# Morality is like Colors ## Introduction When we look around we see an almost infinite range of colors, each seemingly standing on its own without any apparent connection to the others. However, we know that every color is just a different combination of a few "basic colors," like red, green, and blue. Morality is quite similar in this sense. We observe a vast diversity of moral views, whether between societies or within them, there often seems to be a gap so wide that it’s easy to think there is no common thread in morality at all - that it is entirely relative or perhaps even non-existent. Sure, different groups may agree on certain issues, but that often seems more like a strategic compromise than genuine moral alignment. However, I believe that there are "basic colors" of morality. abstract notions of virtues and values shared by all humans, just combined differently in each case. Similar to how every color can be represented by a combination of the same three primary colors, moral values can also be seen as combinations of foundational elements. Knowing how and why we are different won't cause us to magically agree with one another, but it would make understanding easier, and this is a good important step. Here, we will explore what these "basic moral colors" might look like, where they come from, and what we can do to bridge the gaps between us. ## The Big Bang of Moral Views It's almost redundant to say that we often don't agree with each other. Disagreement is simply everywhere, just turn on the news, attend a protest, or have dinner with your extended family. This divide seems deeply rooted, we don't just disagree about a specific political candidate or policy, it’s the underlying values these things represent that seem so obvious to us. We often think, "How could they not see it?" or "If I just explain it to them, they will surely agree with me." However, they usually don’t. It feels like they see the world through a completely different lens. To us, it seems like a distorted one, to them, we are the blind ones. Wherever you look, there's a vast spectrum of beliefs. It's actually surprising that humanity has made it this far and that we have relatively "few" violent conflicts nowadays. Without delving too much into the details, this explosion of diverse moral views began in the last few centuries after the [[Enlightenment|decline]] of "super ideologies" that had dictated our way of life and thoughts, such as religion and nationalism. "[[Nihilism|God is dead]] and we have killed him", said [[Friedrich Nietzsche (philosopher)|Nietzsche]], and the question that follows is, "What comes next?" With the rise of [[Individualism]], [[Post-Modernism]], and identity politics, we now see a broader range of moral views, partly because they are no longer censored or silenced. People are [[Freedom of Speech|free]] to express themselves, and some might feel a need to stand out by developing a slightly different variation of their environment's moral beliefs. As a result, instead of a few ideologies that are imposed upon us (forcefully or subconsciously), we now have a vast spectrum of views on topics like gender, climate change, immigration, and economics. However, it isn’t entirely [[Relativism|random]]. This is precisely why we have managed to survive (so far) without a complete societal collapse. We can see correlations between certain views that group us into ideological camps, like liberals and conservatives. Yes, there are many differences within these groups just as there are between them, but they still share some similarities. I argue that these groups form because they are situated near each other on several [[Moral Taste Buds|moral scales]], similar to a monochromatic spectrum where all possible outcomes are combinations of the same fundamental colors. ## Our Shared Moral Scales What are these "moral colors"? Below are eight scales that represent my interpretation of moral disagreements. Of course, these could vary, you might see six, ten, or different variations of them. But as long as we can agree that some scales exist, we can begin moving in the right direction. It’s worth noting that a person doesn’t have to occupy the same position on the scale for every topic. On some issues, they may lean toward one extreme, while on others, they may be closer to the opposite end. Also, it's unlikely to find someone purely on one end of a spectrum. Since these scales represent values that we all care about, some compromise is expected. Additionally, these scales are relevant both at the individual and societal levels. As nations often reflect the image of their populations, it is no surprise that moral deliberation on the individual level applies to countries as well. 1. **Sanctity vs. Exploration** - This scale reflects how fixed or flexible we consider our values. - *Sanctity*: Some values are held as sacred, unquestionable truths that must be preserved. Sanctity isn't necessarily religious; for example, those who advocate for animal rights may see their suffering as an unquestionable moral concern. - *Exploration*: Truth is both "out there" and continuously evolving. To align with it, we must keep exploring, questioning, and adapting our beliefs, holding few or no values as absolute in an ongoing effort to stay aligned with "humanity's evolving spirit." For example, slavery turned from common practice to taboo because we adjusted our beliefs. 2. **Equality vs. Merit** - This scale focuses on the issue of rights and entitlement. - *Equality*: Rights are inherent to every person by virtue of existence, without any other conditions or justifications. Being human, or a conscious being, is enough to have a moral worth, and these rights should be equal for everyone, regardless of any other criteria. - *Merit*: People should be judged by their merits, which may mean a different distribution of rights and resources. For instance, individuals might be entitled to the fruits of their labor and creativity, provided everyone has an equal opportunity to demonstrate their worth. It's not who we are, but what we do that determines our value. 3. **Individuality vs. Community** - This scale addresses who is considered the "smallest" morally relevant unit and whose well-being is prioritized. - *Individuality*: The individual is the primary or sole source of value. They are the judge, jury, and executioner of their path to fulfilling their potential. Societal rights are only granted as long as they serve personal interests, and the ultimate goal of society is to make the individual as free as possible. - *Community*: The community is the main source of value. Humans, as social animals, are subcomponents of the community. Individual rights are granted by the community as long as they serve the greater good, and the ultimate goal is the welfare of the community itself. 4. **Security vs. Connectivity** - How much risk are we willing to take for potential benefits? - *Security*: The primary goal of society is to maintain the safety of its members above all else, treating others with suspicion and building "walls" (both literal and metaphorical) to separate ourselves from them. - *Connectivity*: Strength and vulnerability are intertwined and gained by being connected to others. This perspective emphasizes forming complex networks of dependence and cooperation. 5. **Destiny vs. Cultivation** - This scale deals with the extent of control we have over our abilities and lives. - *Destiny*: Many aspects of life are beyond our control, even our beliefs, skills and thoughts are mainly predetermined either from birth or culture. We should acknowledge that and learn to work within our boundaries, to not "fight our nature", so that we could avoid disappointment, frustration and failure. - *Cultivation*: Our true potential is not only unknown but also within our power to shape and increase. We are the makers of ourselves, of our identity and our destiny. 1. **Permissiveness vs. Dedication** - what is the importance of values and living virtuously? - *Permissiveness*: Life is about being in the moment and seeking experiences that bring joy and happiness to oneself and perhaps others. We forgive our weaknesses, understanding that to be human is more than living a perfectly virtuous life. It is not just impossible, it's highly depressing. - *Dedication*: We either find or create our purpose in life, a calling that drives us and demands our time, effort, and thought - even at the expense of personal happiness. Abandoning this mission would mean failing ourselves and what we stand for. 7. **Redemption vs. Retribution** - How should we respond to those who harm us? - *Redemption*: "Evil" may not exist or often stems from ignorance, negligence, circumstances, or miscommunication. In these cases, it's not a moral problem, but rather a technical problem that can be solved. Improving the system, like education and welfare can reduce "evil", and most conflicts can be settled through discussion. - *Retribution*: True and lasting peace is achieved only when "evil doers" are deterred by punishment. Evil must be confronted and eradicated, otherwise, unchecked selfish tendencies will lead to corruption, embezzlement, and reduced cooperation and trust. 8. **Authority vs. Diversity** - Should there be a hierarchy governing interactions between people? - *Authority*: Stability and prosperity are achieved when all parts know their place and work together seamlessly, following rules and guidelines that provide clarity and deter deviations. - *Diversity*: Rules and guidelines are often at odds with the complexity of human experience. Strength and creativity come from a non-hierarchical structure built on a diverse network of voices that share ideas and collaborate without external supervision. The network self-regulates without a clear "ruler." ## How to Bridge the Gap Hopefully, regardless of your political views, you found yourself resonating, at least partially, with both sides of each scale described earlier. If so, then we are already a step closer to bridging the gap between different viewpoints. Recognizing that both sides of a debate have worthy values means that it's all about prioritizing values, rather than claming that some values are "wrong". Once we understand that, we find more common ground with those on the "other side." It’s not that they believe in something entirely different or that they "don’t see the truth"; rather, they assign different weights to the same values and choose to prioritize one over the other. This is what it means to hold values in a world with [[Scarcity|limited]] time, resources, and capabilities. Consider the choice between helping the poor and improving healthcare. Ideally, we would do both and wish for everyone to be better off, but real life often forces us to make tough choices. It's in these moments, when we must prioritize one value over another, that we truly actualize our values. It’s not about blindly sticking to a value but rather assessing its relevance and importance in each decision and weighing it accordingly. The same value doesn't have to always take precedence. Sometimes equality matters more, and other times, merit does. Understanding this doesn’t solve all the world’s conflicts. Disagreements will continue to arise, but if we can at least stop demonizing the "other side," we can come closer to understanding and compromising. After all, we aren't made of different things, just different combinations of the same foundational elements, and that’s something we can work with. ## Conclusions What might seem like completely different worldviews are, at their core, simply different prioritizations of the same fundamental values. Each value is "paired" with another, creating a dynamic where, in this world of scarcity, we are often forced to compromise between them. However, regardless of where we find ourselves on these moral scales, we can recognize that those we disagree with also care about the same values we do, they just prioritize them differently. Understanding this shifts the perspective from seeing others as "demons" with opposing values to viewing them as neighbors with different value weights. While this realization won't solve all of our conflicts, it does bring us one step closer to finding common ground and engaging in meaningful deliberation rather than confrontation. ![[morality_like_colors.png]] ## Further Reading [[The Righteous Mind (book)]] %% # Development Summary:: When we look at the world, we see an almost infinite options of colors, seemingly with nothing that connects between them, each color stands on it's own. However, we know that each color is a different combination between "basic colors" such as red-green-blue. Morality is similar in that sense. We see now such plurality in moral views that it is tempting to say that all morality is subjective. However, I believe that we have such "basic colors" of morality, abstract notions of virtue and values that are shared between all humans, just in a different combination. The combination is a result of culture, context and experiences in life. The hard question is where do those colors come from? It seems like biology must be the answer, although I am tempted to say (without sufficient proof), that biology is just a reflection of deeper rules, like how our bone structure has developed to match Earth's gravity, then our moral senses reflect some moral truth out there, things like compassion, justice, social connections, avoidance of pain and pursuit of happiness are imbued in us all, humans and to some extent animals alike. And besides, we have proved beyond a doubt that we can transcend our biology, creating a much more complicated structure using culture, language and reason. So it doesn't matter the source of those colors, as long as we acknowledge that they exist, and that we can see the commonality in others, knowing we share a moral foundation on the one hand, but as our color metaphor, there is no "better color", any painting made of one color is less complex and beautiful than the one which finds the optimal combination between colors. To find the synergy between people and moral views, rather than merging it all into one. pitch: Have you ever met someone with completely different views than yours? Perhaps you felt that there's an unbridgeable gap that your opinions are so different that you might be from different plants and it's not even clear that you share the same reality While I don't deny that feeling, I think that it's hard not to feel confused or even frustrated from others' opinions, we sometimes miss that behind this endless variety of ideologies are the same "moral building blocks" that we all share. Like red, green and blue, all moral views are a mix of where we stand across several scales. For example, do you believe more in retribution (evil should be punished), or redemption (evil is the result of harmful circumstances) Read the rest of the "moral colors" here - links: kit - https://philosophers-code.kit.com/posts/morality-is-like-colors obsidian - https://publish.obsidian.md/philosophers-code/morality-is-like-colors %%