"Morality derived from space colonization" defines as the highest "Good" the survival of humans in case of an eventual global Earth cataclysm. I believe that such goal (humanity preservation) is likely to be acceptable for many people, but why only by space colonization?
There are arguments that an event that could destroy human life on Earth is likely to happen. We don't need to go until Sun depletion, it is more likely that a big enough asteroid will fall in the next thousands of years. Even without this, life of Earth might be threatened by local events like nuclear accidents, major climate change (it happened before). Even destructive diseases might not be contained in a certain Earth region. If not this, we might also face resource depletion if the population continues to grow.
It seems reasonable that saving humanity from a global Earth cataclysm depends on... finding another planet capable to sustain human life. It is like in the saying "don't put all your eggs in the same basket". It is always good to have a backup plan.
But how can this define Morality and Ethics?
Utilitarian?
At first, "morality derived from space colonization" would seem to be an Utilitarian doctrine, because it aims to optimize a final goal: humanity preservation by space colonization. However, it differs from the classical Utilitarian doctrines because it is not concerned with optimizing happiness or welfare in this moment. With the final "Good" being so far in time, such morality will be more inclined toward universal values, determining an ethic that can be applied with good results over a long period of time. Therefore, such ethic has also a Kantian dimension.
Absolutist?
"Morality derived from space colonization" is not an absolute doctrine. Even if it defines an absolute Good in "humanity preservation by space colonization", it does not define the final Good. However, any final Good is likely to pass through this intermediate Good that is the "morality derived from space colonization", because if the Humanity would be destroyed there would not be any other "next Good" for humanity.
Practical ethic system?
If this form, "morality derived from space colonization" does not prescribe the specific ethical system that would optimize its goal. We must accept that we have limited understanding on the best approach that would optimize the path to such a far goal. However, we can use common sense and our judgement to determine what is the most likely path that drives us closer to our goal. For example assuring good education for kids will be likely to help this goal, but we can still debate which approach is best to assure such good education (free education, paid education). Some other things like religious fundamentalism are most likely bad in this sense, however we cannot totally exclude a possible good impact of some religious forms of social organization.
Metaphysical dimension?
There are arguments that an event that could destroy human life on Earth is likely to happen. We don't need to go until Sun depletion, it is more likely that a big enough asteroid will fall in the next thousands of years. Even without this, life of Earth might be threatened by local events like nuclear accidents, major climate change (it happened before). Even destructive diseases might not be contained in a certain Earth region. If not this, we might also face resource depletion if the population continues to grow.
It seems reasonable that saving humanity from a global Earth cataclysm depends on... finding another planet capable to sustain human life. It is like in the saying "don't put all your eggs in the same basket". It is always good to have a backup plan.
But how can this define Morality and Ethics?
Utilitarian?
At first, "morality derived from space colonization" would seem to be an Utilitarian doctrine, because it aims to optimize a final goal: humanity preservation by space colonization. However, it differs from the classical Utilitarian doctrines because it is not concerned with optimizing happiness or welfare in this moment. With the final "Good" being so far in time, such morality will be more inclined toward universal values, determining an ethic that can be applied with good results over a long period of time. Therefore, such ethic has also a Kantian dimension.
Absolutist?
"Morality derived from space colonization" is not an absolute doctrine. Even if it defines an absolute Good in "humanity preservation by space colonization", it does not define the final Good. However, any final Good is likely to pass through this intermediate Good that is the "morality derived from space colonization", because if the Humanity would be destroyed there would not be any other "next Good" for humanity.
Practical ethic system?
If this form, "morality derived from space colonization" does not prescribe the specific ethical system that would optimize its goal. We must accept that we have limited understanding on the best approach that would optimize the path to such a far goal. However, we can use common sense and our judgement to determine what is the most likely path that drives us closer to our goal. For example assuring good education for kids will be likely to help this goal, but we can still debate which approach is best to assure such good education (free education, paid education). Some other things like religious fundamentalism are most likely bad in this sense, however we cannot totally exclude a possible good impact of some religious forms of social organization.
Conservator or progressive?
Attending such goal as "humanity preservation by space colonization" is both conservative and progressive. It is progressive in the sense that it aims for a new status quo and requires re-thinking of many current traditions. It is conservative in the first place because it tries to conserve the humanity and its core culture. However, it is not only that. We might evaluate that proven-by-time methods are better in some areas than untested and possibly dangerous experiments. "Morality derived from space colonization" does not prescribe the optimal approach for economical and social organizations, however it can give insights on how to balance it best. For example, extreme conservative approach is not acceptable because it would not provide progress fast enough, while some progressive social experiments might be too dangerous for the social cohesion that is needed for the "humanity preservation by space colonization".
Metaphysical dimension?
"Morality derived from space colonization" does not attempt to have an elaborate view about the nature of reality. It starts from a very simple intuition that seems to be enough for deriving the rest: "There must be a meaning in the existence of human life, otherwise anything we do would be meaningless, including any counter-argument". The only meaningful bet is to bet on the fact that human life has a meaning, and this meaning will only exist while human life is preserved.
Based on this argument, it simpli postulates that "being" is better than "not being", without trying to prove this. It also has a brief cosmology that is based on common science knowledge: we live on a planet from many, and from time to time meteorites falls from the sky, without being any limit on how big they are. Even if human would not be responsible for climate change, we already know about previous ice ages, we can expect big changes also in the future.
See also:
Dear reader, please leave a message if you exist! ;)
Also, please share this article if you find it interesting. Thank you.
Life after death
While this doctrine is mainly based on science, it has a concept of "eternal life" that might be partially compatible with religious beliefs.
It is a bit easier to first define the absolute Death for a human, that is the destruction of any remaining trace of his existence in Universe. When all his human relatives would cease to exist and there is not even a conscience to reflect any remaining object from humans, I think this is the absolute Death for any human. The Hell is not filled with fire and cries, it is even more frightening: the empty void without any conscience and meaning.
Life after death is the opposite of the absolute Death. As long as there a trace of a certain human existence in Humanity, he is not completely dead. His "soul" is information, and his information is shared with his siblings, actually with any human, even with plants. It is not only the genetic information, I think it is even more important to consider the cultural trace of a human, his impact in the future Humanity. "Morality derived from space colonization" recognizes such "life after death", that is however not guarantied to last forever. The hope is that any human can live forever through Humanity.
As long as Humanity endures, each human will have a footprint in the Life that endures. It is like in the expression "living through your good deeds". Some people might be able to claim a brighter footprint from the future Life.
While this doctrine is mainly based on science, it has a concept of "eternal life" that might be partially compatible with religious beliefs.
It is a bit easier to first define the absolute Death for a human, that is the destruction of any remaining trace of his existence in Universe. When all his human relatives would cease to exist and there is not even a conscience to reflect any remaining object from humans, I think this is the absolute Death for any human. The Hell is not filled with fire and cries, it is even more frightening: the empty void without any conscience and meaning.
Life after death is the opposite of the absolute Death. As long as there a trace of a certain human existence in Humanity, he is not completely dead. His "soul" is information, and his information is shared with his siblings, actually with any human, even with plants. It is not only the genetic information, I think it is even more important to consider the cultural trace of a human, his impact in the future Humanity. "Morality derived from space colonization" recognizes such "life after death", that is however not guarantied to last forever. The hope is that any human can live forever through Humanity.
As long as Humanity endures, each human will have a footprint in the Life that endures. It is like in the expression "living through your good deeds". Some people might be able to claim a brighter footprint from the future Life.
See also:
Comments