Thursday, October 2, 2014

The Error of the Adam & Eve Ethic, ed.

          Below, by “physics-based ethics” I mean, for example, it is unethical to continuously strive to fit a rigid square peg into a rigid round hole of conflicting diameter. On the soft side, love can overcome everything but religion. Humankind deliberately pursues the ethics of physics, but many people do not participate--do not benefit during their lifetime.
          The Bible seems to posit a snake is responsible for presupposing the knowledge of life, which only a god should know. The snake informs a couple about having sex, causing the fall of humankind. The false assumptions are that both making love and understanding reality are bad and invoke punishments from a god. The civic punishments are female pains of childbirth and enslavement to care, male enslavement to a family, and the snake’s suffrage of hate. But there's also a supernatural punishment: Humankind is doomed to death, but each person may receive a glorious afterdeath through atonement for the error. But personal atonement is not necessary, because Jesus bore the punishment, and each human can receive restoration to a glorious afterdeath by accepting Jesus's' sacrifice. This construct is not disproved by discovered physics.
          Right or wrong, I opine that I was conceived in an act of love: There was no error.
          The human physics of procreation was used to construct a false ethic in literature that was chosen to construct the Bible. However, human monogamists at any time in history had the potential (awareness and ability to think) to understand that they must preserve the autonomy of their partner and cultivate mutual cooperation. Once cooperative autonomy is established, a couple may share with progeny. Psychologically mature motives can be attained merely by considering the other persons in the interrelationship called family.
          The first step toward partnering is mutual consideration followed by mutual attraction, which, if fulfilling, is followed by psychological bonding. Successful bonding leads to both mutual preservation of personal autonomy then two independent wills to make love, or to partner. Heterosexual partners who are fertile and make love might procreate. When procreation occurs, the partners become a couple with respect to the child and share their love with their progeny. Also, the couple appreciates their progeny’s autonomy, and the progeny may learn cooperative autonomy from the couple’s example.
          If either member of the couple detaches from the child, the ethics of physics was breached, probably before the detachment occurred. Children who never experienced heterosexual cooperative autonomy are likely to become egocentric, subject to detachment disorder. Cooperative autonomy, like all character traits cannot be taught by exhortation: it comes from thoughtful experience and example. People who procreate without respect for the autonomy of the child have breached physics-based ethics. Successful cultivation of physics-based ethics leads to a successful civic culture or a people who accommodate each other’s pursuits of the liberty each person perceives in domestic goodwill. In other words, a civic people relieve the tension between personal liberty and domestic goodwill.
          When humans are influenced by an erroneous culture, they must rely on their own goodness--cooperative autonomy--to guide them through the unknowns to the knowable. In this case, the human bond that fulfills physics-based ethics is monogamy for life in cooperative autonomy. When the bond is between heterosexuals who procreate, cooperative autonomy is shared with the progeny. Appreciation of personal autonomy extends to the children to be born. A civic people do all they can to provide a culture that defends the child’s autonomy until the child is on its path toward psychological maturity. People who take on a brave new path, such as same-sex parenting--are risking physics-based ethics.
          Make no mistake, I write what I think, not claiming it is the objective truth. I am in my eighth decade of living in continuing earnest study: my fifth decade of monogamy; with progeny beginning their fifth decades of living. My motive is to help reduce actual misery by candidly confronting cultural error I perceive and wish to discuss, perhaps to facilitate mutual accommodation through compromise. I do not wish to discourage anyone from their personal path toward psychological maturity.  If I knew the objective truth, I would not be constrained to write opinion.

These thoughts came to me while responding to a post by Mr. Alexander Light,, regarding a perhaps coded idea by Isaac Newton: “Grind the stones so there is no beginning nor end and it will give you the snakes that will show you the steps that you must climb.” I commented on October 2, 2014 after posting this more studied essay. I hope Mr. Light responds to my explanation, because I have a concept from Ralph Waldo Emerson that seems parallel to Newton’s thoughts, which I wish to share for Mr. Light’s consideration and comments. 
With no more than his website title, my thought is: humans are free to appreciate each other’s personal autonomy or not. In other words, to enjoy domestic goodwill, a civic person grants each civic person civic liberty.

Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this essay as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Revised July 25, 2015.