The Fundamental Principle Of This Moral Code -- Survival

Source Comments by Karl Loren

The comments on this page are my own, but I do not at all pretend the inspiration was original with me. In fact, much of the writing on these hundreds of pages is also MINE, except where I am quoting someone else. These words are MINE, but well inspired by the author of the Book I want to send you at no charge.

So, remember, these are my ideas, not his. They are my understanding of his fundamental principle for the propounding of the moral code in the book.

This moral code is built on the fundamental principle of survival. Put more usefully, the principle is maximum survival, or even better, infinite survival.

"Survival" means, apparently, just to "live." But, there must also be some time component here.

To live, or survive, for one day is not very good compared to living, or surviving, for ten years.

When you take that logic to its conclusion, obviously, you get "infinite survive" as the goal, even though it may not be achieved.

Browning Photo There is nothing wrong with a goal that cannot be reached. In fact, it would be a poor goal for a moral code to have something that could be achieved in a few years. What guides you beyond such a period.

The poet, Robert Browning, penned the famous words:

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for? ...

Maximum Survival means, loosely, to "live forever." That is, infinite survival would be living forever.

"Living" or "being alive" is a fairly objective term. We seem to know the difference between one who is dead and one who is alive.

We handle sickness, easily, by saying that a person who survives 90 years in perfect health has survived far MORE (as well as better) than a person who survives (stays alive) for 90 years, while mostly sick.

We can even say that a person who survives 90 years and is almost always happy is better off, has survived MORE (as well as better) than a person who lives for 90 years, mostly unhappy.

So, the first thing to know about survival is that this is quite objective and physical.

I am talking of the physical body. The mind certainly comes into that, but this moral code has no great need for defining or understanding the "mind."

The body is made up of flesh and bones, organs and fluids. There are hormones and cells. They all play a part in helping one to survive.

We know, of course, that immortality is not available. This moral code makes no such claim. We are destined to die at some point. But, even while we know we will die, our fundamental reason for living is to live. Everything else we think is true? They may well also be true, but living on, aiming at infinite survival, that is the goal.

Let me be more specific.

If JUST ONE of your cells, in your toe, dies before its natural contribution to your well-being, you have survived that much less. So, survival of "YOU" certainly includes survival of every cell, every part of your body.

You will survive better if you eat the "right" food. We may differ some on what "right" food is, but it does not include concrete and probably includes Green Beans? So, part of our moral code should be "Eat Right" because if a moral code is going to enhance survival then it should govern every conceivable part of survival. Eating right is an important part of survival, thus this moral code DOES include a part that says, "Eat right."

There shouldn't be much argument, either, that drinking a couple quarts of booze every day is probably not healthy, and will probably lessen your survival. But, you may well think that one small glass of red wine is healthy for you. Well, this moral code suggests that you should use alcohol only in moderation. What is moderation? The code doesn't say that. That is up to you. This is a moral code that does NOT give rigid rules -- it gives you general principles.

In olden days the Jews ate no pork. That was a wise "law" then, but not now. The moral code which I offer you has no such rigid rules, but it does have important principles. Some of them have to do with food, sleep and taking care of your teeth.

You can see that most people would survive better if they took care of their bodies -- that they have a moral duty to themselves (and their loved ones) to do just that.

It is, thus, immoral to refuse to eat good food, and to drink too much booze, or take harmful drugs. How about meat? The code should not and does not deal with that. That is up to science and you to find the truth of "what is good food." We cannot escape the necessity for humans, scientists, to research, study, publish, and even to disagree. But the moral code must include some concept of honesty and truthfulness in this research.

But, survival goes quite a bit further than just your own body.

You will, as an individual, survive better if your children survive. You may not have children (yet), but life is pretty much rigged so that most people have children, whether they are married or not. It is unusual for some male to NOT father a child, or some female to NOT birth a baby.

So, your survival is enhanced when your children's survival is better. Why? Well, one trivial reason may be that children often see a duty to help and honor their parents. When you are helped, your survival is enhanced.

The guy next door? He steals your furniture. Your survival is harmed. The guy next door? You are a bit ill and he brings of chicken soup. Your survival is helped, not just because of the chicken soup, but because a neighbor cared to help.

So, your survival depends, then, on your children -- by extension you can see that it depends on your neighbors, parents and friends. Any of them who die early, or get sick, or whatever bad may happen? That problem affects you in at least some way.

You might say, well, I am an independent island unto myself. If my kid dies, it doesn't affect me. I don't think most people would agree with that.

But, you might be more firm and say, "Well, if the guy in the next town get sick, that doesn't affect me."

Yes it does. This concept of survival is large in scope and suggests that YOUR survival DOES depend on many others -- in fact, if you extend this logically, your survival is affected by the survival of every other living being.

This concept suggests that you will survive better when "he" survives better.

That's not too hard to accept is it?

After all, a moral code is not something built on a principle that applies only between now and next Tuesday. A good moral code should be based on a fundamental principle that stretches on into a long, very long future.

The world is rather a barbarism just now, with man killing man. These killings, each of them, adversely affect YOUR survival, but maybe for now some of these are necessary to enhance your survival. The bad guy? If he is bad enough perhaps he belongs in prison? or dead?

The Bible says, "Do not kill." That is not a useful moral code. We go to war, now and then. There may well be people who think "war is evil," but the majority often conclude that some enemy needs to be dead. According to the Bible, it would be a sin to "kill." According to THIS moral code the concept is "do not murder." "Murder" is a term defined by governments. They can make mistakes, but then who is to correct them, other than us?? What devout person would save the life of a mad dog terrorizing the neighborhood? What person would (or should) fail to protect his spouse from harm if he or she could, even by taking the life of another? Yes, there are a few of those who might die rather than defend themselves. I just suggest that they, thereby, harm far more than themselves, and thus themselves do harm, even as the criminal does harm.

So, this moral code is written for the golden age as well as for next Tuesday. In that Golden Age, we hope, there will be no killing and no bad guys! Why not, there is no reason to aim small.

So, this fundamental principle of existence suggests that your own survival depends, no matter how slightly, on the survival of every other being on the planet.

If that is true, than the moral code had better give us some instruction on how to treat every other being on the planet. In other words, we DO have a moral obligation to the guy 3000 miles away.

If we treat the distant guy badly, it DOES adversely affect us. You may not think that is very real --- YET! But, as we get more and more moral, then these distant beings become more obviously part of our intimate survival.

But, there is much more.

You have a dog. The dog is a faithful friend. He never complains. He brings you comfort. In fact, he enhances your survival. You want HIM to survive too, even if only for the selfish reason that his survival enhances yours. Of course there may still be a time when the dog needs to be put down. A sad day. But, that has to be allowed in the code. Not that the code covers this, specifically, but as said, here and there, on this page, morals are a balance of how much help and how much harm to the survival of all by some action.

Infinite survival does not meant that people do not die!

You can see where this is going.

There sure are a lot of animals around, aren't there?

Do the trees help you? Of course. It is more obvious when you think of corn and apples. If they all die, a piece of us dies too. So, your personal survival depends, at least in small part, on the good survival of all the animals and all living things on this planet.

You do have to balance the continuing survival of one entity with others. A mad dog? One with rabies? He is chasing loose in the neighborhood. Your survival is far better when he is killed. Perhaps the dog catcher could "catch" him? But that sounds like "killing" him in some place where you can't see him.

So, survival does not mean that every living thing should live forever. But, we all try, every living entity on the planet (and other planets?) tries to live forever. Not to worry that we don't make it. It is a goal, nonetheless. Perhaps we'll find a way, through religion, to do even this?

No, you have to balance the value of continued living with the value of dieing, or destruction.

My own mother-in-law was kept "alive" as a semi-vegetable long past the time when even she wanted to die. She finally died.

Her life was a great enhancement to the survival of her daughter, my wife, and me. But, her continue "existence" as a living vegetable, on balance, would have harmed more than it helped.

The farmer wants to survive. So, he plants enough wheat seeds to produce 100 bushels of wheat in one year. Maybe that is enough, but maybe it is not enough. By the time the bugs and income tax get their share, and the miller charges for grinding, and a couple droughts come along, 100 bushels may not be very much survival for him. He may need to plant enough to have 500 bushels each year, and find a way to store some for times of famine. Even if some goes to waste, a few hundred wasted bushels are better for his survival then starving to death.

So, survival not only has a very wide range of people, animals and plants --- around the globe, but it is to be measure in abundance. You do not survive well with a bare necessity.

How do you survive better? Well, by eating the right food.

There is obviously far, far more to this. Somewhere in the equation there has to be factored in whether or not the computer enhances survival, generally. If so, there then has to be further factored in an economic system that produces goods and services, world-wide, that all enhance survival.

There even has to be figured out just what is a "harmful" drug. And, somewhere in this path toward survival there has to be a police force, and a government, and laws, and all of these need to prevent or remove those things which are harmful to survival and encourage those things that are helpful to survival.

There is yet an entirely other dimension to all this. It should be clear now that your survival depends on the survival of your neighbor. Yes? But, for how long into the future should you be interested in HIS survival. You can certainly say that you don't much care about him 50 years from now, when you, yourself are 65.

Not true.

Infinite survival means, also, survival of every helpful force into the future, as long as that continue living contributes more help than harm to society and the worlds. An old person who cannot feed himself, cannot talk? On balance, that person may no longer be contributing to the survival of others, but detracting from it. Fortunately, our bodies are not immortal, and medical science has not worked much to keep this living vegetables still breathing. I'm not saying that even puzzle, every question has an easy answer, but the easy part of all this is that you must realize that every living thing on this planet, man, animals, plants (and even rocks if you will) must enhance survival of all the rest by MORE than their continued existence would harm all of those.

The sinking ship? Life boats not enough for all the passengers? There could well be a complicated puzzle on who should live, who should abandon a boat in favor of another -- many complications. But, the principle is still easy, even if every answer is not.

A moral code that can do all this? That would be quite a code. I think this one does it, handily!

There is "technology" on how to grow better wheat, build better computers, figure out what is the right food -- all of this technology requires that someone, including you, have a good ability to detect the truth about things, and base your actions on truth. We have many false ideas currently abounding -- then harm survival, even while there are those who assert these technologies help.

Each of us has, as a moral duty, to seek the truth and learn how to detect false data, and to find others who can do this for them in areas which are too complex for each person to do.

Survival depends, then, on helping the truth-seekers and shunning those who do not speak the truth.

Infinite survival may not be practical for a person who is "only" a body made of flesh and bones, but survival would not be complete without some acknowledgement of spiritual factors too. This book does not get into those at all, but does recognize that they exist and must be, for each person, made a part of his own survival.

So, do not look to this book for religious concepts of "salvation" into heaven, or any such. They may well be extremely important to you, and to everyone, but do look to this book for how we emerge from a state of barbarism to a world without crime and inhumanity -- to a world where man can, as he wishes (or not) find God and heaven.

Karl Loren

This is the Karl Loren Happiness On Line Web Site Karl Promises To Answer Any Personal Message, Personally.