Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jack Brannigan
iUniverse, Inc.
New York Lincoln Shanghai
The Purpose of Life
& the General Theory of Ethics
iUniverse
2021 Pine Lake Road, Suite 100
Lincoln, NE 68512
www.iuniverse.com
1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)
vii
viii The Purpose of Life
ix
Prologue: Philosophical
Engineering
1
2 The Purpose of Life
2. More than a century ago, Karl Marx pointed out that “religion is the
opiate of masses.” Marx’s comments were only about the numbing
influence of religious thinking, pacifying the masses and holding them
back from rising up against their oppressors, not about the overall
impact on human progress and evolution.
3. It is outside of the scope of this book to show this trend. Although, it
is obvious if one simply examines the depth of religions’ influence on
various societies and the social welfare and education levels in those
societies. For example, one can consider countries such as Pakistan,
Brazil, Spain, the United States, Germany, and Norway to investigate
the trend across the globe or simply consider various societies within
a country (such as the situation in various states in the United States
such as Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas, Indiana, and Maine).
4 The Purpose of Life
5
6 The Purpose of Life
7
8 The Purpose of Life
EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS
The second important step is the observation of the prevailing and
dominant phenomenon since the beginning of time, the Evolution-
ary Process.1 The Evolutionary Process encompasses all subprocesses
(for example, the evolutionary process on Earth), which are respon-
sible for all changes in our universe, from the seemingly random
physical changes in the early universe to the more systematic
changes observed on earth. Here is a very brief report of our inter-
pretation of the history of the Evolutionary Process:
Based on our observations and understanding, the universe at
very early stages in its birth, right after the Big Bang, consisted
of elementary particles (for example, quarks, electrons, leptons,
photons, and neutrinos) that were combined to build more
complex particles (protons and neutrons) that later evolved to
form the nuclei of all atoms. Neutral atoms were formed as
electrons linked up with hydrogen and helium nuclei. As the
universe cooled down, stars and galaxies were born. The Sun,
the Earth, and other planets in our solar system were born in
the Milky Way galaxy.[6] On Earth, simple molecules were
formed, followed by the formation of macroorganic polymers
and the formation of microscopic living cells and so on.2[7] (To
view an illustrative timeline of the history of the universe, visit
www.PBS.org.[8])
Here are some critical facts about the Evolutionary Process
based on our observations:
Before diving into the discussion of ethics and the morality assess-
ment, it is worthwhile to discuss the purpose of the Evolutionary
Process here, as the discussion and conclusions on the purpose of
the Evolutionary Process will assist in making and comprehending
the arguments on ethics and the morality assessment.
Professor Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene[12]
writes, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil
and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Professor Dawkins, one of the most respected evolutionary biolo-
gists of our time, like some other scientists and philosophers,
implies that, because we have no evidence that evolution has a pur-
pose, we must then conclude evolution has no purpose.
These sorts of arguments are as erroneous as arguments that
claim the existence of things1 without any valid evidence for their
existence. Let me show you why this is the case:
Many theoretical physicists like Copernicus and Einstein, who
possessed extraordinary imagination, ascertained theories that
could not be proven right or wrong with experimentation or
observation using the apparatus available at the time. Only
years later were scientists able to validate these theories using
16
The Purpose of the Evolutionary Process 17
Einstein made claims, such as the universe being static4 (that is, it
does not expand or contract), which were later found to be false.
I have no idea about the purpose of the Evolutionary Process
(and have not come across any valid arguments and conclusions by
others) and have no direct evidence it has a purpose at all. However,
based on everything we know and have experienced, every process
we know of has an initiator and serves a purpose. So, although I
have no evidence the Evolutionary Process has a purpose, my own
intuitive disposition is that it must have a purpose. Furthermore, I
believe an initiator must have initiated the Evolutionary Process.
We may call the initiator God or preferably the Creator, so it is not
confused by the concept of God envisioned by the Judeo-Christian-
Islamic theologians. (Note that, to examine the purpose of life and
to derive the theory of ethics, I do not assume the Evolutionary Pro-
cess has a purpose or that Creator exists, so no critical conclusions
are drawn from my intuitive dispositions.)
In addition, the universe might be indifferent to humans, as
Richard Dawkins claims, but will it be indifferent to humans (or
species that evolve from us) sixty thousand or sixty million years
from now? Currently, we have a very narrow view of our origin,
position, and role in the universe. Partially this is because, until
recently, we had a very poor picture of our distant past and partially
because we have great difficulty imagining ourselves in the distant
future. Having calendars that date back only to 2,000 or 5,000 years
ago has significantly contributed to our misconception of our ori-
1. From here on, to simplify the language, instead of stating the com-
plete description of the purpose of life as stated previously, I only state
“participate and contribute”…without noting “to build more com-
plex structures.”
21
22 The Purpose of Life
2. I will discuss later that, from this concept, we cannot argue and con-
clude that whatever brings us happiness must be moral.
3. I will discuss the morality of suicide in a later chapter.
The General Theory of Ethics 23
quences in this life or after this life.4 This will lead to the free-rider
problem, that is, the problem of having people who take a free ride
on others’ work, knowing or assuming they can get away with it.
These people are capable of distinguishing between right and
wrong, yet they knowingly make the wrong choices. On the other
hand, people who unknowingly contribute to the free-rider problem
are not free riders. They are ignorant. It is critical we distinguish the
two groups, as they require different treatment and solutions.
Fyodor Dostoevsky highlights the free-rider problem in his
famous work The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky writes, “If there
is no God, then every action is lawful.” And, because every action,
such as murder, can’t possibly be lawful, he suggests the need for
God and religions as the only means to enforce moral values, that is,
to eliminate the free-rider problem. This is of course not true. The
emergence of consciousness and freedom has led to the need for
moral values, as discussed before. In turn, the need for moral values
has led to the need for social laws. Ultimately, social laws that
enforce serious consequences when moral values are not followed
are the best way to eliminate the free-rider problem. The free-rider
problem is very serious and can spread quickly. If it is spread suffi-
ciently enough, it can halt our evolution totally.
The free-rider problem is a natural consequence of the emer-
gence of consciousness. If we are enabled to make choices, we are
doomed to make some wrong or suboptimum choices (that is,
choices that derail us from our purpose or choices that align us with
our purpose less optimally than the optimum choices). Of course,
just because the free-rider problem is a natural consequence, that
does not make it a favorable phenomenon. As we know well, not all
natural phenomena are favorable. For example, an earthquake, vol-
4. Here, I have not suggested there are no consequences after this life,
although there certainly is no evidence there are any consequences. I
am definitely not an advocate of this idea.
24 The Purpose of Life
are perfectly aligned with the purpose of life, although they are not
propagating their own genes, which are not necessarily superior to
the genes of the orphans.
Morality Assessment
Process
All normal1 humans have a notion of good and bad. After all, why
shouldn’t we? If the Evolutionary Process equipped us with con-
sciousness in order to enhance the feedback aspects of the process in
us, it must have equipped us with some internal sense to enable us
to use our consciousness properly. (It is because of this obvious
sense in us that some philosophers such as David Hume have pro-
posed that morality is a matter of emotion.[18]) In extreme cases,
such as killing an innocent man, our intuitive notion of good and
bad is unambiguous. Hence, the vast majority of normal humans
globally agree on the goodness or badness of actions in these
extreme cases. On the other hand, our intuitive sense is useless to
assess the morality of nonextreme actions such as drinking a moder-
ate amount of wine, moderate smoking, and the like. For this rea-
son, there is no global agreement about the morality of these
actions, which consequently leads to moral dilemmas. Additionally,
our intuitive notion of good and bad is not a useful reference point
28
Morality Assessment Process 29
2. One may object I have merely replaced the concept of God with the
Evolutionary Process. This is a welcome criticism. The Evolutionary
Process can be observed and explored continuously, and valid conclu-
sions can be derived from our observations and analyses. This is quite
contrary to the concept of God…about which we do not have the
vaguest idea.
Appendix
71
72 The Purpose of Life
75
76 The Purpose of Life