This paper operates on several presuppositions, the most practical of which is summarized by "Man is an animal who thinks" which was first notably quoted by the Roman L.A. Seneca over two thousand years ago. I assume that humanity fits neatly into the biological structure of natural life, and as such everything about us including our complex consciousness, can be understood through this lense. I assume that "theology" and "faith" as they are known throughout the world, are created, stimulated, and justified by direct reference to the natural world, such that either 1) "faith" is created out of nature, or 2) nature is created out of "faith." I further believe that morality is created in direct relation to the laws of nature. For the purpose of connecting nature/science and religion ambiguously together as they should be, I will join "faith" and "pure-science" by referencing the "forces of nature" elsewhere in this document. I assume that life's truly "inherent" value is only dictated by the forces and orders of nature such as they are, and that morality is thus inherent by its relation to nature.

"Love is a dirty trick played on us to achieve the continuation of the species." -- W. Somerset Maugham, 1874-1965

     I assume that humanity varies from other forms of life only in terms of physical and anatomical organization. I assume that humanity's evolution was only allowed by the forces of nature as a result of 1) chance and 2) Darwinism. As a result of these assumptions, I presuppose that the differences between humanity and most other forms of life are limited to two things (both of which interrelated): 1) humanity has some of the most complicated social behavior of all things living, and 2), humanity has the capacity for a very acute form of self-consciousness. With these assumptions in mind, I will attempt to build a web which will encompass most of human's preoccupations (both moral and amoral) such as they are, and define them in relation to these suppositions.

     It is believed that there may be many millions of species of animal and insect which contribute very little (or nothing) to their ecosystem except a supply of food. From this perspective, it becomes possible to understand how death is bluntly required by the cycles of life and nature. There are creatures whose instinctual goals (and thus values) to survive and reproduce are justified by the forces of nature only as far as their instinct to survive stimulates a food source for other forms of life. From a strictly biological perspective, the creature's desire to live is contradicted by the usefulness of the creature to their ecosystem. This is a contradiction such that if the creature were to be able to protect itself from being killed it would damage the ecosystem by removing a food source for other animals, and would likewise disrupt the ecosystem, possibly engandering other animals indirectly. If this were to be amplified, other creatures, which supply things other than food for their ecosystems, would be candidates to replace that food source, which would further affect the ecosystem. From this development comes the inherent entropy of living and life-cycles. Humans, as we are, do have the ability to ward off death, and not surprizingly, we are destroying ecosystems, and creating a new range of hybrid dangers (like wide-scale disease). We justify our survival by two means, 1) a sense of value (inherent or not) in ourselves, and 2) self-preservation instinct (both of which are interrelated).

     I hold that the only inherent justification for humanity's existence over other creatures is the human ability to perceive and do good (morality). Outside of this, the justification can come from the arbitrarity of pure Darwinism (represented by self-preservation instinct), which in this case states its "survival of the fittest" law. This is not inherent justification, as the purest actualization of this law does not require that an animal be the fittest, and only that it has the ability to survive above others. For example, a human being with a sub-machine gun can stop many attempts to end its life, and do so at the expense of other organisms. This ability to survive through using an automated weapon would make the gun "fittest," as the aptitude of the person's physical/social/survival skills are somewhat irrelevent: a complete idiot can use a gun. There is a sense in which you could from this suppose that as "mother nature" allowed us to exist through Darwinism, we are justified in acting out on our instinct to survive to the utmost. To this I can simply say: we our surviving in the short-term, but in the long-term our progress is dim. I do believe that this second justification is valid, but I see that it requires a second piece in order to solidify the ideology which defines how it will survive most effectively, and not simply a "no holds barred" attitude. I presuppose here a respect for nature is fundamentally useful for enabling the survival of a species created out of it, and without this respect, our ability to survive singularly is errored by the technology we can wield, such that we survive moreso singularly than as a genetically-strong species. Mother nature's laws have worked in the past (survial of the genetically most-fit) because no animal could transcend the system and balance it had established until now. The laws of mother nature do not logically dictate "every being for themselves" as this logic (when used by humans) can justify the destruction of mother nature, and nature is not an entropic system. It is dynamically evolutionary (promotes positive genetic changes), and promotes the balance of ecosystems. However, we have transcended the system, allowing the laws of nature to be used against it. From a respect for nature, comes morality and the birth of humanity's justification for supremacy and control.

     Binary or "dualistic" relationship are the simplist "complex" relationships (relationships involving more than one variable). An obvious example of which is "yes or no" and "right or wrong" thinking. Speaking morally and amorally, this dualism basely summarizes the order and structure of behavior. To qualify, it has been commonly argued that "black or white" thinking is to be avoided. I must here stress that human understanding is both twisted and inherently inefficient at sorting data. This expression of "black or white" is not meant to denounce "right or wrong" thinking, as indeed the person who suggested against "black or white" thinking must have believed their position had validity (and was therefore "right" or "correct" thinking). I hold that this expression was designed to bring to light the errored nature of our understanding such that what is being recommended is not a argument against simple thinking, but is an arguement against "oversimplification," which implies a lack of clarity regarding the totality of a matter. This lack of clarity can likewise be caused by "undersimplification" in which issues are made more complex than they naturally are. I hold that decision-making, and conclusion-forming in regards to this issue of clarity are tasks which fundamentally are ordered around a "right or wrong" sense of determination, and hense an idealism based around dualism. Our ability to error-check our conclusions (which is what brings about the expression of "black or white"), and to see varying probabilities (or "shades of grey") rather than "0% or 100%," greatly aids in the application and refinement of information. I hold that thinking, when simplified, can be ordered into a list of "suppositions" that, regardless of independent strength (in terms of truth), are melded together to form broader conclusions. It is this complexity, and our inherent ability to get caught up in it, that enables the necessity of "objective thinking" and cautiousness towards "oversimplification." This complexity, as I have labeled it, represents the second of humanity's two defined unique qualities. It is also this complexity which allows our consciousness to exist in its "active" state, as our ability to consistently perceive either ourselves or our world is flawed by our limited perception and processing skills. Therefore, our "active" consciousness is literally caught in the maze that is the mind, as we selectively walk through our memories and experiences.

     In the previous paragraph, I make reference to both oversimplification and overcomplication, which suggests a necessary system of logic for the self-determination of truth which can greatly vary its focus. Ideally, this system would "narrow" the focus appropriately, but would have a range of focus for checking logic at different levels of complexity. This complexity, and its range of focus, is what makes humanity somewhat transcendant over other animals in a strictly Darwinistic sense. We have more ability than most animals to organize and refine data, and so we can protect ourselves very well by pooling resources, forming systems, and building social/ideological structures. Inherently, humans have a highly adaptive consciousness. From this ability comes our sense of complex self-awareness, and subsequently, our sense of moral judgement (as derived from nature through our empathy/introspection).

     I hold that Darwinism has allowed the creation of moral judgement through the advancement of "higher thinking" which aids in instinctual self-preservation. Moral judgement gives a basis for the advancement of our instincts such that it transcends the value and worth of instinctual self-preservation instinct. Our moral sense is definitely born out of our self-preservation instinct but it has, from its broad focus, been able to understand how we have an obligation to the forces of nature which created us, just as we have an obligation to the forces of our own narrow instincts. In this sense, our instincts are outmoted as total justifications for action because of the intervention of morality. Thus, by denouncing the value of morality, a person is able to do anything to meet the demands of their survival instincts. I argue that this is flawed, as it leads inherently to the early death of the individual, and is therefore not really appealing even to instinct, which fundamentally is designed to stimulate life. However, this sense of moral value also can lead us to an early death, as it draws us towards sacrificing our own comfort for the common "good." This is why matrydom is not considered wholly irrational: a sense of moral responsibility has the ability to justify actions over our self-preservation instinct. "Value" as it is perceived transcends instinct, as I believe it tends to link the forces of nature into a whole, which we play a part in, and therefore we take orders from something much larger than our own instincts (which are given to us by the "whole" of mother nature). Our role in society/life is thus decided by reference to something larger than the self, whose judgement is only known to us by understanding how our environment works. It is possible to debase this "broader thinking" by claiming it was created somehow arbitrarily, or without any "inherent value" attached to it (other than the value we place in it), but I hold that as nature stimulated our sense of morality, and how it is established in direct reference to it (which I attempt to prove in another paper), our sense of moral value is justified as being given priority over purely "animalistic" instincts.      I hold that persons who see no value in nature do not clearly understand how "moral behavior" is stimulated by our instincts/reason and how "mother nature" commands our servitude to her through our sense of empathy. Whether this is a ploy or not by "mother nature" (and would therefore be an arbitrary source of value) is irrelevent to those who would wish to denounce value (like the existentialists) because their sense of value (or non-value, as the case may be)is certainly more arbitrary than nature, as nature is consistent throughout itself, and its processes can be generalized and understood as a whole. I think the real problem with "nature's value" is that those who seek "real value" in life wish to see it justified by "god," but I claim that you can understand the forces of nature as "god," and that indeed this is what world religions point to. The only difference is that often religions place a human-like being at the head of the universe, without which, some believe all value is arbitrary. Here I can only suggest that people require this knowledge not to justify value, but to feel safe (that is, to deny the fears of death, and to justify life).

     Some see our moral sense as inherently flawed. I suggest that we are inherently flawed in general, but that the teachings of "nature" are well defined by its own laws, and that as our moral sense is structured around the forces of nature, it is our failure to interpret it that causes our "moral failure." Our confusion regarding its empathy, understanding, or meaning, is our own confusion. Even those who wish to abandon logic want to believe they see the truth of the universe when they say "there is no value in the universe," and therefore, they use one part of the senses given to us by nature, but not others. Others claim to uphold anarchy, as they embrace their inability to understand the universe, often by claiming it cannot be understood. This is a logical fallacy, as history has shown that a person's inability to understand something does not indicate it is false. Further, a lack of understanding regarding an issue disproves the credibility of the source. So, unless logic and rationality are to be entirely denounced, morality and value must be tested and sought after. I claim that the only method for the determination of morality comes from reference to nature, and that our moral sense is stimulated out of our ability to perceive systems larger than ourselves.