The Inevitable Dossier
23 February, 2020
Server time: 23:42
The Dossier
Download it now!
Download statistics
Page hit statistics
Old statistics
Online reading
Corner Banner
Support / Donate
The Inevitable 'I'
Google Ads

10. Appendix (10.1.6-)

10.1.6    Doubt, Blame, Might, Nature, Nurture and Moral Judgements

‘Doubt’ is compatible with Inevitability Theory. You might say, "The argument for Inevitability Theory is convincing but I still have my doubts. Free  Will might exist". Doubt is only a reaction of the brain to a subject on which less than 100% of the information to make a certain prediction is known or an option taken by the brain even when 100% is known. If you had sufficient information on the Theory and on what is called free will you would, if you wanted to be, be certain of the existence or non-existence of either. This certainty of prediction supports Inevitability Theory. A doubting man aware of Inevitability Theory might well decide to continue with a Christian or Hindu belief but this would be part of the Inevitability and predictable. The brain’s reaction to a doubt is to allow for it as a risk or influencing factor in deciding on a particular course of action, whether it is buying a shirt or choosing to accept a religion but the doubt itself is part of the inevitable pattern and only a movement of electrons in the brain.

Regarding ‘Blame’, we do not know if animals feel it; they probably do, as they do most other emotions, in an elementary form and some in an advanced form - for example, a dog’s sense of fun. Blame perhaps first became apparent in humans when Cave Man blamed himself under extreme emotional pressure, for example if his children died from his negligent act. Incidentally, civilisation inevitably and simply began when he stopped hitting his neighbour in order to marry-off the kids when they started to hit him. Blame, based on ill-defined concepts of right and wrong, now governs society, religious or otherwise, but represents no evidence against Inevitability Theory. In the ritual allocation of blame by moralists it is popular to debate whether particular behavioural patterns result from genetic inheritance or from environmental factors without admitting that ‘nature and nurture’ are part of the same whole. Only superficially is the moralist making a valid differentiation. If you took 100 boys at birth and brought them up with a duty to hate and kill wolves and, separately, another 100 boys to love and protect wolves then you could reasonably assume the first 100 would kill more than the second 100. To the moralist, this would be a case where nurture was the dominant factor over nature and the wolf-killing boys from the first 100 would be let-off, if killing wolves was a crime. What is the moral judgement if the second 100 boys  kill the first 100 boys to protect wolves or the first 100 kill the second 100 so they can kill more wolves?. If you extend this argument it is morally OK for them all to kill each other but you then take over the tricky moral problem of who would have proved the more successful in their holy duties - the killers or the protectors? The existence of all the boys and their genetic construction in fact resulted from inevitable occurrences in the total environment. The trainer, whom he trained to do what and the presence of the moralist and his conclusions were all inevitable and part of the same total environment. Nurture is shorter term and more apparent than nature, which helps the moralist pontificate, but in fact they are both parts of the same whole. To differentiate requires acceptance of the unproved existence of abstract morality. Similar cases arise in the judgement of behaviour of people brought up in hard circumstances compared with those who have had easy lives. The point is that when morality is logically analysed it rarely accords with the facts of the situation, whereas Inevitability Theory always and inevitably does and where it does not it is inevitable that it should not have done so.

When examining the careers of famous men it is often debated to what extent their success is due to innate ability or to luck. Again, superficially, a valid differentiation because it is considering processes within their brains compared with the influence of external factors. However, their brains and the external factors are actually proceeding together in one total, inevitable pattern, being two parts of one whole. It is like debating whether a car broke down because of a faulty engine or a faulty gearbox. The differentiation is a reasonable one but they were both parts of the same car and, like nature and nurture, not operating in separate systems independently of each other.

Consider the confused human reactions to the illogicalities of sincerity and insincerity. There are schools of thought that regard crimes as less heinous if the perpetrators believe they are doing right. There are others that will pillory people for expressing a belief, however sincerely held, if it offends the majority or those in power. There are so many illogicalities in the definitions of sin and right and wrong by religious and other authorities and such confusion reigns that it can be rationalised only by accepting that the universe is a random system proceeding inevitably.

Take the examples of moral differences and judgements: Arabs and Jews, Albanians and Serbs, Northern and Southern Irish. Each insists on the overwhelming correctness of their cause and argues it as if they were totally right and their opponents totally wrong, yet it is clear that almost always both sides have equally valid but irreconcilable cases. Consider how major war criminals brought to trial are always from the losing side. Consider how someone yielding to great provocation or temptation is condemned, whereas his neighbour, who would also have committed the crime in the same circumstances, lives free. Consider the millions who have rushed into battle crying, "God is on our side" in situations where the enemy has been able to taunt, "Then why are you losing?" All these examples - there are 1000’s more - are situations where events, over which the individual has no control, often traceable back for centuries, predominantly decide in advance the fate of individuals or groups. Religions have had thousands of years to resolve the problems but they have proved unresponsive to abstract morality. It is more reasonable to deduce that the events and peoples’ reactions to situations follow an inevitable pattern not involving free will and abstract morality.

Moralists debate man’s behaviour in relation to only mammals, forgetting other species, and whether animals and man have what moralists call ‘souls’. The situation according to Inevitability Theory is that some parts and processes in the human brain have more complicated software than animal brains but that both species proceed on inevitable paths. Inevitability Theory does not say because the decision and outcome are inevitable there is no point in being kind to either men or animals or in taking other moral decisions. It says only that your decision is inevitable, whether it is to be kind or to be cruel. A man whose sons have been eaten by dogs is more conditioned to be cruel to dogs than one whose sons have been rescued by them and someone whose sons have been neither eaten nor rescued by dogs will probably be somewhere in the middle. You will decide in the way you are programmed to decide and there is nothing you can do about it. That being the case, why not decide to be kind to dogs, unless your sons have been eaten by them, even though your decision and its outcome and this record of the imagined situation (which, in terms of atoms and molecules is no less real than a real situation) and your reading or not reading of it, are all inevitable, whether your sons have been eaten by dogs or not?

Take the example of the computer playing chess against the Grand Master. There is general agreement that during the game its play results simply from programmed soulless movements without free will of electrons in its circuits. Some claim a soul and free will exist in the man who programmed it. Inevitability Theory maintains that both concepts are only movements of electrons in an advanced computer called a brain. Given a million years, or even perhaps only twenty, is it too difficult to imagine a computer being programmed to make moral judgements which, if examined by a committee of clergy, could be judged to be superior to those of most human brains, especially primitive peoples’, presented with the same moral dilemmas? It could certainly do it faster. It is equally possible a computer could hold more balanced information on cases, precedents etc. than politically influenced Law Lords and produce ‘fairer’ judgements. Note that the judgements, if any, of the Law Lords are just as inevitable as those of the computer and not necessarily the same. Anyway, what will happen is inevitable. Inevitability Theory is not directed at proving the brain is like a computer. It just happens to be convenient to use the comparison between the two to illustrate the Theory - both process information through complex machines. Argument over the brain/computer comparison is likely to detract from the real point, namely that 100% inevitability and 100% predictability are universal and apply as much to creases in shirts and to life on a coral reef as to brains and computers.


Google Translator
Inevitable Ads
Today 's Top 20
 87 % United States
 5 % Romania
 3 % Russian Federation
 3 % Spain
 3 % Thailand
Amazon Ads

© 2020 The Inevitable Dossier