Walentin W. Wasielewski "Man death ethics"

Man death ethics
Walentin W. Wasielewski

…if a man could write a book on Ethics which really was a book on Ethics, this book would, with an explosion, destroy all the other books in the world.– Ludwig Wittgenstein, A Lecture on Ethics

Man death ethics

Walentin W. Wasielewski

Proofreader Lucas James Wiese

© Walentin W. Wasielewski, 2022

ISBNВ 978-5-0056-1515-2

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

prolegomenaВ I

1.В Good and evil are not entities, but parameters. The only moral fact is death, and morality is the attitude towards death: everything that leads the system toВ destruction is evil; everything that overcomes the death ofВ the system is good. The open-question argument is removed without appeal toВ aВ naturalistic fallacy.

2. All problems are linked toВ death. What does not lead toВ death is not aВ problem. Any obstacle, barrier, difficulty, or limit is aВ problem for us only if we know how it can killВ us.

3. ToВ understand death as aВ problem, we need aВ system ofВ tenses. Any understanding is the transfer ofВ aВ real event as an abstract symbol from the past toВ the future, and then the perception ofВ the abstract future inВ the real present. The only known system that can operate with time is the human language. Human is the only socio-cognitive system that has understood death as aВ problem.

4. Ethics is aВ method ofВ development.

5. The purpose of development is to overcome the problem – to obtain freedom from the limitations of death. Beginning with situational problems: hunger, cold, diseases, and external threats; up to the absolute problem: death as such. Overcoming these problems breaks Hume’s guillotine not by logic, but by the phenomenon of will. Overcoming is a transition from a naturally existing limit is to prescribed by a free reason ought.

6. Survival and overcoming death are not the same thing. Survival is the avoidance ofВ death, the selection ofВ forms and behaviors that allow not toВ face the problem. Death for Natural Selection is aВ tool ofВ development, and Death for overcoming is aВ subject ofВ development.

7. Achieving the development goal is the transition ofВ the system toВ aВ new qualitative state. AВ New World and aВ New Man, free from the problem ofВ death, will have no need for morality and ethics.

prolegomenaВ II

1. The act ofВ understanding death gives birth toВ the essence ofВ human being. Based on this definition, any social-cognitive system that understands death will be human, ranging from any species ofВ living beings toВ an artificial intelligence (AI).

2. Understanding is possible only inВ the system ofВ tenses ofВ the language. The system ofВ tenses is the defining quality ofВ human language, unlike all other information exchange systems, from natural RNA/DNA toВ animal communication systems (ACS). InВ fact, the abstract time machine ofВ language is the mind.

3. Reason makes it possible toВ relate toВ death. Understanding and reasoning about what leads toВ death or what overcomes death provides aВ human an attitude towards death.

4. The attitude towards death is aВ dichotomy ofВ good and evil. Thus, good and evil are not entities, but parameters ofВ the relationship toВ death as aВ single entity.

5. Ethics is aВ method ofВ development. Knowing the limit and its parameters, we get the opportunity toВ overcome the limit. Now, the capabilities ofВ the available tools are never enough for aВ human. If it is known how the function can be performed better or worse inВ relation toВ death, then the development flywheel is launched towards aВ goal.

6. The goal ofВ development is toВ overcome death. All problems come down toВ death. What does not lead toВ death is not aВ problem, does not require ethical evaluation, and does not require development and overcoming.

7. By achieving the development goal of the system, the system then transitions to a new quality. After overcoming death there will be no need for an attitude towards death – no need for morality or ethics and no need for development and overcoming. The New World will define new parameters, limits, and essences for the New Man – a Superman.

prolegomenaВ III

1. Subject: the phenomenon ofВ awareness ofВ death. Hypothesis: awareness ofВ death is aВ unique phenomenon inВ nature, which gave rise toВ aВ system ofВ aВ new quality, human being. Only the awareness ofВ death makes it possible an attitude toВ death.

2. The attitude toВ death forms morality as an experience ofВ causes ofВ death and ethics as aВ method ofВ overcoming death. The ethical method gives humanity aВ unique ability toВ overcome problems, causes ofВ death. Thus ethics is aВ method ofВ development based on aВ hypothesis ofВ freedom.

3. The wild nature has no awareness ofВ death, no attitude toВ death and no method ofВ development. Therefore, nature develops through natural selection ofВ random errors. So death is aВ tool for the development ofВ nature. It is impossible toВ overcome death as aВ problem byВ death as aВ tool.

4. Humanity is aВ socio-cognitive phenomenon, aВ system that has understood the problem ofВ death. So we break the binding ofВ aВ concept ofВ human toВ the animal species Homo Sapiens. Any socio-cognitive system that understands the problem ofВ death can be called aВ human being.

5. The understanding is aВ system ofВ abstract symbols inВ the system ofВ tenses. The understanding ofВ any phenomenon necessarily implies the movement ofВ an abstract model ofВ this phenomenon inВ abstract time relative toВ reality. Therefore, mathematics without aВ system ofВ tenses ofВ its abstract symbols is not aВ full-fledged language.

6. Development is aВ transition from one quality ofВ developing phenomenon toВ another, byВ overcoming the limits ofВ phenomenon.

7. The idea ofВ development for aВ human being is overcoming the problem ofВ death. Beyond that limit will no longer be aВ human, but aВ Superman, or New Man. The values, ideas and problems ofВ the New World will be qualitatively different.

Aristotle’s Mistake

To be, or not to be, Ay there’s the point…

– William Shakespeare, Bad Quarto

Considering Aristotle’s work Nicomachean Ethics, I would like to draw attention to a key point that characterizes the generally accepted and erroneous approach in all studies of the question of good and evil to the present day.

Aristotle looks at the good as an entity: «…every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.» As if good is something that can be defined; a phenomenon that can be arrived at; as if it were some kind of independent entity. But this is not the case.

This position is an error that reduces all ethical reasoning from Aristotle toВ George Edward Moore toВ invariably contradictory results. Reasoning exclusively about the good implies simplification: as if evil is something opposite toВ good, aВ kind ofВ good with aВ minus sign, as antigood. But evil is not equal toВ good with aВ minus sign, as well as evil with aВ minus sign is not equal toВ good:

EVIL ≠ – GOOD or GOOD ≠ – EVIL

I claim that good as the entity, that served as the starting point in Aristotle’s reasoning, was chosen incorrectly. It is wrong to talk about good outside of its constant connection with evil, endowing them with the properties of certain entities independent of each other. We should not forget that good and evil, benefit and harm, virtue and vice are a dichotomy. So, when it comes to such a phenomenon as dichotomy, the representation of subclasses as independent entities entails the loss of the general meaning of the dichotomizing system, the dichotomizing entity. The loss of the meaning of the system of good and evil occurs the moment we replace one true entity with one of its subclasses, while endowing the subclass with a complete essential, or complete object character. By doing that, we take ourselves away from the true subject on the research of ethics. If we do not have the true essence of a subject, then we are liable to talk about anything except the truth. It is sad that philosophers, following Aristotle, persistently repeat this mistake even when the dichotomy of moral categories is known to everyone.

Fig. 1. Graphic dichotomy: the trick is that only the black subclass is drawn here, and the white one, without being drawn at all, manifests itself.

Without being separate entities, good and evil cannot be goals in themselves that we could strive for. Аnd for this reason, the good has wrongly «…been declared to be that at which all things aim.» Good and evil are parameters, level pointers, or relationships that allow us to come to the desired goal or desired entity. Thus, it is seen that both the substratum and the result of the action of a moral choice is that to which the attitude is expressed using the concepts of good and evil. It remains for us now to find out what kind of fundamental essence can manifest itself in almost any phenomenon around us.

Let’s look at this using the example of any measuring instrument that we use: speedometer, altimeter, thermometer, or fuel quantity indicator. These measuring instruments are excellent models of the «ethical method», their function can reveal the mechanics of its work. So, we may say that measuring instruments is designed primarily to show whether a process controlled by us either exists or is dying. On the instruments, we see on one hand the permissible range of the existence is the process that we launched, its existence right now. And on the other hand, the unacceptable parameters of the existence is the process when it is heading for death. And the danger of this death is important for us, because it is important to us that the existence of the process continues to exist.

If you bake a pie, then when you control the baking by the thermometer, the process is already underway, the pie is already baking and the process already exists. Now, consider the baking process chemically. As always, baking is a Maillard reaction: a chemical reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars that gives browned food its distinctive flavor. Ideally, it exists in the range from 110 degrees Celsius to 140 degrees. A complete taste is formed, which represents numerous rearrangements of molecules, and as such, an ideal brown crust appears along with a characteristic pleasant aroma. If the temperature is less than 110 degrees, the Maillard reaction will be insufficient, and there will be no baking as we know it – a brown crust, a full taste, and the smell of the pie. It will just be a boiled, half-baked dough, raw and tasteless pie filling. On the contrary, above 140 degrees there will be caramelization of sugars, and above 200 degrees and the combustion of carbohydrates – so baking will also die.

In this example, we see that we have indicators of good for baking: from 110 to 140 degrees. We also have indicators of evil: less than 110 or over 140 degrees. And it seems that we naturally strive for the good, while avoiding the evil. Exactly as Aristotle told us. But is this really the case? Can we say that we received a goodness as entity at the end of the process, if it satisfied us? No, we got good pastries and nothing else. Even a good, delicious pie is not «…to be that at which all things aim», it is not a goodness as entity. If we burn the pie, we do not get the evil as entity either. The only thing that happened was that the pastries that we needed is died, but nothing else.

So, by controlling the baking with the parameters of good and evil, we did not strive for good as such. Just like we didn’t really embody any evil if we chose not to control the baking properly and burn the pie. In essence, we used the ethical method on the measuring instrument to prevent the death of the process that was important to us. Therefore, ethics is exactly the method of precisely overcoming specifically the death that threatens the existence of the process we need. This technique can be applied to any life situation.

The entity we are looking for, which we track byВ ethical parameters on the measuring instruments, is precisely the threat ofВ death ofВ the process, but not the presence ofВ existence. It is important toВ grasp this difference. We already have the existence ofВ the process, which is commonly known as existing right now. But we will respond toВ the signal ofВ the parameters only inВ response toВ possible process problems, which the measuring instrument signals byВ showing unacceptable parameters on the scale.

Thus, when we see aВ favorable range ofВ parameters, this can be thought ofВ as is aВ goodness for the process, rather than aВ good as entity. InВ other words, aВ parameter ofВ the essence ofВ the process. And when we see an unfavorable range ofВ parameters, an evil for the process appears, but not as an evil as entity. It is an undesirable parameter for the essence ofВ the process.

Let us consider one more example. A plane going 200 km/h will be too slow and dangerous – risking the plane to fall into a tailspin every second and lose its footing, and then die. However, that same speed for a car (200 km/h) will be dangerously too high. There will be increased threat of collision, human death, and destruction from an accident. So, there is no evil, nor good, inherently in the 200 km/h speed itself. It is obvious that our attitude to this speed will change depending on the situation, as demonstrated just above.

ByВ itself, the figure on the altimeter indicates the position ofВ the aircraft above the ground. And the figure becomes evil only when it indicates aВ position that means the possibility ofВ the death ofВ the aircraft, and good if the flight can continue safely. The pilot applies an attitude toВ the figure: knowing which ofВ are good and which are bad makes an effort towards the indicators ofВ good on the instruments and avoids approaching the indicators ofВ evil. So, the pilot does not achieve good byВ itself, and avoids not evil as aВ separate entity. It can also be mentioned that the same numbers on the altimeter can mean evil for the aircraft inВ one situation, and good inВ another. There is no contradiction inВ this and the situation is clearly understood byВ us.

From the reasoning about the indicators, it also follows that for any indicator, the index of evil is important. Sometimes, the device generates an alert light for the danger indicator, which simply signals the loss of the goodness in the process. And, as in Figure 1, even if there is no good on such an indicator, it is still always present there by not burning alarm mode. So, in order to know the good, we always need an indicator of evil. And the most important thing is that we are convinced of the inseparability of our parametric categories. It is impossible to be sure of getting the result of the process if guided only by the indicators of the range of good. Therefore, on any device, the index of evil is equally important to us. Parametric good and evil are inseparable – that’s why they are a dichotomy.

Therefore, good and evil cannot, and should not, be separated if we want toВ benefit from them. We always need toВ know the range ofВ both parameters inВ order toВ find the right path. If our instruments only show the range ofВ good, then how will we avoid evil without knowing about where isВ it?