty, in some form or another, at one time or another. The penalty may range from a death sentence, to just the private pangs of guilt. The danger with ethics violations is that consequences are usually delayed, but gratification can be immediate. For the ethical cheater, this creates a trap because the bog entered just gets swampier the further in one goes. Delayed consequences do not deny the existence of ethics any more than a car that is running perfectly fine with dirty oil proves that what the owner's manual says about oil changes can be ignored.
 
Cheating at ethics is like cheating at science. As discussed in earlier chapters, eating the wrong foods may make our taste buds do somersaults, but the long term degenerative disease consequences from violating physical, environmental, and genetic laws will eventually come. Drugs can create euphoria, not changing the filter in the furnace saves money, and sitting on a couch and not exercising is easiest. Pleasure for the moment, without consideration of the scientific laws being broken, does not mean disaster will not come later nor does it deny the existence of the laws. Similarly, when we deny ethics, and the SOLVER principles that should be employed to properly exercise ethics, we may not experience any immediate harm. That does not mean a price will not be exacted later.
 
Now then, it is one thing to argue that there must be fundamental ethical standards, it is quite another to lay out what specifically is right or wrong. Although we would like a precise formula laid out for us, like dos and don'ts for children, such is not possible. That's because trenchant divisions between right and wrong, honest and dishonest, proper and improper, leave little room for the unforeseen. Fixed rules cannot always be made to conform to the complex dynamics, and infinite possibilities and circumstances of life.
 
For example, is it wrong to lie if the Gestapo knocks on the door and asks if the innocent person hiding in your back closet is there? Is it wrong for a bus driver with a full load of children to veer from hitting a semi if it means running over a child playing on the shoulder of the road? Is torture wrong if it means getting the location of a bomb that could kill a thousand people? Is killing in a war to stop a brutal dictator from torturing and murdering citizens justified? Is lying about being disloyal to a friend or loved one okay if you know the person might commit suicide if they found out? Is it okay to steal if it is the only way to keep your family alive?
 
But such quandaries and the fact that the right course of action cannot always be laid out like the assembly instructions for a piece of furniture we purchase in a box, still do not make ethics arbitrary. In this regard, ethical law is not unlike scientific law. The laws of hydrology may demand that water run downhill. But there are circumstances that seem to deny those laws, such as when momentum and pressure force water uphill. Hydrology and gravity are not denied when a city's eight story high water tower fills, an artesian well flows out of the ground, or water in a siphon hose flows uphill. One just has to take into account all the surrounding factors that interplay before drawing conclusions. Similarly, ethical laws are never really denied. One just has to understand all the variables that influence a given situation before drawing conclusions.
 
In order to reason toward truth on any matter we must begin with reasonable premises. Scientists must begin with the assumption that they can believe what they see and that logic can be trusted. Only when these assumptions were given priority over religious proclamations and ethereal philosophy did science advance. Likewise, if we are to attach reason to ethics, it must begin somewhere other than from mere proclamations. Beginning nowhere reasonable gets us to no reasonable place. Only by anchoring ethics to the reasonable premise that healthy human life over the long term should be given priority can we gain any bearings. This is the premise that has been used throughout this book and permits us to achieve the potential of thinking. Otherwise we are mired in opinionated froth, exactly the thing the world seems to insist upon.
 
If we again look to the real world model that science explores, we can see what means should be used to reveal ethical truth. Scientists use intuition, reason, and experience. On the road to discovery, they may begin by intuiting that a certain mathematical formula will work, or that two chemical compounds may interact in a certain way. Then they reason on their idea to see if it accords with other evidence they know. Finally, they perform experiments and observe the results (gain experience) to see if they are right.
 
Intuition, reason, and experience also tell us what is ethically right and wrong. Take rights of property for example. People everywhere intuit rights of property. If I am eating an apple, you don't get to jerk it out of my hand and finish it off. Such does not need to be learned from a book or outside authority any more than we need a book or teacher to understand 2+2=4, or that a ball will roll downhill, not uphill. We can then reason that without rights of property society would disassemble into battles over apples. We also evaluate ethics in terms of our experience (previous experiments) in which apples were unfairly taken from us or we took them from others. So how we arrive at ethical truth is just like how we arrive at scientific truth.
 
Consider how the consequences of violated ethics can disrupt the world. The home is like a microcosm of society. If a child is honest and does not steal there is homeostasis and peace in the home and the world is at rest. On the other hand, if he breaks ethical law and steals from dad's wallet left out on the dresser, the home would be disturbed with mom and dad now having to ferret out the thief. Immorality in a home is like having a worm in an apple. If the child admits to the crime, there is a chance for return to near normalcy. But things will never be quite the same. The parents' trust, which depends upon confidence in truth, is now off center. By lying, the problem is further compounded and discord in the home will continue to fester like an open wound. A violation of ethics may enter like a pinprick only to spread like a weedy vine.
 
If riveters cheat on a bridge and skip some holes, one day the bridge may collapse. Workers who get lazy or sloppy on an assembly line turn out products that anger customers and could end the business upon which their wages depend. CEOs who violate good accounting practices and fiduciary responsibility to stockholders, in pursuit of a selfish lavish lifestyle, can end up behind bars nursing guilt. Politicians who lie and demagogue only ruin the very country from which they derive their power. Social decline, economic instability, war, deaths, torture, and starvation all usually start with unethical actions. It is estimated that every day about 75,000 people die of starvation. Yet at the same time there is enough food in the world to feed everyone. This atrocity occurs because people along the line of supply and demand believe that ethics can be ignored.
 
There is often even a confluence between consequences from disobeying scientific laws and disobeying ethics. That's because there is only one bank of truth, and ethical and scientific truth come from the same vault. For example, the bridge riveters not only cheated by not doing what they had agreed to, but cheated as well on the physical laws that needed to be obeyed for the bridge to stand. The bridge falling is the physical consequence; the lives lost and the jailing of the riveters is the ethical one.
 
Truth is ubiquitous and must be obeyed for consequences to be avoided. Perhaps that's why the same basic rights and wrongs eventually emerge from every society. Truth ultimately rises to the top ethically, just as it does mathematically and scientifically. There is no latitude for cheating it. If physical or ethical laws are broken, no matter how small the infraction or how cleverly concealed, there will eventually be negative repercussions. From the perspective of ethics, all violations are as wrong as stealing from the poor box. Right and wrong are forever.
 
Think about ethics when politicians say what they know full well to be untrue. It applies when children do not fess up to the truth because they do not want to disappoint or because they fear penalty. It is there when salespeople try to scam, or when companies create false and misleading advertising just to turn dollars. Ethics even applies to inactivity, for it is the law at work that causes the unsettling guilt when reflecting on the day and realizing that we could have done something more or better.
 
Setting aside reason, ethics also reaches deep within to the essence of our character. Life turns out not to just be about the choices we make and the consequences that result, but rather whether we make decisions on the wrong grounds. Saving a pedestrian's life by pushing him out of the way of a speeding automobile has no merit for us individually if it were done so that we could pick his pocket during the mayhem. Ethical truth is not just about obeying the law that says we should not steal, or not doing it for fear of being jailed; it's also about not doing it because we sense the wrongness of the act. It just doesn't feel good. Ethics turns out to be about choice, not obedience to a command.
 
We can never close the book on ethical obligations. That is the way of Truth and the laws of reality. Escape from them is never possible. That's why a sharply honed sense of ethics creates a sense of culpability that extends to all suffering and death we did nothing to prevent today. We come to realize that any time or money spent on anything other than the necessities for our survival has, so to speak, the blood of an innocent child on it. We can no more take a vacation from ethics than we can from the laws of inertia or gravity.
 
We are all in an ethical race. Our incomplete understanding of ethical truth or our inability to comply with it does not deny its existence. Getting near ethical truth is just like getting near scientific truth. It is a process whereby as knowledge and experience grow, so does certainty. Life is clearly not about how much money we make, how many pleasure highs we can have, or whether we can gain power over others. It is about those quiet and private battles that go on within and combine to create the moral wealth of a society. It is the caring, concern, and love we feel and the degree to which we can let it dominate life.

⌕ Click to enlarge

​Not everyone is equally endowed with moral wisdom and ethical intelligence. Some pass ethics off to others and their institutions to solve. Some have convinced themselves that staying within the law—or however the law can be finagled—fulfills their ethical duty. For example, a defense attorney can feel elated if he gets a serial murderer off using a technicality within the law. Others go about life as Groucho Marx quipped, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." But how we behave toward truth, or our denial of it, does not affect its reality.
 
In science there are only two assumptions required. One is that the universe is governed by predictable laws. The other is that we can trust reason. Those two assumptions are required in ethics as well, but there is an important guiding corollary: All decisions must be made giving priority to long-term human life and well being. The constant struggle, dialectic, and dilemma as to how to live bigger than self and make decisions that embrace the welfare of all humankind is in large part what makes us human and sets us apart from mere matter obeying mechanical laws.
 
Where there seems to be no clear course of action, we are left with conscience, the topic of the next chapter. Although it is underused and often ignored, it is an effective personalized filter for life choices telling us how to be in accord with truth, become the best we can, and answer the question of whether humans can be a worthwhile addition to the universe.