Ethical Principles explained by Mathematical Logic Pt5

5.1. Universality
In the previous chapters, various mathematical logics are introduced in order to explain various ethical theories. Their views are in conflict with the others by means of their unique different way of verification process of their logical formulae. The ancient and medieval philosophers affirm that the experienced reality and rationally derived knowledge at the present situation are truths. Locke and both classical and modern liberalists influenced by him insist that there is a possibility and a complexity which are not yet experienced but will be true at some point. Kantian and various modern ethical theorists claim for an absolute universal ethical principle which ultimately defines the validity of any ethical formulae regardless of present existences, already accumulated experiences and knowledge, and the controversy about possibility and complexity.
On the other hand, there is a fundamental similarity among these already introduced ethical theoretical logical analyses and their principles. Despite their conflicting perspectives, all of them assume that all human individuals are supposed to share the identical world view and there ought to be a universal standard of the objective principle for self-verification processes for all these logics. This aspect traps all the thinkers into the dogma of the ethical principle not being able to understand the others and condemn their opposing or unknown ideas and phenomena by accusing them as error, illogical, and illegitimate.



The trouble of these philosophers is that they assume their ethical logics are resemblance to mathematical formulae, and the critical point is that ethical logics and principles are not mathematics. Mathematical logics merely exist in the world of mathematics where mathematical axiom. Logics derived in mathematics can maintain their logical universality verified by a universally accepted valid universal principle called axiom.

The universality of logics depends on the universality of principle, and mathematics prevails to be universal because individuals applying mathematics admit mathematical axiom and rules based on it as the universal principle. By contrast, unlike mathematics which has an axiom defining validity of its logics by self-evaluation and defining contradiction, logic itself does not have an objective measurement for valid self-evaluation and valid definition of contradiction like mathematical axiom.

5.2. World view A
Their problem is that there are still many humans living without understanding their ethical theories and logical composition. Although their ethical theory might be able to lead the world to a utopia by convincing majority individuals of their logics and principle, it will take almost an eternally long time period and effort to transform both individuals and the world. The fundamental challenge is how to define who is more logical more the others.



There is no such an existence as an illogical human individual! As long as the consciousness of individuals remains, they always derive their thoughts and actions by means of their own way of logical construction based on their own logical principle. The validity of logic and its principle are justified by means of how an individual perceive their world as.

In mathematics, the validity depends on its principle called mathematical axiom which is shared among those who apply mathematics. In ethics, human individuals do not share the same universal principle for all their actions and thoughts in their daily life even though they are living in an identical cultural, ethnic, geographic, and political back ground. Validity of reality, possibility, complexity, and anything imaginable things and ideas depends on how an individual images and believes how the world is formed and functions, and then this principle should be called the world view.

The world view is not only based on their experience and knowledge. Memories of experiences are always subjectively modified by an individual with their own interpretation, prejudice, and faith. Information forming knowledge is passed onto the others is never perfectly passed because there is always an inevitable obstacle such as language barrier, memory lapse, false understanding, and anything spontaneously occurring external noise disrupting an information transmission. The vilification of these experiences and knowledge is thus determined by the capacity of an individual perceiving and understanding their living world.

5.3. World view B



The reason why the others criticise thoughts and actions of this particular individual as illogical is because the logic of this individual is just different from their standard. When some individual cannot be rational to understand what the others insist on, there is no vilification process of the logics provided by these others so that these logics are automatically contradicted in this individual’s mind.

Furthermore, there are individuals who tend to derive some unfamiliar answer for an action and a thought which can sound ridiculous or even odious and suspicious for the others. Then, the others will question or contradict this individual’s logic, but here is no absolute answer for evaluate this logic. There can be some new discovery of ideas in this unfamiliar logic. Even if it is not productive enough to be accepted by the other majority, this unfamiliar logic can be helping this particular individual to live in the life by believing it.

The matter is not about whether one’s word view is logical/right or illogical/wrong/deluded: It is about whether an individual would like to accept and share the world view of the others. As long as human individuals are humans, there is always something shared among their world views because human beings are naturally social as Aristotle said. So, it is impossible not to share some part of the world view together. Nevertheless, at the same time, it is impossible to share the entire world view together due to the aforementioned description.

Therefore, human individuals need to cohabit together by understanding each other to the certain extent while accepting the difference among them. Yet, individuals ought to have a right to say some other is wrong when their actions and thoughts do not sound either right or even plausible by means of their world view.

When it comes to the conflict due to the differences in the world view, the feasible option is not trying to convincing them by a hard logical talk. Many moral universalists argue that individuals may have talks to negotiate each other to derive their peaceful optimum solution. However, this tends to rather perpetuate an argument of conflict by justifying which side is right. In these occasions, it is often common that both sides of conflict do not share the core world view for solving this conflict so there is no objective measurement mediating their argument.

For example, someone may say a particular green coloured objective looks blueish whilst the other may say it looks yellowish green. This can depend on their optical ability and characteristic of individuals, the concepts taught in their cultural they are brought up, the light strength and angle touching this object in this environment.

It can be a showing off how a better life i.e. a happier life one individual enjoys. It should not be right or wrong/deluded to justify one’s choice because there is no absolute universal principle determining the ethical principle. It should rather be one’s happiness to determine the validity of ethics. As long as the others do not invade one individual’s happiness, it is none of one’s business to interfere to the others’ life choice. Then, it is more likely to avoid any unnecessary conflict with each other.

5.4. World view C
There is a trend of unconditionally trusting natural science, and it should be warned. It does not mean to defy natural science meanwhile unconditionally trusting it does not open the horizon of human individuals’ knowledge and wisdom of understanding the world. Although those who support progressive modern secularism defy dogmatism of traditional religion and exotic superstitions, they simply seem to have just replaced them with a new dogmatic belief in modern science. It is also critical to acknowledge that natural science does not enable human individuals to perfectly perceive and understand the entire natural world characteristics.



Like ethical theories introduced last chapters, scientific theory is interpret by human individuals, and the principle of scientific theory is not guaranteed to match with the principle of how the natural world is constructed. The natural world was created something far superior to humans, and there are still undiscovered mysteries of the natural world whose existence unimaginable. Therefore, it is still unreachable for human individuals to discover the way to even estimate the unimaginable undiscovered feature of the natural world.

In order to understand the others, it requires understanding the world view of the others, which should be called the fundamental principle of their construction of mind. In order to fully understand how the natural world is constructed, then it inevitably requires understanding the fundamental principle of how the natural world of this universe is constructed. Nonetheless, the life span of human individuals is extraordinarily small compared to the life of this universe.

If this becomes possible for one human individual by understanding the fundamental principle of forming the natural world of this universe, this individual will become a perfect being who is now able to understand and apply the universal principle of this world, individuals and various creatures, and their mind. This individual will then be able to analyse characteristics and problems of these existences in this world like solving mathematical formulae by understanding axiom, the universal principle of mathematics. Such an individual should no longer be called human-being; this should be possibly called God.

It looks like an instinct of human individuals to pursue knowledge of the world and their own existence and right guidance of their life choice. At the same time, they tend to falsely assume that they have understood the right principle which is universally valid across all individuals and their living environments. This tends to induce an unnecessary conflict among them and falsely provide some individuals with an exceeding privilege whilst others with an unfortunate misery.
It is important to recognise it is hypocritical to assume having understood the universal principle and one’s world view is universal. Concurrently, it is important to continue interacting with various other unique human individuals, atmosphere, and concepts to open one’s own world view to improve one’s life.
It is ultimately incapable for one individual to understand the fundamental principle of the world like God. On the other hand, pursuing experiences, knowledge, and spiritual enlightenments will lead an individual to perceive a bigger part of the world construction, and this can be an extraordinarily tiny step toward the creator of the existence of individuals and their world who shall be God.