The following is An Essay on Morals from The Apes of Eden - The Age of Thinkers by Jon P. Gunn. The Age of Thinkers is Book 5 of The Apes of Eden Saga. Books 1 to 3 are published as The Journey Begins. Book 4 is published as The House of Solomon. Book 5 - The Age of Thinkers is upcoming.
The Apes of Eden is about a tribe of killer apes 20,000 years in the future who leave Eden in search of God. It is written in Iambic Pentameter, specifically Heroic Couplets.
I am the publisher of the manuscript I received 30 years ago from a Navy friend.
If interested, please visit apesofeden.com
Please review, make comments and share with others. I feel that The Apes of Eden is a special book that will find a place among the Great Books.
An Essay on Morals
You should have heard our thinkers go the rounds
on Ethics and its theologic grounds,
in scholarly, and bitter, verbal strife
about what constitutes the Moral Life.
The three most urgent questions on our list
were, first and foremost, Does a God exist?
and second, Can we Free Volition find
in mechanistic functions of the mind?
but all the toughest arguments we had
concerned What constituted Good and Bad.
One area where no two apes agree
is that of Ethics, or Morality.
The question, What ought one to do? was found
to be an issue we could kick around
as long as tempers held, and never make
the slightest headway, nor a deadlock break .
We wracked our brains for centuries on end
to figure out: On what does Good depend-
on Pleasure, Duty, Harmony or Love,
the Will of God, or none of the above?
Is Good a mere contingent quality
which apes can only sense subjectively;
or does a thing itself have what one could
call an “inherent” or “objective” Good?
An object’s “value” isn’t evident
objectively to any great extent
unless it shines or glitters, and displays
its trinket-value in objective ways;
yet one persistent habit in the Tribe
is “value” to dead objects to ascribe.
Philosophy had been, till then, concerned
with what (if anything) the Tribe had learned
about the Nature of Reality
with special focus on theology.
Regrettably, however hard we tried
to stick to this, the subject ramified.
The reason for the sidetrack was that creeds
then current, came to stress the worth of deeds
as well as True Belief, to save one’s soul.
Defining “worth” became the thinkers’ goal
because our preachers always disagreed
about which moral tenets one should heed.
They had to clash, in order to protect
the unique purity of every sect;
so sages had to figure out the Good
and True and Beautiful, or no one could.
Besides, our writers on philosophy
found definitions a necessity,
and therefore had the expertise one needs
not found among adherents of the creeds.
Such terms as “right” and “good,” when loosely used
made Reasoning grow tangled and confused.
No accusation made a scholar squirm
like that of having “not defined a term”
in his exhaustive monograph, involved
with every question hitherto unsolved,
so that, instead of winning just applause,
his work was merely laughed at for its flaws.
Though Good and Bad are told apart with ease,
one gets entangled in priorities
in any case of which it’s fair to say
it’s neither Black nor White, but murky gray.
Moreover, to predict the end result
of good and evil deeds, is difficult;
and sometimes Righteous Acts are later found
with Evil Consequences to abound.
The problem is that “benefit” derives
from leading somewhat less-than-moral lives.
The fact that chiselers oftentimes succeed
in life, while honest apes end up in need
has been a source of disillusionment
since ancient times, for apes of good intent.
Not only that, but Adverse Fortune could
pass over scoundrels and assail the good—
another case of seeming Cosmic Flaws
that made us wonder whether Nature’s Laws
(the ones alleged to prove that God exists)
were fabrications by our theorists.
The question was inevitably raised
of whether “morals” had been misappraised
so that the “good” and “bad” we apes believed
we saw in objects, we’d ourselves conceived;
and whether certain of the rules we had
for differentiating Good from Bad
were either false, or poorly understood.
So thinkers reexamined what was “good”
and found the problem thorny. Some opined
that “good” could scarcely even be defined,
and that they’d all be very much surprised
it anyone could get it analyzed.
The terms are various. Key words are “good”
and “value.” Common verbs are “ought” and “should”
–though these are quickly redefined to give
their definitions through some adjective:
We “ought” to do what’s “good” or “right” to do,
and “should” as tantamount to “ought” construe.
Both verbs to “obligation” are resolved,
so Value Judgments always get involved
before the circumspect philosopher
to anything objective can refer.
The omnipresent danger is, in these,
that they’ll reduce to Circularities.
Though Up and Down we readily define
by reference to a mason’s weighted line,
our Good and Evil commonly relate
to Should and Shouldn’t–so they circulate,
since “should” and “ought” must be in turn defined
with “values”–products of the thinker’s mind.
The frequency with which this has occurred
in treatises on Ethics, is absurd.
These “value words,” although it may seem odd,
confuse the Thinking Ape, but not the clod.
A moron knows by Instinct what they mean;
but they’re in subtle applications seen,
where terminology must be precise
and brainless Intuition won’t suffice.
The “value” of a pound of beans or tea
is not the “value” of Morality.
The “value” of a poem isn’t quite
the same as that of some religious rite.
All these are “good,” but good in ways where we
cannot define the similarity.
The first in coins or trade-goods is defined;
the second use describes a turn of mind;
the third uplifts one’s soul, esthetically;
the fourth helps apes commune with Deity
or puts some deep Religious Truth across
for which, with words alone, we’re at a loss.
The axiologist must now confirm
that there’s a general meaning for the term.
So much for “Good” as generality;
our present topic is Morality.
Although simplistic Moral Codes abound,
in each some ambiguities are found,
allowing apes of Pharisaic mind
the faults of others, not themselves, to find.
Most answers to the question, What to do?
are merely slogans: “To thyself be true,”
or "Drown thy woes in revelry and song,”
or "Cherish what is Right, and shun what’s Wrong”
or “Do as law and custom tell you to,”
or “Do as you’d have others do to you.”
One cannot live by shibboleths like these
without a system of Priorities;
and any way the problem is attacked
this is exactly what the slogans lacked .
Pursuing Right and Shunning Wrong is fine,
until your rights and wrongs conflict with mine;
and then confusion reigns. Our Moral Rights
are frequent grounds for arguments and fights
wherein each party is completely sure
his rationale is virtuous and pure.
That’s why a thinker I shall later cite
insists that mindless Force defines what’s “right”
–for reasons even Killer Apes should see
holds little water, philosophically.
A conflict does more harm than good, if it
results in no one’s real benefit.
Both “A” and “B” are righteous. Both mean well.
Mere lack of common rights and wrongs compel
their “Last Resort” to strife which neither chose,
and turned good neighbors into mortal foes.
“A” perished; “B” survived. Each had to fight
in brave defense of what he knew was Right-
both justified in their conflicting needs
according to their private moral creeds.
Suppose that “A” was right, and “B” was not.
The issue’s settled, but what have we got?
Each fought for what he knew was Just and True,
but “A” lies dead, while “B” is black and blue
and gloats about his well-won Moral Wreath
while limping homeward, counting broken teeth.
This is a Moral Situation, and
a case we have to try to understand:
Has Evil really triumphed; or has "B”’s
mistake been punished with his injuries?
Is “A” rewarded–since we know he must
have taken solace, ere he bit the dust,
in knowing that, by cosmic standards, he,
and not his foe, deserved the victory?
Was “B” rewarded for his being wrong?
Does God assist the evil and the strong,
or will “B” suffer for his past mistakes
in future quarrels that he undertakes?
Now let’s suppose that “B” was in the right
by some objective canon. Can we quite
condone his carrying to such extremes
what he as moral Truth and Justice deems,
or did he, at some juncture in the brawl,
surpass his moral duty’s righteous call
and let his Instincts–being what they are-
supplant Pure Ethics, as his Guiding Star?
If so, should tribal sanctions be applied,
since by his hand a fellow ape has died;
or does his being in the Right outweigh
his having done more harm than good, that day?
If not, then can his aches and fractures be
a fair reward for Rightful Victory
in quarrels which should never have occurred?
Some common Standard would have been preferred,
not only from a Cosmic point of view
but for our tribal strength and welfare, too.
Our tribal code was written to prevent
such loss of life through “moral accident.”
The moral implication is, of course,
that Wrong can oftentimes prevail, by force;
and Deity, with Wisdom Infinite,
will seldom deign to get involved in it.
So combat, most philosophers agree,
while settling quarrels, holds no guarantee
that he whose fists and fortunes win the fight
is–in perspective–either wrong or right.
An Essay on Morals (concluded)
Although our tribal code is full of flaws,
we benefit from arbitrary laws;
so here’s another Guiding Light for you:
“Do just as law and custom tell you to!”
Though stupid laws will do more good than none,
few apes agreed that all was said and done,
once laws were made. We felt that Nature owed
the Tribe a Universal Moral Code.
But what is “right” or “good” has much to do
with idiosyncratic points of view.
“One tribesman’s meat’s another’s poison,” and
“What’s sauce for geese may not be sauce for gand
ers.” Moral thinkers floundered all around,
but couldn’t get their feet on solid ground.
A scribe sees “value” in a piece of stone
beyond the “innate good” of rock alone:
A slab of rock–a bulky nuisance to
the ploughboy–may be “valuable” to you
for being tablet-shaped, with the exact
dimensions you may need to write a tract.
A stone upon the path is “neutral”–though
it turns Malicious when you stub your toe.
If Strength is not our standard, might Success
in Life extract us from this sophic mess?
The theory is that God rewards the good
by helping them obtain their livelihood;
which indicates, when all is said and done,
that God decrees: “Look out for Number One!”
The “Social Darwinism” this implies
sounds better to the rich than to the wise,
reminding us of several clear cut flaws
in “social orders” based on teeth and claws.
We toil and scheme, and each of us derives
the most we can from our respective lives.
Some apes are spendthrift, others try to save;
but all end up with nothing, in the grave.
When apes have everything on earth they need
yet keep on striving, this is known as “greed.”
If other apes, who are content with less,
avoid the rat-race, that’s called "shiftlessness.”
Since Greed and Sloth are both immoral, may
we seek perfection in the Middle Way?
Few recommend that course; the Golden Mean
as lukewarm “wishy-washiness” is seen.
It’s evident that any course we take
impresses others as a Big Mistake.
“Good” sometimes fluctuates. Such “goods” as foods
depend on evanescent attitudes,
appearing “better” as one breaks a fast
than after stuffing down a rich repast.
Some “good" is not inherent, we conclude,
but stems from one’s subjective attitude.
Does every “good” and “evil” therefore rise
from how it’s viewed through someone’s biased eyes,
like Left and Right, which, if regarded from
new viewpoints, their own opposites become?
This last was very quickly seen to be
a problem in epistemology:
Do flowers which “inherently” are blue
appear to someone else of different hue?-
a question leading someone to remark
that nothing’s any color in the dark.
If nothing’s good or bad inherently
unless some ape perceives its quality,
do falling rocks, or thunder, make no sound
if no one who can hear them is around?
Yet this Subjectivistic Ethic seems
preposterous, if carried to extremes:
Sound sleep is obviously Good, although
until the sleeper wakes, he doesn’t know
if he’s enjoying it or not. Therefore
it’s “unperceived,” unless he starts to snore.
Might God become an "evil” to despise
if apes did not perceive Him otherwise?
This is absurd, but has to be agreed
if good and evil from ourselves proceed.
We’re driven to conclude Inherent Good
exists, if it’s correctly understood;
and variations in our attitude
prove only that our Value Sense is crude.
We strove by application of the mind
to make our apperceptions more refined;
but all our efforts, as it now appears,
were stymied for another thousand years.
A dozen inconsistencies arise
from stating that The Good in pleasure lies-
the classic Hedonistic point of view.
It seems, intuitively, to be true
that Good brings pleasure and that Bad brings pain;
yet problematic instances remain.
Enjoyment comes in many different ways–
from food, possessions, health, and others’ praise.
It comes and goes as slyly as an elf,
as indefinable as “good” itself.
An altruistic ape, for instance, may
take more delight in giving things away
than in obtaining them; so some believe
“It better is to give than to receive;”
while egocentric apes are merely bored
when told that “Virtue is its own reward.”
Another Snag arises when we find
that tribesmen with a certain turn of mind
enjoy the feeling of disliking things–
no other sentiment such pleasure brings.
No precious gem exists, by which they’re awed;
it’s either ostentatious, or it’s flawed.
The fellow tribesmen whom they most despise
are those who have no faults to criticize.
Although no pleasure pleases them a bit,
they do take pleasure in disliking it.
Our scribes and poets praise the heroes bold
who lived and fought and died in days of old;
and storytellers fervidly describe
how ancient heroes glorified the Tribe.
Their deeds must surely be accounted “good;”
and yet it’s hard to see how “pleasure” could
be readily derived from martial strife
and other hardships of a hero’s life.
This is explained, the hedonist will say,
as “pleasant” in an altruistic way;
they know that other apes, who benefit
from tribal glory, are enjoying it.
Besides, some Killer Apes take keen delight
from the exhilaration of a fight.
So “pleasure” must be slightly redefined
to make allowance for this turn of mind.
But martyrs, known to human history
have died by torment voluntarily,
although no “pleasure” from such deaths could be
derived by them, nor by posterity.
The hedonist explains that martyrs take
some strange delight from burning at the stake.
But “stretching definitions till they fit”
is just an exercise in verbal wit;
for when we’re asked what “pleasure” is, we could
define it as "reaction to The Good. "
Another vicious circle is obtained;
and not a jot of understanding gained.
One fine distinction must be understood:
there’s instrumental and intrinsic Good.
No “pleasure” came from hoeing corn all day,
yet nothing else would keep the weeds at bay.
The weeds were not “innately” good or bad,
and had the selfsame “rights” our cornstalks had-
except that “noxious” weeds’ unchallenged growth
would crowd the corn; there wasn’t room for both.
And, since uncrowded cornstalks in one’s field
produced what we would call a “better” yield
(which meant we’d more to eat), it’s understood
that hoeing corn’s an “instrumental” Good .
An “instrument” to what? The goal pursued
in farming’s nothing more nor less than Food;
and food, like other useful forms of wealth,
enhances and prolongs one’s life and health.
So hoeing corn, however onerous
it seems, is ultimately “good” for us.
Now food a “good” and worthy purpose serves,
since life is “good,” and that’s what food preserves.
But food is also “instrumental” in
such ends as Gluttony–a mortal sin.
The same holds true in asking what we gain
from riches–for the wealthy and the vain.
Few apes would doubt that wealth consists of “goods”
–which are, of course, synonymous with “shoulds,”
as we explained some paragraphs ago.
The rich, however, do deserve to know
what sort of moral swamp they wander in,
for wealth is Vanity–another Sin.
An “instrumental snag” is, Charity
(kind gifts to those possessing less than we)
may just prolong some miserable life
beset with illness, poverty and strife,
for which the kindest thing we could have done
might be to hasten Sweet Oblivion.
Yet putting someone out of misery
conflicts with laws on which we all agree:
that killing fellow tribesmen isn’t Right
except in self defense. This shows the plight
well-meaning apes confronted when they had
to make a choice–and every choice was Bad.
One clear (perhaps simplistic) rule to use
is: “Lesser over greater evil choose!"
A saint, confronting some Dilemma’s horns,
the short horn chooses and the long one scorns.
The ape who makes the least immoral choice
may in Umblemished Virtue still rejoice.
For instance, if one has to tell a lie
to right some Wrong, this Precept would apply.
To kill is wrong, but if one’s life’s at stake,
one must a stern and just Decision make,
and virtuously do what must be done:
Defend thyself–Look out for Number One!
Again, it’s wrong to steal; but when in need
we few concessions make to misers’ greed.
Your need is dire; you know he has enough
and some to spare–he’ll never miss the stuff.
But first be sure that Life’s Inequities
will be corrected by your thieveries.
If he’s not rich, or if your need’s not real,
the Precept still applies: It’s wrong to steal.
But “wealth” can be subjective. What to me
looks opulent, may seem like “poverty”
to other apes, who used to have much more
and now have less than they possessed before.
It’s therefore hard to be completely sure
which victims of your theft are rich or poor.
The same applies to “poverty.” Your Need
is self-appraised, and hard to tell from Greed-
especially by victims of your theft
who always think they worked for What Just Left.
Another pitfall is, it’s difficult
to know a well-meant action’s End Result.
To pull a drowning tribesman from a well
is hardly wicked; but how can one tell
what later evil he may perpetrate
if “virtuously” rescued from his fate?
To save a scoundrel who’s about to drown
might make you Malefactor of the Town.
To saunter off and leave him might have been
to spare the world from some outrageous sin.
We can’t predict this, yet we must decide:
It might have hurt your Conscience, had he died.
The merit of your deed is up to Fate,
whose whims we rarely know, until too late.
“Do unto others as you’d have them do
(in similar conditions) unto you!”
This makes good sense. The Golden Rule provides
the moral-minded ape with clear-cut guides,
and strikes the Ethics quandary at the root.
In application, though, it’s sometimes moot.
Too much of “what they’d have you do” depends
on other tribesmen’s choice of worthy ends,
which may assume some unexpected shapes
within your mind, or those of other apes.
There are some apes we simply cannot trust
to choose amusements for themselves. We must
restrain their movements; and we take alarm
at what they’re doing, lest they come to harm.
Small cubs are one example; also those
adults who can’t contend with natural foes
and other hazards they’ll encounter while
their bent for reckless rambles they beguile,
by reason of advanced senility
or mental irresponsibility.
Restraining them by force is not “to do
as you would have such people do to you;”
so, as regards incompetents and fools,
we make exceptions to this Best of Rules.
Your beneficiary’s perverse taste
may mean your well-meant kindness goes to waste.
Suppose you’re fond of some unique repast
which leaves your squeamish dinner guests aghast.
The Golden Rule again is seen to fail
if with third helpings you your friends regale,
which–lest you take offense–they must consume
despite a sense of gastronomic doom.
If you on self-destruction were intent,
my helping hand, however kindly meant,
would be resented. What, then, should you do
if someone else refuses aid from you?
You know he’s psychologically deranged
and that his mood, by morning, may have changed.
The Golden Rule, however, states that you
must do to him as you would have him do:
in this case, leave him be. Stand idly by
and watch your suicidal tribesman die.
You know by other apes you’ll be condemned,
although your choice from Moral Law has stemmed.
A lot of us would tend to falter here,
forget the Golden Rule, and interfere.
“The Will of God is right; all else is wrong;
so do His Will with testimony strong!”
This follows logically, as well it should,
from our assumption of “Objective Good”-
that in each act or object we may find
some “value” independent of the mind.
Since all existing things are God’s designs,
their Value is whatever He defines.
Not only objects, but each act and thought
is Good or Evil as He may have wrought.
When Moral Laws are legislated by
the Deity, one doesn’t wonder why;
one needn’t ask Him why He feels that way-
one simply grins, and rushes to obey.
This value system saves us mental strain,
because (although dilemmas still remain)
we never have to wonder what is Right.
The thinking’s done, and put in black and white
by those who are more competent than we
to know what is ordained by Deity.
The pious ape need only sift through loads
of varied, and conflicting, Moral Codes
which rival sects propound; and then decide
by which of these–if any–to abide.
His “testimony” tells him which is best;
and he, with no misgivings, junks the rest-
then finds he’s universally condemned,
because his Standards from himself have stemmed,
as if he were an irreligious clod
who never heard about the Will of God,
and thinks the Spirit of the Law’s confused
with its imperfect wording, and abused.
But, knowing when he’s Right, he sets his jaw
and isn’t swayed by less-than-Godly law,
until, adhering to his True Belief,
he runs afoul of edicts by our Chief.
The problem of defining “Good” remains
among philosophy’s persistent banes.
Despite the brief successes thinkers had
the problem was, itself, completely Bad.