1 Characters/Setting: Sam is a human biochemist, psychologist and a philosopher of science, and Tyr is an engineered human with capabilities slightly

greater than that of Sam or any regular human (what is required to live is drastically reduced and the mind and body are both made so efficient that a full eight hours of sleep can be attained with twenty-five, 12 second microsleeps (five minutes) throughout the day. Another example of an engineered humans capabilities is that Tyr is a researcher and scientist in medicine, mathematics, physics, health, psychology, and nanobiology, which would be too much to handle for the average human. Tyr is, however, a very different android though in his personality. The year is past 2675, and other intelligent life has been known of for 236 years. There is a much greater understanding of the singularity that is our universe, which is supposed to derive from a universe much larger than the one we are in. Our universe is expected to be an extension in the space-time of the parent universe, which the origins of both our singularity and the parent universe are unknown. There is much more that has been discovered and still to be discovered. Sam sees this development of our species as an obvious purposeful existence, in contrast to Tyr who thinks that the very scientific truths that we come to understand only show the meaninglessness in everything. Both regard science as their primary reasoning for meaning and meaninglessness in a future with so much known, even a created human sees the meaningless of life, but Sam still feels that constant growth and evolution are signs of greater things to come, which is the meaning he holds to. Sam: How can you just ignore someone in pain like that? Dont you care at all? You are in so many fields of study and are engineered to be a highly intelligent and empathetic human. Why didnt you do anything? Tyr: Because I dont care. At the time I was thinking of something else and didnt even notice the guy. You are right that I could have helped him, but I dont need to offer myself as a social instrument for improvement; I have no such limitations placed on me. Even though I am partially created for the purpose to be a good human being and propel society and science forward, there is no distinct meaning placed on my existence or actual code that defines what my lifes meaning is. Additionally, I am not made separate from humans, I am in fact a human amoung humans. I am not a robot with a distinct purpose; I am one of you made to be one of you. Sam: But as moral and sympathetic creatures we feel the need to do good for others, which is the entire basis of society and growth as a species. We have never seen sentient life that didnt contain laws and a structured society. Rational beings always conform in some ways for the greater good of both themselves and for the entire species. Tyr: There could easily be a completely unstructured hermit planet with very little contact, no guidelines, norms or mores to conform to, since there is still so much unknown about the universe. These are all things that we just create, they are pointless. These laws and morals created from being rational beings arent always very logical.

2 Our goal is to follow the herd of stupidity for this goal of rational growth, in order to be the best possible humans, but there will always be too much pointlessness and uselessness in our lives. Aside from our laws, morals, and values being completely off and pointless to me, humans are just a coincidental lump of protons, electrons, and neutrons that fit together in such a way to make us have senses and consciousness. Your entire life is merely electricity running through your neurons and brain; that is all it will ever be. Sam: Since there is still so much left unknown about human consciousness, you cannot accurately say that all we are is electricity and atoms. My life is meaningful as a person in a society born to grow. Morality, culture, society, adaptation, technology, all of these should show you there is meaning put into things and there is a purpose to our existence; at least possibly one. We are constantly developing, growing, and discovering the universe and its secrets. We can create our own humans almost perfectly, like you. We are practically Gods. There are computers that can simulate a small universe, and we can suspend protons, photons and electrons in a state so that we can harvest their energies naturally and safely. We have a global government that has made so much progress in all aspects of science, philosophy and human development that we have been in a golden age for decades. There is so much creativity, wonder, power and curiosity found in our species; and we have the extraordinary ability to use our minds and bodies and emotions to excel forward and move to something greater: getting better, more intelligent, more resilient, more adapted, more empathetic, more open minded, more rational. As humans we are naturally kind to each other and we rationally create morals, community and laws in order to grow and gain knowledge of the universe. Yes, there are bad parts, but along the lines of Hegel and J.S. Mill, the bad parts are both needed, and natural to all development. We need these illogical laws and values in order to evolve and know what is better for us. We have evolved from things that were not even organisms, things that couldnt even think. We are the process of billions of years of universal and planetary activity and sort of self-improvement. Doesnt it make sense that there is some natural end or goal that all species tend toward? Is there not meaning there? Tyr: Not really. Our evolution only came about by chance and our adaptation as well. Even if there is an end to evolution, where one is as adapted as possible, that does not mean there is an intrinsic purpose or goal instilled in the life of all things. A life now is no better than a life in a thousand or billion years. Even in light of how absurd life used to be, it can still be said to be just as pointless. Hundreds of years ago humans spent only about twenty years in an educative environment and then they spent their entire lives at some profession that most seemed to complain about. Even though humans are a much more intelligent and evolved species now, we still just search for a so called truth, and have to live longer in this meaninglessness. The philosopher Nagel agreed with some of these points in a time where people worked their entire lives at a store or as some sort of housekeeper. For goodness sake they involved charities in almost everything, making the ones in poverty a

3 necessity. How pointless is that? Just as pointless as now even though it seems so different and foreign. In the grand scheme of things everything is just unassembled particles that are compressed to form a small ball. This singularity is as small as the nucleus of hydrogen. The only reason you have consciousness is because both time and matter came from the expansion of that little ball. As we are, there is no meaning, especially given that we are merely a universe inside another universe. Sam: But you cant discount the theory of purpose completely. It is completely possible for our entire universe to be created by a supercomputer, an outer dimensional force or being, a higher evolved human species or just a higher evolved species that created a universe. And within that universal code that grounds the laws for the universe, there is a certain part that places meaning on creatures and/or things. Also, you believe in God, Tyr, and I have heard you argue before that it is completely possible for there to be a God that exists, yet you say there is no possibility of meaning. Tyr: I apologize. I shouldnt have been so absolute. You are correct; there is the complete possibility of a purpose for our species. However, with our scientific knowledge to date, no inherent meaning to anything is known, and it wouldnt matter if we evolved into conscious life or not as we are simply just individuals that are dying and being born with no use whatsoever most of the time. Even though we have all this technology and surplus, it does not change the fact that within 160 years any person will be dead. It doesnt matter that we are evolving; there would still just be the exact same atoms that make up this universe and any one person will eventually die no matter how evolved our species is. Just because we have the ability to manipulate our environment while adapting to it doesnt mean there is a purpose to that. Additionally, my belief in God is only supported by it being a possible existence. My reason for believing in it is simply personal choice and peace of mind. It is only helpful meditation for me to put some faith in an unknown power as it allows for optimism to remain a constant in my mind and without any impact on my reasoning or rational mind. I completely understand the idea of God is my choice and not something Im naturally inclined to believe because it actually exists. Prayer just calms my mind and allows me to not be stressed over the things I can do nothing about. I may be engineered but I still have all the qualms of the mind. Since this is just my creation, there is no inherent meaning to it. One can create their own meaning but it still has no significant effect on anything in this universe. They are still just a pointless clump of matter. Also, even if we evolve into some sort of God ourselves, what then? We create a universe and control it, but for what end? If I am made for a reason, what is the reason for my maker? Why does anything need inherent meaning? Sam: But these pointless clumps of matter form to make something obviously distinct from other matter. We are at the height where we create our own incredible meaning for all that there is. We create things specifically with just meaning in it, thats all language is. Words and symbols and art are almost entirely constructed of our own

4 created meanings. It is integral to being a conscious, communicative being to understand, create and have meaning. We are the species that can have an entire perception of time, space and memories in our heads and able to understand the most complex and mysterious parts of the universe, we can control gravity and manipulate space-time almost by our own will. In this understanding there are meanings to things everywhere and always. Meaning is in our very being, thus we have meaning. Tyr: Well of course we create meaning, but that does not mean that we have meaning. What if meaning only begins at a human level intelligence? What if meaning was not a part of existence until we created it? Meaning could just start at us creating it; we do not need to have meaning in order to do that. However, this does mean there is meaning, technically. This also means that things have different meanings and that meaning has no definition. Our galactic neighbors, the Centaurians, have been known to view our methods, reasoning and even language as quite baffling, and in response to their criticism on ourselves we changed. Primarily within the realm of science, but nevertheless, the meaning we created was partially changed by a species not even human. Sam: Exactly. This only supports my point. Meaning is something that there is, you cannot deny it. We created the word meaning and other intelligent species create their own word or symbol for meaning. Meanings are mainly subjective and upon the individual to decide, however, there is still a meaning created from society and the evolution of our species, which is part of our purpose. It is part of us to create our own meaning and follow it as an evolving, rational species. Tyr: And if I am apathetic, meaningless, a cynic and feel that the herd is wrong? What then? What for those that dont feel that they can create their own meaning, since they feel there is none? The depressed, the skeptics? There are so many people opposed to meaning and they just live drowning in nihilism. Even after genetically engineering humans to not have depression they still manage to self-harm and dread their life in cases. If we create a life of meaning can we not create a life of meaninglessness? If meaning is created, doesnt that mean the meaning of life can be subjectively meaningless? Sam: Firstly, a society is never made of only supporters and zero dissenters. Part of society is having different views and different meanings, and that even includes nihilism, cynicism, skepticism, meaninglessness and nothing. It would be best if that society allowed all meanings to exist equally in order to grow in the best possible manner. Our societies and species exact outcomes and choices may not be the best, but in the end we are stilling growing, advancing, and understanding the universe more. There will always be depressed people that will see the absurdity of life, the extreme tedium of the common life, and that we are all insignificant. But as a species there is the goal to get better and evolve to some level of significance, to create significance, to live significantly in such a vast and at times a cold, empty universe. Just as many ask why there needs to be meaning, why does there need to be meaninglessness? Why not have

5 meaning? You mentioned some of Nagels views on this subject, but I personally find his view on what is absurd (humans and conscious beings taking life serious in a universe we doubt and perceive as absurd) wrong. Tyr: I actually disagree with his definition of the absurd as well. Pointlessness is viewed on a subatomic scale, so why would it matter whether we are conscious or not? Just because we can understand meaning doesnt mean we live absurdly. What makes everything meaningless is still that we are made of things unconscious; things so tiny they are invisible, yet we are supposed to assume there is some greater end to all of these particles. It is true that as a species we create meaning, and that technically makes meaning exist, but it does not mean that there is meaning integral to our life or to anything in the universe. Hell, I have personal purpose in life, I just dont agree with meaning being integral to anything. Sam: Well, I feel this is as far as our agreeing will go. I am glad we share at least this much.

Sam: Do you understand the feeling of certainty Tyr? Tyr: Of course I do. I feel it all the time, whether it be putting on my coat or taking the derivative of a function; I feel absolutely certain in my outcome or answer, because I have been so right in the past. Sam: Does that make you think we should try to be as certain as possible? Even though we could be wrong, when shown that we are wrong we change our view. That is the proper way of going about it at least; verifying ones certainty. Promoting what is proven to be wrong is only detrimental to the development of scientific knowledge in general. If we can come to know more and more things as certain, obvious and objective, then we can come to know more about the universe and enhance our lives because of it. Tyr: We shouldnt label it as: if you are certain then go for it. Because that can be a bad universal. This shouldnt be treated as a universal, I dont think anyways. It should be understood that what is certain should both agree with science, and logic. By agreeing with science it agrees that it is tested and consistent, and by agreeing with logic it makes sense to us personally, --as it fits in with our established ways of understanding, creating something that we can be certain of. The problem is people end up certain of things just because they believe them and not because it holds true to those criteria. Such as believing the earth is flat. Sam: I completely agree. I think that there is hardly any other way to understand what is objective about the universe. If we dont rely on this sense of certainty then how can we advance as much as we do? If we are constantly undermining our own systems of acquiring knowledge, then how can we make any progress with what knowledge we have? (Granted it is good to question them as we work out the bugs, but to ignore science at this point in time as being something we can be certain of can make it more difficult to obtain conclusions).

6 Well, what we do is ignore the skepticism for most of the time and assume that what we observed to be true for many, many times is going to be true for probably every time after. This is not perfect thinking, but it is very productive thinking, and as long as one understands the flaws of the scientific method and the imperfection that is human understanding and perception, then one can safely gain conclusions from science. Tyr: I would like to understand what this may have to do with the meaning of our lives. When you look at Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and existentialism in general, you find that we create our own meaning and morals and that to live the best is to be the uberman, or the Dasein or to just live our own lives and understand ourselves firstly. Create meaning for ourselves, and above all create authentic meaning, as we dont want others deciding our meaning. We are individual beings with individual consciousness, so we should try to be embracing our individuality and understand that the only meaning there is, is the meaning we put on every little thing. I feel the feeling of certainty can help us live authentically and create our own meaning. Sam: I think I can see where you are going with this. Since certainty (or obviousness or objectivity) helps us develop our understanding in any field of study, it can help us decide what is authentic, and being certain of more things allows us to cancel out options that are not so unique. If it comes to music, the more you understand about the theory, the more you can be certain of what is happening in any given song. The more you know about evolutionary biology the more certain you can be about things like variation and the genotype changing for the better. With knowing what is certain we can instantly derive things that we are uncertain of. I am uncertain of the happenings of Audree Simons right now, for example, because I am certain of the information given to me; no information in this room where it is only us tells me about what Audree is doing. However, I can construct a happening in my mind of what shes doing. My certainty allows me to create theories and ideas that are more likely, since my certainty aligns with science and logic and has been right before. I could predict, given that she didnt show up today, that she is ill or had prior engagements. Certainty may not show the answer, but it can give us reasonable possibilities to test. Tyr: I was actually thinking of something else to do with certainty. But I like that view a lot. I agree with it entirely. I was thinking more along the lines of your own personal certainty. This certainty is going to be wrong a lot of the time, as our logic and experience are very subjective. However, it can be made more accurate by constantly adjusting it to fit what is known scientifically (it just doesnt always need to be). An example would be that you are certain of someones behavior when you perform a certain action. If I keep flicking you on the head, science doesnt tell me that you will react with annoyance, but you most likely will. Science can help explain this, but you learn from experience that inflicting slight pain or irritation on ones body causes displeasure, so we wouldnt want one to do that to us.

7 There are certainties like this in everyday life that we take for granted, but we do so because they are so useful. By maximizing the usefulness of this type of certainty (using science can help too), we can interact and live with the world in a very intelligent and intuitive manner. The confidence of people has been proven to affect others around them and even though it can be intimidating given higher levels of confidence or frustrating with more timid people, it generally helps ones appearance and outcomes in any given social situation. There are definitely exceptions, but majority of the time being confident can be very useful, such as an interview, an exam, a date, a piece of writing, etc. Confidence has been shown to be effective and plays a large role in attractiveness. Having certainty produces this confidence and allows for one to do well in situations, particularly if their certainty is correct. Doing this one can play his life, doing what he is certain of and obtaining what he wants. What he wants is to be more certain of things and to be certain of himself. Sam: That is very interesting. Is to be more certain of yourself something that needs creativity and uniqueness? Because I would definitely say that it does. I dont think every spec of our being needs to be different, we do have similarities naturally and that ends up being useful just as much as unique traits. But, by creating our own unique self and being authentic, based on our certainties, we can create a self that we can know more about. If I was just a generic old man that believed in the Bible and traditions so much that I was a racist sexist homophobe, would I even know who I was? We all know these stubborn, ignorant, unprogressive people that have those labels and the label of being religious and in poverty a lot of the time. Additionally, we all know people that just like being labeled. They like showing off what they label themselves as, but they are just the same as every other person taking up that label, such as teenagers or even adults that take up some belief system that labels them as rebellious or for adults a parent. Im not saying parenthood is bad, I am just saying that I think people end up getting married and having kids just because of tradition and that they should break from tradition and decide for themselves what they think is best. They will have their own experiences, and are their own separate consciousness, but they are trying to be a certain way, to be like that label they love so much. I dont know about you, but I feel just allowing ones self to be succumbed by any one label or stereotype or moral code or any kind of universal, will make them worse off and fairly irrelevant to what has been observed to increase the well-being and advancement of humanity. Science, philosophy and art really cover everything that enhances our world (curing diseases, making things more efficient and longer lasting, understanding the universe more and applying it to how we live, granting us luxuries, enjoyment and fulfillment in life). And we see time and time again that conforming to things ends up bad (religious deaths such as the crusades, racism and Hitler). If you conform to things mindlessly (trusting science is not mindless conformity, it is mindful), then you risk not being able to know yourself.

8 Tyr: Great, and this is because if you are just believing in something because you like it or were brought up to, then you have no actual logic or any real certainty for your beliefs. One must come to certainty in belief via understanding and reason. If you arent correctly certain of your beliefs then how can you be certain of yourself? Because I am sure we would all agree that our beliefs are a huge part of who we are. Our beliefs dont make up everything about us, but it makes up a lot of it. Our memories (which we have to put a certain belief in if we want to trust them at all), our loved ones (we believe in specific things that make us affectionate and loving towards certain people, such as family and friends), everything about us, it all comes down to our own personal perspective based on the external and internal life we lead. Your recollection of those memories at that specific time, the feelings of love you have for someone at any given time, or anything. There is a certainty we hold about all of these, we understand them and have meaning attached to them. Things like love we try our best to be certain of, and the ones that are not correctly certain may not work out too well. You are certain you love this girl, she is the one, she is the greatest, etc. However, this is known to not be so true, many and most people end up wrong about their partners. Being more correctly certain of anything like this will allow you to be correctly certain about yourself more so; your beliefs and your choices from those beliefs. Creating your own meaning and being unique helps define you as separate from others and allows you to gain more certainty that you are you. If I am just blindly religious and conformist to my state; could I really say that I knew myself and that I am a unique individual? No, because I am not in that situation. I would not be creating my own meaning for things, and could never be certain if I created me or if my environment did. Sam: Some would say that we are made from our environment, but can you logically denounce our internal processes and say that doesnt also make us who we are? As humans, there are no rules, we dont have to do anything in any specific way (other than reacting to the automatic forces of the universe, like gravity), but there are ways we tend to prefer or tend to produce the most results from. Being unique and allowing yourself to create meaning, vs. allowing the others around you to decide your beliefs for you, is shown time and time again to be better. Being unique has created so many new things and ideas. Scientists and the great thinkers of the past were all certain about their discoveries to some extent, and the ones that were right, or more right, changed everything (Galileo, Newton, Hume, Einstein, etc.). While these people were busy being different and creative, others were busy being ignorant and oppressive, killing many innocent people based on their heritage and beliefs. I feel that it is quite apparent here that being more scientific, logical and certain about yourself and the world in those regards only benefits the self. Tyr: Agree, but I feel it should be noted that we can always be wrong, and this should be something we firmly understand. Our method for bringing about the best results may not be the best and our interpretation of what id the best may not be the best. We are also all slaves to human error and by far not perfect. Being unique is

9 also not a universal. There are definitely times when it is better to conform a little or accept that something is going to be tedious or wrong. We must accept that we will not like everything and that everything wont be so authentic. Acting in the most rational way and understanding the universe and how it works will allow one to be as certain as possible in any given situation. This leads us to be a lot more creative than we tend to be, but we dont have to be completely creative all the time. An example would be conforming to the education system and doing work you feel could be much better. I feel writing strictly formal essays will not represent ones creativity and ability enough, restraining people to master a specific skillset. Another example is enjoying tediousness and understanding the need for it. If you come up with a really neat and original idea like the theory of relativity, then you will probably have to explain it many times. Even though it will be tedious and not unique, it is still good to teach it, because not everyone knows it. Tediousness is required to interact with others, as there are so many other people to interact with; and so many ways to interact with them. Sam: So the person who is certain isnt just going to leap forward and do something new or spontaneous or original at every given moment but will judge his situation, by applying logic, experience and science, and then become certain about what to do. For the betterment of humanity, based on observed and known ways of bettering it, we are very creative and unique individuals that conform just enough to hold society together. Tyr: Couldnt have said it better myself. Tyr: Morality should be understood to be subjective and created by humans, since we create meaning by using language and creating value to things. Many philosophers have said this and have shown it, and the existentialists have told us to be authentic and unique and understand meaning for yourself. How to be moral isnt really answered aside from create them yourself. Others answered it with utilitarianism and other moral systems, but in end ethics is almost always applied and there is so much that is subject to difference that no universal has yet to cover it all. Sam: Well this is because we are limited by our own bodies and minds. We never see or know every detail about a situation or every outcome that is possible, but we can still create a general good from predictions and our ability to create meaning and feel good/right and certain. Science can even help us to be moral. Science doesnt give us any rules to live by, but what it does do is almost everything else. It explains why things are and this allows us to live better in many ways. If research finds out what is causative agent of a particular disease, we can control that disease and rid it. Understanding nanotechnology and DNA replication has led to us creating very good human duplicates, such as yourself. The usefulness of science is apparent in how great the results are and how they can be used, and how they are used. Ethical systems usually focus on intentions or consequences or they tell us to be the best we can be. (There are many more, but these are the general ones people seem to take up). If you do something with selfish intentions people will not usually like

10 it, unless it benefits them or the populace. Such as how the first person to create human sized robots with powerful AI did it just because his rival in university might have solved it first. From what they said, it seemed to just be competition. This competition and selfishness produced so many good things after it, and a few bad, but still primarily good. As a means to things that have been shown to be good and useful in humanities development and well-being, science should be a part of morality. Tyr: Judging someone on their means to create good seems just as important as either intention or consequence. All three should be looked at. The idea of good is different amoung individuals and cultures/subcultures, but with understanding science as a means to good we can at another value to how someone can be moral, allowing us to work out the variables of circumstantial decisions and relative perspectives. Say we use the example of two people in competition to create or discover something fairly revolutionary in science. Gary is one of those scientists and he is doing it just for the sake of competition, he knows that once it is discovered it will be useful, he just wants to discover it before Lance. Lance, however, feels like being greedy and giving his research to people with obviously bad intentions. Neither feels like they have a moral duty to it, so they just do it out of competition and then Lance would like some money for his grand victory. People looking at intentions would say both are not good, but Gary is less bad. People looking at consequences will almost always say it is best for Gary to discover it as he will not be giving it to people that will cause harm. However, there is an area of uncertainty here. We do not know what will happen if it is discovered, even if it is not sold to evil people, we dont know if the people that will receive it will be good or not. We can assume it is best for Gary to win given this information but much more is needed to predict whether or not even him winning will be good or not. Sam: Every situation comes down to this sense of context. Life is rife with context, so when judging moral decisions in life having as much context as possible only grants us more clarity of what is right to do. What if the discovery would end up in the hands of people with bad intentions either way? What if the people that have Gary hired want to use it to support a police state and have a robotic army of authority figures in order to control society? We dont know, all we can do is say if, since this is all hypothetical. If this is the case is it bad for either of them to continue the research? One has selfish but not dangerous intentions, while Lance is even more selfish which risks the discovery being used badly. But, there is the risk of evil happening no matter what. Even if the department in control of it was good and having Gary discover it would only allow them to use it for their good intentions, someone bad could get a hold of it. There is always the possibility of someone using science for evil. There is the possibility that it will be good (look at where we are now, the discoveries made were really good). This uncertainty can make it hard to trust the universals of looking at intentions, and consequences. In this case is the means good even if it can be used

11 for bad? Well we wouldnt say its good if it used by a bad person to kill others, but that isnt always the case (it usually isnt the case actually). Science automatically allows for the possibility of a better future. When looking at it realistically it can be very dangerous, but most people that end up being scientists and discovering the mysteries of the universe end up being not bad. They are usually to avid of studiers/researches that they have no time to think of different intentions other than finding this interesting science and discovering something new and jaw-dropping. Some have good intentions and want to help the world, but most people usually like what they are doing and do it for that reason. Why would Newton discover calculus if he was uninterested in it? Havent we all had certain topics in science that we felt were so engrossing that we wanted to know more? We arent all scientists but we at least try to find a few answers, given how easy it is to find them (internet primarily). Tyr: This means wont always lead to good, or be because of good, but in the real world it is usually used in such a way that it causes good. Even though nuclear bombs have killed others, the understanding of radioactivity and atoms just lead to a further understanding of the universe, and the subatomic world, which led to much more. Because of how certain science can make us, and because of how much it can, does and will help us, we should see it as good, unless given bad intentions and outcomes. Judging someones ability to do good, and their means of it can help us determine the moral worth. A good means to do good, just adds to a persons worth as a moral human. Science is just an example of a means that seems to always have the ability to help us, whether it is used for good or not. Other means worth mentioning are ones of empathy, happiness, health (body and mind), intelligence and skills (ability to write, deduce, attempt arithmetic, academics, etc.), and motivation/ambition. There are more, but these are ones I could think of right away. Being more empathetic and caring makes you want to help others. Just as science can be useful no matter what as long as it is correct, when one is empathetic, no matter what they will have the desire to help others, which only helps the world. Can this empathy be wrong? Of course, you can care about serial killers and other people that will make bad things happen. If one is empathetic in the way that they will end up helping these people do bad things, does that make the empathy wrong or the helping wrong? Wouldnt it be more logical to say that the action of helping a bad person do something bad, even if it is out of good intentions/ and derives from a good mean, would be bad. To be morally good, the empathetic person could still care about the bad person, but also care about society and others; thus not allowing the killer to kill. They can use their empathy to do what is best, just as someone can use science to do what is best. Sam: Happiness is usually thought of as something achieved, but with the knowledge of how happiness affects our bodies and minds, we see that being happy allows for one to have more energy, be more open minded, and for them to affect others in a positive manner. When someone is really depressed all the time, they are usually pretty slow and not willing to do much. Being happy can be a means to help others by having the will to do

12 things and increase happiness. Being happier can relate to being more empathetic and to having more motivation. Happiness can be a means to those others means mentioned. (It is understandable why happiness was made the universal in utilitarianism; it is very good to have- proven scientifically). But we all know that the our own happiness may not be the same as others, so using it as an outcome can lead to moral predicaments, but using it as a means can show that it can lead to much more good, since it can primarily increases ones ability to do good. Granting a bad person happiness can lead to others losing their own happiness, but those are both matters of intentions and outcomes. If their intentions were good then they could use their happiness as a means to good. Tyr: So we have come to this conclusion that there are means that can help one be good if used with the right intentions, but what about bad means? Well they would just be the worse versions of the good means. Being depressed probably isnt the greatest means to help the world (not like one can help that though), and being a very unintelligent person without the skills to do things that can help the world arent really good means. Improving these means really only improves the ability to do good. We are all the attributers of moral worth and goodness, so we should try to improve our attributes. This is only in addition to having good intentions and causing good outcomes. Sam: Of course, we should never just throw those away; they have been used for centuries and are useful to understanding morality. Tyr: Agreed, but what does this tell us about universals, if anything? Sam: Well we can see that trying to be as good of a person that we can be allows us to better the world, even if the circumstances arent so great or certain, such as with Gary and Lance. Since there are things we just cant predict (I would personally love to see someone that can predict everything correctly), we have to focus on things we can be more certain of, which means not always falling back on some universal. As discussed we can be certain of science when it is shown to work time after time and when it is logical. We cant be absolutely certain of theoretical sciences even if they seem to work in theory, but when science is experienced and tested many times, and there is a concise conclusion, one can be certain of it (until proven otherwise). Tyr: Additionally, we discussed how we can be more certain of ourselves (through using certainty gained by science and rationality grown by ourselves, we come to be much more authentic and seeking more certainty). We can use this as well to help us with being moral. By taking the things we are certain of, and even using certainty as a means (the better your certainty the better you can be good), we can make ourselves as good as possible and monitor how good we are. Since our own goodness is through our own lenses and from our own relative perspective, it may not be perfectly good. However, we can keep improving our means of good, while having good intentions and producing good results, to ensure that we are at least a bit good.

13 Sam: There is so much more to being good than meets the eye, that we could probably go on for days picking apart every little aspect of what can make someone a better person. What do you think is the biggest means for doing good? Our own ability to reason and apply knowledge? Tyr: Yeah, those seem to cover most of the areas in which one can use what they have to be good. We use our reason to apply the knowledge of good, the environment, people, science and so on. Being more reasonable and more knowledgeable of things only allows for one to make greater predictions of outcomes and choose the best thing to do. If I know how people will react to a certain action, then that can be my means of doing good or not, depending on my intention and depending on the reaction/outcome. Most likely, it wouldnt be good to kill a bunch of people and have them react with death or fear (if you miss some people). However, if we apply our reason and knowledge we can see that killing many people would both be bad for society (as the more people we have that can help society the better off it will be) and for ourselves as we live in a society that treats killing as wrong (which makes sense given the effects of it) so we can get punished in different ways. Our knowledge tells us that killing is wrong both on a productive level and on an experiential level. Killing a bunch of people is less productive than allowing them to live and help society, and keeping yourself from being killed or punished. We know from experience that those are the outcomes of killing mass amounts of people, amoung other bad outcomes. Sam: That makes sense, and was along the lines of what I was thinking.

Sam: This seems like a much better understanding of morality than what the universal systems bring to us, so do you think we need to follow it? Tyr: In all honesty I dont think we need any universal. We have shown that bettering our means to do good is very important, but when you better all those means do you not better your own life as well? I feel just based on our reason and a natural sense of selfishness (whatever you want to call it, we all want to survive and thrive for the most part), we can come to those conclusions ourselves. Unfortunately, that doesnt seem to be the case. Sam: This is true. I have always felt that humans should be much more reasonable and able to figure things out like this themselves, but we are humans; we are all different in our own ways and we all have encounter our own situations and dilemmas in life. Not everyone understands these views or knows of them. Many people say morality is subjective, including yourself, because opinions and situations are so varied. People also say that because we have rationality and the ability to choose for ourselves that we should do so, and that is exactly what we do. We also use our logic and rationality to create guidelines to unsure better outcomes overall. People say it is unrealistic to use a universal morality in every situation and that is true, but it is also unrealistic

14 to denounce these systems as we do use them and create them to be used. Making better systems only helps guide us to better conclusions overall. Since we are so varied and so are circumstances, not everyone can choose or know what is best, so the need a guide. These moral universals are going to be used whether we think they should or not, so we might as well stick to what is realistic and improve upon the concepts we have and will use. Tyr: That is probably the best way to go about it, but as someone that can decide for himself, I will remain to have my own personal morality and not conform to any universals. This makes it subjective in practice, but I understand that trying to create universals can help a lot. Sam: As for myself, I will create my own morality too, since I can. But I will try to contribute to improving the already established beliefs people hold. However, I dont think any universal should have to be taken universally in order to be a good person. There are going to be times when we will need to do something bad and there are times when we will be lazy and not really do anything. One can be a good person without doing the best possible good at all times. They dont need to only have good intentions, only have good means and only bring about good results. There will always be bad or neutral to some of these. Even though I may skip a class or work, that doesnt mean I am bad just because this one time I am not bettering my means or the lives of others. Even the greatest of people need breaks from being good; it would be a very different world if everyone was good all the time. Since we dont live in that world and we dont exactly know what that world would be like, we dont have to be perfect. We can strive for perfection but rationally are any of us going to reach it in our lifetime? Tyr: Even if others said that trying to be perfect can help us move towards that perfection, I feel that is not very reasonable. It has been thousands of years and there is still a lot of evil and bad in humans, even with trying to be good and promote what is good. There is a long ways to go, and in the meantime I feel that we should be good in a way that suits ourselves and others. Immoral intentions have led to great things (think of the selfishness of discovering new things in science) and supposedly good intentions may not work out to be so good. This is the cold truth about our varied world; nothing is going to be as expected all the time. There are things we dont know and there are going to be things we are wrong about. Using a more realistic outlook of the outcomes in the real world we can base our own morality off of what is realistic rather than what is ideal. Sam: Exactly. Since it is very improbably for any person to be completely good, why shouldnt we accept that there will be bad and we will do bad? Bad can be seen just as something that isnt good as well. Is it bad for me to just relax and ignore morality from time to time, in order to enjoy myself and my life, like if I want to just sit back and listen to music and not do anything particularly productive? I dont think others would say that it is wrong of be, but it is definitely not in the form of good intentions+ good means + good results. It is a very

15 neutral action that doesnt really harm or improve anything (other than maybe decreasing stress, which can be seen as good, but others could also argue that I could relieve stress and do something good at the same time). Should I not do this then? Well even if some think I shouldnt because it is not perfectly good, doing good in every situation doesnt give me satisfaction. I have other things I like to do, and there are things that will better my life that wont necessarily be too good. If that something harms a lot of people then I wont do it, I wouldnt even be happy about it because it is so bad. But, if it is so insignificant that any effect on others could be said to hardly matter, then why not do it? Tyr: I agree, even though it may not be overly great, why does everything we do need to be justified as good when we can all be fairly certain that it wont be? One can still be an overall good person without caring about every other person equally, and committing every action and thought to a moral code of some sort. As long as we are reasonable, decent human beings things will go well. It may be better to block certain bad things, such as killing innocent people, but since our lives arent going to actually revolve around a universal code, we should live with that and just try our best given our circumstances. And if you dont want to try your best and you dont really care about being good, then you can still end up being good. Why? Because cooperating is usually better and more rational than harming each other. Plenty of immoral people can be selfish and not overly caring, and at the same time be seen as a good person, because they know that just because they can kill people and it is their moral decision, doesnt mean they are going to, want to or should (should in the sense that it is beneficial to themselves, as they will most likely be harshly punished). Someone doesnt have to be moral to appear moral and do good things. Lets say someone only does moral good to blend in and not seem weird because he is so apathetic and immoral. This person doesnt do anything bad because there is no reason to. They just live their lives and they help others just to not seem different, so is he bad? I wouldnt say so, I would even say he is good because everyone that knows him will think he is good and he is only helping others, so why wouldnt he be? Sam: Yeah, just because his intentions and means arent for good, he is only producing good outcomes in general, just like any moral person. He isnt as good as the moral person, however, he seems as though he is; like a high functioning sociopath. This makes it seem like moral outcomes are more important than the rest, but if someone has good intentions, but doesnt have the means to produce a good result, is that person bad? What if someone has no bad or good intentions and just lives in bettering themselves? They have all these great means, but no good intentions or results, are they bad? Tyr: Before you go any further I would like to say that the person with only good means would never produce only neutral results. If ones means are good, they will most likely either positively or negatively affect the world. Why is this? Well, do we lose our means after we use them once? When people become more skilled, rational, knowledgeable, intelligent, happier, empathetic, or any other means, they retain those means for the most part.

16 Someone with intelligence isnt going to be dumb after he answers a question, or figures out a problem, right? So when we improve our means, it affects every situation that calls upon that mean in the future. Intentions and outcomes are situational, but a good mean will still be good in the future. Is it realistic to say that whatever good means this person is improving will always turn out neutral? I would say not, as getting the right answer or just helping someone out is almost inevitable when you are a part of society and are improving your abilities (the good ones in this case). Sam: Yeah, I see nothing wrong with trying to better oneself without inhibiting others. If anything I would say if we were to better anything it would be best to better our means, rather than our intentions or results. Trying to find the best intentions and outcomes for any given situation is much harder than to just better yourself and your good means. This is because you end up increasing your ability to create good throughout your life rather than figuring out a specific outcome or focusing on just intending good things. This goes right in line with being certain about yourself and the world. The more certain you are in this respect, then the greater your means can be, and thus the better person you can be. Understanding the world allows one to interact with it and others in it, it allows us to increase our happiness, healthiness, knowledge, etc. Understanding yourself can allow you to maintain these good traits and know which ones are good. Tyr: If everyone just made themselves good and worked on themselves in that way, they would end up helping others and the world just through general participation that is required. Acting properly in society, being nice, helpful, generous, understanding, are all things that we do because they are rational and beneficial. A person primarily bettering their means will automatically develop traits of goodness in order to continue to improve. This isnt going to happen perfectly, but it is kind of the reality of the world. Who doesnt try to improve in some way, learn more, play an instrument better, get promoted, level up, or to progress in anything at all? This is a very natural and understandable thing to like, as it only betters our lives, and after millions of years of liking it, it may be an adapted trait. Being certain of things is like a feeling of having progressed. There is at least a relation, since if you progress in an experiment you can be more certain of specific results. If you progress in a video game you can be more certain of your ability and yourself. Sam: Unfortunately those arent always the uses of certainty. There are many people that are certain of some things when they be. Prophets being certain that they must sacrifice people to the Gods or a bad judge being certain of a false verdict; these both show that certainty will be wrong, this is obvious enough. However, we have the advantage of knowing what is better than these. We shouldnt start some cult and lie to a bunch of people, and make them believe everything you say. We shouldnt have bad education and authority systems that allow crooked or incompetent judges to exist. I feel we should leave out the effect of bad luck in this case just because that is going to be there whenever anyone looks at all possibilities of a situation. There shouldnt be a

17 golden rule to always follow your certainty or instincts, but rather a golden rule to always better oneself, in relation with the world and with the self. Tyr: I think that is the best way to be, along with supporting others and having the intention and motivation to be good to others. Even though I dont think its bad to not help others, it is most certainly more productive and rational on a global scale. The outliers of society, such as the philosophers that seclude themselves and are a little amoral or different than the majority, are a lot of the times very important to society. People that choose knowledge over society and others should not be looked down upon as being bad or immoral, but should be understood that there is another value there. Sam: Fortunately our society now does take into account these less social humans and they have become very revered. It is certainly nice to live in a logical society, one where advancement and betterment of humanity are the main focus, and not power or amusement. Tyr: While that is all well and true, can we not talk about how utopic its becoming, it is just so overdone. And I am getting pretty bored so I think Ill head home. Sam: Haha, no problem, I understand completely. Im getting tired myself, Ill talk to you later.

18 Tyr: Even after they recreated me to be as efficient as they are now, Fendyls older personality gives me this exhaustion, this apathy, this lack of satisfaction that brings this slight cynical depression. Even after eliminating genetic depression and its physical causes, people and I still feel depressed. Structurally I am the same as other androids and we are all basically the same as humans, with differences only in how bodily functions and systems are ran (we are slightly more efficient when it come s to waste). I wish I could be as joyous as Sam is. He is always so firm in his judgments and so certain. When I travelled into the future they were already there, waiting for me to arrive. It felt very odd for them to recognize me and seem to know me even though I couldnt have known them. It was predicted that my previously designed body from the past could transport to this time, but that was incorrect. Fortunately before I arrived in the future they knew that my artificial body wouldnt make it, so they had a newly constructed body, much nicer this time actually, waiting for me. There was quite a few researchers and testers surrounding me for a few days, but eventually I got to go out into the world. Sam was assigned to study me, but really he just talks to me, makes sure I understand the way the future is and leads me in the right directions for understanding the world. Given my personality being from the past, I have the longing for a humane world and a better one. It is fairly overwhelming living in such a world, and having a person such as Sam looking after me is just so surreal. And for some reason it conflicts with me at times. Those times are when its mentioned how great and utopian everything is. Sam tells me that is because it is a shock to my situational identity, creating a confliction in how I act to how the world is presented. This makes a lot of sense as Fendyls mind and self were in the making for decades in a world that was fairly segregated and not nearly as peaceful. He learned to cope with it by partially shutting it out, resenting it, trying to recreate it or better it and by being extra warm and caring to those who were on the same wavelength as him. Just thinking about it brings a nostalgic feeling even though I never actually lived his life. For this, Sams explanation was that memories are just a huge influence on what ones identity is. Everything is known by relation, and memories capture those relations by being imprinted as certain electrical surges in the brain between neurons. Though my personality conflicts with this time, I definitely feel good otherwise. There is so much information to learn, so many new and interesting things, and a lot of amazing people. It feels so weird to find only great people. Everyone is very intelligent, kind, calm, witty, enjoyable, and talkative for the most part. They all have very unique individualities, which is great because it gives a lot of variety to interactions. This new life is extraordinarily fresh, to the point that it will be so for a very long time. I am both happy and lost in this future, but overall it feels wondrous; it feels like being a child.

19