Category Archives: Human Morality

Freedom of Choice and Morality as a Conditioned Reflex (Part 2)

As The Last Faith professes, levels of Freedom of Choice on Earth are constantly increasing (fluctuations notwithstanding) by virtue of the Law of Humandynamics (see: “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”). As a consequence, levels of acceptance and tolerance in society are also growing: political, religious, racial, cultural, sexual and many others.

The reader will no doubt make the same conclusion by simply observing how life has changed over the past few years and/or by comparing the acceptance and tolerance levels of various historical periods to the present times.

Growth in levels of Freedom of Choice and tolerance is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. Whereas previously, one would have to review quite a large period of time, at least several decades, in order for change to be visible, now, similar change can be perceived with every passing year.

How does the Law of Humandynamics work? Recognising the undeniable fact of a growth in moral virtues from one generation to the next and the accumulation of humanistic principles in society, one might be tempted to believe that each succeeding generation is born smarter and kinder than the one before it.

Is there a physiological explanation for the buildup in one generation of the experience of previous generations? Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), there is not.

The most in-depth research shows that there is no spiritual or intellectual difference between a statistically average child born in a primitive tribe in the Amazon Jungle and an average child born in the centre of contemporary London. Similarly, there is no such difference between a child of the present day and a child of say, one hundred years ago. Judging from the methodical observations of teachers of that time, junior schoolchildren solve the same mathematical tasks today just as well or as poorly as their peers of a century ago. There is every reason to believe that no significant change has taken place in this regard over the past thousand years.

In order to understand more fully why humanity’s sense of moral ethic develops, we must first look at the cases in which it is compromised and the influencing factors that bring that change to bear.

It is a well-known fact that when a small group of people finds themselves in the wild, isolated from the rest of the world as the consequence of a shipwreck or other disaster, the moral virtues to which they have adhered throughout their previous life up to this moment are almost instantly swept aside. The individual’s entire expression of Freedom of Choice is directed exclusively towards securing the survival of self and family, if they are still together, in other words, towards Gene Preservation. In cases of extreme hunger, people will not only steal food from one another, they will go as far as to commit murder or an act of cannibalism. There are numerous accounts of such cases, in literature and particularly in documentary sources.

Lord of the Flies, the wonderful, allegorical novel by the English writer and Nobel Prize Winner William Golding comes to mind. With horrifying realism, the writer tells the story of how a group of teenage children end up on an uninhabitable island after a plane crash and how the relationships of a primitive community form and develop among the group based only on the privilege of force and how, eventually, they divide themselves up into tribes who hunt and kill the members of other tribes.

The thing is that this kind of tragedy is quite likely to take place, not only among children, whose sense of morality is not yet consolidated, but among entire nations in the context of conditions of military, economic or political crises, and not only in conditions of extreme survival.

In the first half of the twentieth century in Europe, the world witnessed two global catastrophes: firstly, the coming to power of the Communists in Russia, and secondly, the Nazis in Germany fifteen years later (subsequently in China and Cambodia).

How did the Communists and Nazis manage to control the souls and minds of millions of people and force them to reject so rapidly the humanistic moral ethics that had developed over centuries (including the Christian commandment ‘thou shall not kill)?  How is it that millions of people not only agreed to the mass murder of millions of innocent people but actively participated in the act?

One has to acknowledge that people not only feared for their own lives and the lives of those close to them, huge masses accepted a new cannibalistic morality!

What did the Communists and Nazis use to lure and entice millions of their followers?

The answer is easy to find when one considers the conclusions set out in “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”. As the book explains, man (like any other living being) lives first and foremost for the sake of preserving his or her genes on Earth. Secondly, human beings (and only human beings) live constantly striving to expand their personal levels of Freedom of Choice. Of course, the extent of this striving may differ between any two individuals, as much as the earth differs from the sky.

Both the Communists and the Nazis played on promises to fully satisfy all conditions essential for the realisation of the primitive instinct for gene preservation, i.e. the promise to feed everyone until they were full, to provide everyone with adequate housing, and generally, to create a high material standard of living in all areas of life.

At the same time, they made no attempt to hide that this state of affairs would be achieved via plunder, suppression and, if necessary, the physical annihilation of the non-proletariat on the one hand and the non-Arian race on the other. People followed the Nazis and Communists because the horizons they promised were so tempting and, it would seem, so easily achievable that the existing humanistic moral principles were not enough to support the population in withstanding the introduction of a new misanthropical morality.

Yet, neither Lenin nor Hitler, nor their ideologists ever mentioned the natural right of man to Freedom of Choice and its associated Human Rights. Moreover, they made public warnings that anyone who failed to comply with their ideology would be destroyed.

Nonetheless, people followed their line. True only to the Law of Gene Preservation and the satisfaction of the flesh, people forgot and betrayed God’s second law, the Law of Freedom of Choice, turning their backs on the moral principles of the past. The link in time was broken! And finally, the peoples of the countries in question paid for it dearly in a manner known to all.

Those who believe that all these events are in the past and that humanity’s humanistic morality is strong enough never to allow such events to be repeated are fatally mistaken.  Alas! Sacrificing Freedom of Choice and encroaching on the freedom of others will inevitably lead to the tragic mistakes of the past being sorely repeated.

And so we can only draw the sorry but honest conclusion that the true nature of human beings does not improve with time. And yet, thanks be to God, it does not worsen either.  It remains unchanged.

That leads us to the question of how the Law of Humandynamics actually works. Who among serious observers of historical change would argue that morals in the world today are largely much more relaxed than they were yesterday, just as yesterday they were more relaxed than they were the day before that? Why does this happen?

This tendency emerges because every new generation begins not from a point of zero but from the point at which the previous generation left off in the battle to expand Freedom of Choice. This is the reason why levels of Freedom of Choice increase in human society and it is for this reason only that the Law of Humandynamics functions. Even though this law is guaranteed to work across relatively large periods of time, we cannot assume that it works consistently.

As we can see from the above, wars, revolutions and other disasters lead to relatively powerful fluctuations in the working of the Law, albeit tiny changes on a historical scale, when the link in time is broken and when the entire achievement of society’s morality is jolted far back into the past. The fundamental difference between the world of man and the animal world is that human beings are capable of transmitting an entire history of labour skills and morality from one generation to another. Animals, on the other hand, are incapable of doing this.

The life of each and every one of us, together with the rest of our own generation represents a single point on the Arrow of Time. Nobody wants a fluctuation to occur in their own lifetime and so, there is no cause for complacency. Virtuous morals are always very fragile. In just two to three months, television propaganda alone was enough to evoke hatred in one people towards another brotherly people transforming them into a mortal enemy (i.e. Russia’s occupation of Ukraine).

Whereas, we may be unable to influence the entirety of the Arrow of Time, either its future or its past, we are capable of bringing influence to bear in a subtle way on the point at which we currently find ourselves.

This brings us to our final question. Why is it that Human Beings strive to expand Freedom of Choice, driving the workings of the Law of Humandynamics? Could it be that there is someone above who takes care of us in this manner, nudging us further towards humanism? If only that were the case!

Man’s striving to expand Freedom of Choice was described in “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer as an independent ‘physical’ law, confirmed by the endless number of observations.

And among the many consequences of this law, there is one key consequence: without doubt, growth in Freedom of Choice facilitates an increased guarantee of Gene Preservation. This means that the Law of Gene Preservation, in turn, will push human beings towards an expansion of Freedom of Choice, towards democracy and towards an expression of humanism. It’s like Yin and Yang…

This explains the endless stream of refugees from the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, who risk their lives en route, striving to gain entry to the Western world.

I call to mind how in the 1990s an elderly friend of mine, a retired colonel of the Soviet Army took the decision to emigrate to the United States. I asked if he was not afraid at his age to face the challenges associated with having to adapt to a totally foreign world, to which he replied that he was well aware of the insurmountable psychological difficulties that awaited him and his wife in America, but that he was doing it for the sake of their children and grandchildren. That is the Law of Gene Preservation at work!

Might one fear the possibility that the peoples of the third world will one day turn away from Democracy, ceasing to find it attractive?  One can say with confidence that this will never happen whilst the countries of the democratic world provide their people with the best conditions necessary to realise the most fundamental human needs, Gene Preservation and Freedom of Choice.

(Part 1 of this article on human morality is available here)

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

This article isn’t intended to give a comprehensive overview of the topic. It is simply an addition to the book’s contribution to the theme of morality already considered at length in “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”.


Share on social media:

Why was the Christian notion of nonresistance to evil doomed from the very beginning?

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus Christ, The Gospel of Matthew

Why has this seemingly sensible call from Christ to let go of the need for revenge never generated any noticeable response or understanding? Why is it, for example, that in response to a slap, any mentally and physically adequate man will not hesitate to throw a punch? Is it really possible to let go of the need for revenge?

It would not be quite correct to say that no-one at all has responded to Christ’s call. In different parts of the Christian world, groups and individuals have appeared at various times who have tried to follow Christ’s commandment.

Probably the most famous among them is the great Russian thinker and writer Leo Tolstoy, who coined the phrase, “nonresistance to evil”. The handful of groups called the “non-resistants” who followed Tolstoy quickly adopted a sectarian nature and lasted for less than a generation.

Why is it that in the vast majority of cases, people are unable to follow the commandments of Christ and do we have the right to judge them for it?

No! We don’t!

Human beings do not live their lives according to other people’s principles, even those set forth by the most brilliant of individuals.

According to the God-given (or Nature-given) Law of Gene Preservation, human beings are not only capable but have a duty to protect their own life and the lives of their family at all costs.

In order to combat evil, which will never cease of its own accord, particularly if it encounters no resistance, civilisation has introduced into the courts the law of retaliation which satisfies the majority of the population. Yet when evil comes from the State itself, when it subjugates the courts to its power, transforming them into a superficial formality, people will instigate revolution to protect their natural right to the living conditions necessary to guarantee Gene Preservation.

Why have all the other romantic and utopian teachings, like communism suffered historical defeat?

The problem is not that the Communist idea came to power in a solely bloody manner. When it came to power the idea of communism tried, at least in the initial period, to implement equal rights to Gene Preservation. This took the form of genuine, equal access to education and medical care, almost equal access to severely limited material wealth, and even equal opportunities to civil careers, as long as the career did not involve the field of governance, in which the Communists reigned alone and unchallenged. One has to admit though, that they even succeeded in the beginning.

So why did Communism go down with such a bang?

As always, the answer is simple. Having obtained more or less tolerable conditions to support the instinct of Gene Preservation (bread and shelter), the people instantly began to feel the no less urgent need for the Law of Freedom of Choice. More specifically, they felt the need for the constant expansion of Freedom of Choice: freedom of speech, freedom to elect and be elected, freedom of movement, freedom to choose one’s place of residence, freedom of enterprise, freedom of conscience, etc.

The Communists completely denied the people of all these rights, openly stating a contrived dictatorship of the proletariat! As a result of the denial of Freedom of Choice, the USSR saw an inevitable decline in the level of Gene Preservation (living standard).

By rejecting the Law of Freedom of Choice and creating a powerful punitive apparatus to suppress dissent, the Communist idea came into direct conflict with the law of nature (or God), namely, the Law of Humandynamics, according to which humanity’s Freedom of Choice steadily increases over time. And with that, the Communists condemned themselves to a rapid decline.

Nowhere in the world, whether in the USSR, China, Cambodia or anywhere else, has the communist idea ever managed to retain power without hard coercion, violence, suppression of Freedom of Choice and the destruction of millions of the country’s own population. In this regard, communism was no less an idea filled with hate for humanity than fascism or nazism.

It only remains to add that similar ideas such as Chuchheism, Chávism and Chegevarism, which demand the suppression of Freedom of Choice in order to preserve power, are all historically doomed.

This article began with a criticism of Christ’s commandment of “nonresistance to evil” because it is impossible to put into practice. However, is it not this commandment that made Christ great, and it is not on account of this commandment that Christ will remain forever in the hearts of mankind.

His other commandment: “love thy neighbour as thyself” or better “have compassion for your neighbour as for yourself” is just starting to gain momentum and understanding in the world and this call will continue to be heard for as long as mankind exists.


Karmak Bagisbayev, Professor of Mathematics,  author of “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”

Share on social media:

Freedom of Choice and Morality as a Conditioned Reflex (Part 1)

Rarely does a question succeed in evoking so much debate as the question concerning the nature and origin of human morality. Immanuel Kant called the moral energy that resides in the human soul an impenetrable mystery.

Those of religious faith believe that our morality is given to us from above, from God. If this is the case, why didn’t God give morality to all people in equal measure so that we could live a peaceable life without being continually plagued by the complex problems of coexistence? Why do the type of people we consider immoral exist? Would these individuals also consider themselves to be immoral and where is the proof that we are right and they not?

Some people believe that the moral principles to which the majority adheres can be instilled in a child via their upbringing. If that is so, why is it that brother and sister who receive the same upbringing and love from their parents often end up supporting completely different moral values in their adult life?

Each one of us can no doubt cite hundreds of examples of this tendency among their friends and relatives. Research shows that upbringing can only assure the passing on of etiquette (how to sit properly at the table and hold one’s knife and fork etc), but not ethics or morals. Naturally, one’s upbringing and education have some effect on the formation of a person’s sense of morality but to a lesser degree than we might think. More often than not, our upbringing teaches us to hide where our morality is lacking.

Totalitarian systems believe that even if the morality they choose to cultivate cannot be instilled naturally, it can be forcefully driven into the minds of the adult population through propaganda and repression. So why is it then, that time passes and the population inevitably rises up in protest against the morality that has been enforced upon them?

Genetics fans who like to explain everything in terms of the gene would say that human morality is unequivocally determined by a person’s genetic makeup. If this the case then why do identical twins experience a different sense of morality?

What ultimately defines our morality as human beings and where does it originate?

In the 17th conversation of The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer” which focuses on the topic of Freedom of Choice, we identified the human soul as the ability to choose to act in accordance with or against one’s natural instincts, the most fundamental of which is the gene preservation instinct. The morality of every human being represents the result of how they choose to behave and treat others. This is what accounts for the diversity in our sense of morality as human beings, the difference between one person and another, one group and another.

Let’s take the example of a small group of 2-year-olds playing in a sandpit, who as yet have developed no sense of their own morality. It is not unusual to observe one child, attracted to one of the other children’s brightly-coloured toys, trying to take it from them. At this point, the unfolding scenario becomes potentially diverse and unpredictable because, at this age, children are still unfamiliar with the rules of conduct established by a conventional sense of morality. It would be correct to say, the morality developed and accepted by the majority in society. Here follows one possible scenario for how the children behave next:

  • Day one: The ‘child-aggressor’ (more often than not a boy) takes the other child’s toy and walks way happily. The “child-victim” stays put and lets out a loud howl.
  • Day two: The ‘child-aggressor’ tries to take the other child’s toy again but the “child-victim” having learned from the experience of the previous day, shows a strong response and fights to stand their ground. The ‘child-aggressor’ is left with a few bruises but no toy.
  • Day three: The ‘child-aggressor’ having learned from the previous negative experience, approaches the ‘child-victim’ and offers one of their own toys in exchange for the other child’s toy, thereby initiating a possible satisfactory outcome for both parties and laying the foundation for a more civilised relationship in the future.

There are endless scenarios for the possible outcome of this type of interaction and I am certain that morality among primitive peoples developed in this manner, through trial and error in relationships with others. As a child grows and develops from the moment of birth to adolescence, they walk the path of acquiring a personal sense of morality, just like all humanity has done over the ages, from primitive societies to modern day society.

Of course, for every child, the path is an individual one and its shape will depend on a whole range of conditions: the influence of older siblings, parents, school environment, etc. In the same way, the path is different for each individual nation which explains why their moral codes differ to some extent, albeit not fatally! The difference between nations is often defined by where each nation is positioned on the arrow of time. In society, just as with children and even adults, the development of morality is connected not only to individuality but also to age.

The main conclusion I would like to draw here is that whereas a common morality can be adopted by a majority, there is no such thing as a common morality per se. There is no absolute or universal morality. The commandment “Thou shalt not murder” for example doesn’t work when it comes to street gangs and is quite inappropriate in the context of an army at war.

Moreover, a person’s sense of morality can change not only from one person to another and from one group to another. We all know of examples where the moral principles of an individual or even a whole nation change with changing circumstances. People will very quickly drop a moral code they held previously and just as easily take up a new one if the circumstances call them to do so.

For example, the moral principles that underpin the interaction between a man and a woman can change when circumstances so require. In the 1970s, I ended up at a Soviet youth camp on the Volga River near the city of Kazan, which took up to five hundred young people at any one time from all over the Soviet Union. On the very first evening, there was a disco attended by 500 young people, all furiously driven by the Law of Gene Preservation. The group was made up of young Soviet women; majestic, formidable and all dressed up and very timid-looking, young Soviet mathematics students (mainly men), who were participating in a scientific conference that was being held over a few days at the youth camp.  What a shock it was to discover, after no more than half an hour had passed, that the ratio of young men to women in the room, far from being the normal 1:1, turned out to be less than 1:10 i.e. one young man to every 10-11 young women.

So what happened next? I won’t go into details, but a couple of hours later, half the lovely ladies who recognised that their chances were slim and didn’t want to negate the normal model of behaviour, saw no point in staying and left the disco hall. The other half, on the contrary, turned a blind eye to the convention, took the initiative and vied for the attention of the men they invited to dance. The young men, despite their initial shyness, suddenly adopted the role of the “lady” and were blatantly fickle in choosing whose invitation to accept.

The disco continued like any other, the only difference being, that the role of suitor was played by the women and the role of the lady, by the men respectively. I remember this occasion so vividly because it was the first time I had seen so clearly how moral conduct in relations between a man and a woman, which have developed over centuries, if not millennia, can transform in the blink of an eye if the situation requires it.

In conclusion, morality is nothing more than a ‘Pavlov’ conditioned reflex, which is evoked in response to external conditions and stimuli and which disappears the moment those conditions are removed.

If morality is nothing more than a conditioned reflex, why do we attribute such great importance to the teaching and promotion of morality? What is this ‘natural’ morality that society is constantly seeking from its members, and the family from its children?

It’s not actually a difficult question. Compassion or empathy, which lies at the core of the concept of morality, exists to one degree or another only in gregarious, herd-like species, including human beings. Understandably, solitary animals have no need of compassion. Compassion and mutual assistance within the herd are of direct benefit not only to every member of the herd in its task of Gene Preservation but also to the herd as a whole.

In my research, more than anything else, I was astounded by the behaviour of wolves, who brought back food from the hunt for a wolf-invalid. One may confidently claim, that herds of animals which are incapable of empathy are equally incapable of survival.

Recently, scientists discovered the altruism gene, which we more popularly refer to as compassion. So far, the altruism gene has only been found in microbes living in colonies but it is very likely that it will also be located in all gregarious living beings.

The taboo on murder within a herd is dictated by the Gene Preservation Law and again, this law explains the moral of encouraging the murder and destruction of other hostile herds. However, in specific circumstances, the same law may engender the opposite behaviour even within the herd, as for example in the case of lions where the new head of a pride will kill the cubs of the defeated male.

Among our human ancestors, the prohibition of murder was also applied solely within the tribe, although with the development of globalisation, the extent of the prohibition’s reach has expanded its boundaries. The universal prohibition on murder, to which Jesus Christ called man, will clearly only be implemented after the complete globalisation of the planet.

Morality which calls us to respect the Freedom of Choice of others, as a way of guaranteeing respect for our own Freedom of Choice, emerged in human society quite recently and only exists in democratic countries, where human rights as a priority are officially proclaimed. This complex form of morality, which exists only among human beings and which remains a constant focus of both the arts and the sciences, is, of course, a product of Freedom to Choice, which likewise exists solely among the human race.

Recently, a rumour was circulated in the global press that a freedom gene had been discovered, or to put it more clearly, a Free Will gene. Later they started to refute the rumour which may well have been fake news. Other ‘unscientific’ considerations, however, have been raised related to the topic of Freedom of Choice and so we shall comment on them here.

According to science, humankind’s ancestors (Homo habilis) have existed on the planet for about 3-4 million years. Ninety-nine percent of that time, if our ancestors did evolve, then they evolved in the same way as their primate relatives in accordance with Darwin’s theory. If our ancestors used sticks and stones during this time, then it should be pointed out that many other primate species used and use to this day these same implements for hunting and gathering.

And when less than one percent of this time was left i.e. 30-40 thousand years ago, the first signs of human evolution appeared i.e. signs of human activity significantly differentiating the species from other primates. Even in this period, for 30-35 thousand years, humankind was just ‘building up’ to the process, preparing for the great, real, human evolution.

The human evolution of the past 5-10 thousand years has taken place with exponential acceleration leading to what we see of the modern-day world with all its aeroplanes, ships, missiles and preparation for a flight to the planet Mars.

Suspicious? In my opinion, it is more than suspicious.

Perhaps, 30-40 thousand years ago (give or take a few) a Freedom of Choice gene appeared among mankind’s ancestor’s for the first time as a result of a process of natural mutation. This moment can be called the birth of the first Homo sapiens, or Homo eligenti as suggested in The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”. Some might call it the reason genome, but that’s irrelevant and doesn’t change the essence here.

The mutation which allowed people to start choosing their behaviour freely, rather than acting as a response to blind instinct turned out to be extraordinarily helpful and from this point onwards, the carriers of the freedom gene acquired a huge advantage over other humans around them in the struggle for survival.

Over a period of 30-35 thousand years, the gene victoriously expanded across the breadth of the earth and finally, 5-10 thousand years ago, only the descendants of the new gene carriers remained. This most certainly explains the disappearance of the Neanderthals. Those primates who were genetically very similar but didn’t carry the new gene remained primates stuck with their sticks and stones.

(Part 2 of this article explaining why levels of human morality continue to improve over time is available here)

Translated from Russian original by Joanna Dobson

This article isn’t intended to give a comprehensive overview of the topic. It is simply an addition to the book’s contribution to the theme of morality already considered at length in “The Last Faith: a book by an atheist believer”.


Share on social media: