The Problem of Evil

Morality in an impartial, meaningless universe

People have written lengthy tomes on this subject, and yet, here we are. Despite all the effort throughout the history, there is no universal consensus whether morality is a given, a fixed set of rules originating somewhere beyond physical universe, or just a figment of human imagination and a relativistic social construct.

The argument goes something like this.

One camp, predominantly theistic, claims that morality, and thus also the category of good, comes from (what we call) God, and it hinges on an inherent meaning ensuing from said God’s intent. Hence this group of people raves against theory of evolution, Modern Synthesis, and, in extreme cases, against science as such. Simply because there must be some “higher power” behind universe infusing it with intentionality, meaning, and fixed moral paradigms.

The opposing camp, almost exclusively atheistic, then claims that, since observation and experiments suggest absence of any intent in universe to the point of certainty, there cannot be any talk of a “higher power”, no God-mind pondering meanings, hence good and evil are just relative anthropocentric categories as is also morality itself.

However, this problem, when put in such a way, is a false dichotomy which originates in the sad fact that neither of those groups has a clue about the nature of consciousness. From a different point of view, both camps are partially correct. Only the justifications of the first group is pure, undiluted bullshit based on blind faith in imaginary concepts, while the deductions of the second group are a fatal flaw of logic stemming from jumping to conclusions which is based on ignorance and lack of complete understanding of the whole picture.

At this point, it would be fitting to explain why science is correct. However, if you cannot accept theory of evolution or its descendant, Modern Synthesis (but also the latest theories that build upon it and incorporate epiphenomena, emergence, etc.), in short the enormous mountain of work that was done in fields of physics, chemistry, and biology, I suggest you go back to elementary school and start with the basics before you embarrass yourself in public.

So, without further ado, let me explain how it all works.

As we know first hand, we experience pleasure and pain. We run away from the latter toward the former, labeling them good and bad respectively. Subsequently, we label causes of both either virtuous or evil. But as science and also in-depth self-observation tell us, pleasure and pain are simply sensations. Neither of them is good, bad, virtuous, evil, or whatever adjective you assign to them. If anything, they are merely desirable or not.

Experiences also tell us that effects have causes. Even though, as far as I’m aware, there are, indeed, some speculations about acausality, on the macro level, causality is a nonnegotiable fact. Causal nature of nature (or karma if you will) is undeniable. After all, you cannot argue about effects of a gentle touch and a violent punch respectively. Maybe you can debate some details and personal preferences, but certainly not the overall effects.

Ta-da, enter consciousness. That is, subject of all experiences.

Upon close inspection, you will see that consciousness, or subjective experience, is the same across the board. That is, although people are different, their sense of a unitary subject is identical. Pain and pleasure are perceived in the same way by all humans. And you can certainly also add animals, to an extent also plants. No doubt that flavors of experience, their thresholds, personal preferences and responses vary, but the fact of perception alone is uniform.

Thus it is clear that what we call morality is not relative but causal. A simple yet elegant law embedded into the very fabric of nature and not a dictate from some all-powerful disembodied entity, even if you call such entity (or even mode of existence) by fancy nebulous names like “ground of being.” It’s merely an ever present graceful rule that emerges from an impartial, dare I say omnibenevolent, universe where literally anything goes.

But as with everything, there is a catch to it.

If you don’t take said causal moral rules into account, you will be like a ship in a stormy sea without a rudder. You will be just tossed by circumstances of your life left and right, up and down. It’s only natural that you will not only see no meaning (which in fact is, indeed, just a human fabrication), but nothing will make sense either. Sense, after all, comes only from self-realization.

And to find out who you are, you must create suitable environment for yourself first. After all, it’s pretty hard to delve deep into your psyche when people are chasing you because you killed their relatives, you robbed them, or because you must invest your energy into inventing evermore elaborate ways to hide your lies. You get the point.

Of course, you can still opt for a journey that makes no sense at all, one full of unnecessary despair and vain hope. After all, anything truly goes in this universe. But if you want a “fixed point” to anchor you, if you want a rudder to navigate your life, you must know yourself.

Thus, before self-realization, you follow the moral guidelines in order to have peace of mind conductive to self-realization, and after self-realization, you follow the moral guidelines because you know that everything happens to the same identical subject.

Naturally, a question arises. What to do if someone points a gun at you just because they can? Well, if you ask me, I would probably try to talk myself out of the predicament or, depending on the circumstances, run. If that was not possible, I would try to disarm and pacify the person. And if that was a no-go, I might end up killing the aggressor. With all the causal implications. Whether I can appreciate them or not. It goes without saying, I might also get killed in the process. Well, and however poor solace you may consider it to be, that would at least absolve me as a human individual from eventually becoming a killer and carrying the burden of the deed (the causal effects would, sadly, be already put in action by my killer).

Now it should be also clear why all religions, that, if they are not simply a scam, are nothing more but hijacked ways of self-realization (see how e.g. that Jesus person accused Jewish priests and theologians of holding the keys to kingdom of freedom, but neither letting others to enter nor entering themselves), contain rather strict dos and don’ts. It also sheds some light on why tribal folks with intuitive knowledge of that very natural causality don’t treat hunting as a sport, and are thankful, almost reverent, toward the game they hunted down.

In any case, and as I love to say — don’t believe me and test it all for yourself.

But if you refuse, and have no intent to look into the microscope, at least don’t complain. And certainly have the courtesy to refrain from convincing the world that there are no bacteria.

Or don’t, and suffer the consequences.