European civilisation has chosen its destroyer before the wall of dichotomy. The dichotomy is a wall, not a crossroads.
Right and Wrong exist especially when standards, rules and assumptions are defined. Does Right and Wrong exist for Nature? NO. We find it unfair that the kitten grabs the baby bird and plays with it until the dislocated body no longer shows signs of its own movement. When the unfortunate bird is dead, it is no longer interesting and is left to rot like any other object. The human being gets in the way, finding the kitten’s action extremely cruel. Human beings have developed empathy, which is an emotion extremely rooted in the survival instinct of our species.
Biologically, the ability to understand the suffering of another (human) being has ensured the multiplication of individuals and prevented extinction. A mother who helps another mother during childbirth, because she knows that the tribe will need vigorous forces in order to survive and because she has known the pain of childbirth, will guarantee a greater chance of passing on her DNA and with it education in those same values. So we instinctively perceive helping and coming forward with other human beings, or even animals, in times of need as Right.
This is Ethics.
Perfect.
The problem begins to arise when we leave the tribal state and enter the post-Roman city era: the high and then the low Middle Ages establish, through Christianity, a ritualising and legalising idea of Right and Wrong: morality. All this is then secularised by Kant himself.
That is, there are customs that are fairer than others, there are better and worse ways of behaving according to a certain legal judgement sometimes even trampling on that ethical principle of right because: Dura Lex sed Lex…
When one assumes that morally there is a right and a wrong, always and in any way, one is removing from reality that part of incomputability intrinsic to non-knowledge. This is not so much because right and wrong are not actually placed, but because one denies the alternative path not provided by the programmed dichotomy.
Party B says that Party A says wrong things, the code of conduct says to do so…, Yes to the electric car, No to diesel, Yes to renewables, No to Nuclear, Yes to de-industrialisation. No to inflation, Yes to sanctions against wrong states. Right-Wrong-Right-Wrong: reality becomes a dichotomous crossroads with no possibility of an alternative: 1 – 0, True-False, even a computer can do it. For the petty Christianity of the Church, there is always the right action and the wrong action that the system tells you is the word of God. All very simple. But then why does the kitten kill the bird when both are God’s creatures? Why do children die in wars?
Remember that we are by no means claiming that right and wrong exist 50/50, that a computer gives 50% True and 50% False answers. The sciences are based on clearer hypotheses and consequently can be based more firmly on Boolean logic, but the reality of the human-legal-strategic system cannot be based on the simple dichotomy: you do not play poker with your cards out.
European reality is based on the Right-Wrong dichotomy, the blaming of mistakes and the envy of others’ successes. An eye of Sauron pointing at the guilty one, the one who makes the mistake. Judgement coming from above like the executioner’s axe. A culture of protection from the judgement of others, of escape from the direct responsibility that is subject to that axe.
The wall of moral judgement is the time-wasting war of the poor that we will pay for with inflation.
So what? All this to say what? Let us summarise:
- Right and Wrong do not inherently exist in Nature but are a human construct.
- A construct that serves when the necessary hypotheses are posed: it is right to save a child because we empathise with the pain it may feel if it is injured. We consider it right on the basis of the preservation of our species. It is wrong not to punish severely those guilty of a heinous crime, given that we know the motives.
- Right and Wrong are useful concepts in science in terms of falsification and dialectics.
- Right and Wrong fall away when hypotheses are not properly posed and Right or Wrong becomes a process of purely ideological choice: it is right to put taxes on CO2, the green transition is right. This dichotomous wall implies that anything that is not one is the other but the reality is that systems, to be robust, must be based on multiple technologies and strategies covering multiple fields of application. Geopolitical scenarios can change rapidly and one cannot base the economy or energy resources on just one source, consequently there can be no net Right and Wrong on the use of strategically key technologies, there can NOT be a NO to nuclear power unless it is intent on the destruction of Europe. One must take responsibility for strategic choices and not hide behind the fear of being wrong and being guilty of ERROR.
- It is right not to define everything in terms of right and wrong alone. Complementarily, it is wrong to define everything in terms of right and wrong. Why? one might ask. The answer is simple, i.e. point 1, right and wrong are human and not natural concepts, consequently, the dichotomous approach is limiting of a broader reality (which precisely goes beyond the dichotomy) and it makes no ethical sense to limit oneself a priori.
It is clear to us that the process of Right and Wrong makes sense and does not make sense according to the assumptions that have been made. It is a form of Zen koan, very close to the idea that life, while incomputable, is ultimately digital, i.e.: in the infinite possibilities that arise, the action of making a decision, Yes or No, is to all intents and purposes a digital action, a crossroads. Not making a decision however corresponds to a Yes or a No.
It is Wrong the European hyper-normativism that, while trying to protect everyone, is instead stifling industrial and creative capacity.
It is Wrong to digitise everything especially without being the owner of the digitisation, i.e.: the public administration of a state, by digitising its services and using non-proprietary Operating Systems, passes the responsibility for the stability of its systems to a third party that can wash its hands of it without apologising.
It is wrong to believe in a green transition when there is clearly no phased economic-energy strategy to carry it out. There is only the regulatory framework that de facto creates an ideological green transition by setting dates without bothering to check the feasibility of what is regulated.
This is based on the assumption that Europe does not want to commit suicide, but precisely, Nature does not give a damn if Europe commits suicide. That if we ended up in a thermonuclear war and all life on earth was wiped out, Nature would continue. The black hole in the galaxy would continue to swallow matter, Jupiter’s Great Red Spot would continue to circle the planet, there would always be storms on the windy plains of Mars. The Sun would wipe out the Earth in a few billion years. However, as the humans that we are, we must not throw in the towel and surrender to inexorable and inexcusable Natural law or succumb under the legal bombs we have created ourselves.