My Moral Code
I’ve been constructing my moral code and some principles I have lived by. It’s surprising to have all these values and principles we want to guide our decisions, but the human brain can only hold so much with the stir of moods and emotions swaying us in key moments of decision. To have it written down makes it easy to come back to and reflect on.
Why Write down the Moral Code?
This need to write it down comes from a single, crystal-clear moment from seven years ago. I’d said something about myself—maybe my moral code then—to an acquaintance. Those words stuck with me and, almost a decade later, shaped a decision that changed my life.
Everyone should have their moral code written to deal with life’s curveballs.
If you got a fat salary to work at a cigarette company, would you take it? What if you had the opportunity to help out some family with some casual insider trading? Choose one friend vs 4 strangers to die. Is the life of an animal equally worth the a human? You get the gist.
These will be long articles and I will try to break them down.
The Map is not the Territory: My truth
We’re all given a map when we grow up, this is the map of our reality. As we grow up, this map expands and takes shape, adapts, some boundaries are blurred, some redrawn. We discover new places and add them, we discover some are incorrect and remove them. Life teaches us new lessons and the map adapts.
This leads me to the truth about reality. Everyone’s map is different.
When people argue with you, they're not actually arguing about the territory. They're arguing about their map. And when you challenge that map, it causes cognitive dissonance, fear, and insecurity.
This idea is bigger, more expansive, and more immediately relevant than may be immediately apparent.It is difficult to keep this central in your mind, if you do, the game changes. Your interactions and subjective reality transform.
I noticed mistaking the map for the territory in others first. It was only when I noticed myself doing it, that I had this epiphany.
This is why, when someone tells you something that you know is wrong, and you can prove it is wrong through a scenario, or a demo, or an example, people will still double down and defend the indefensible. Defense mechanisms are the reptile brain taking over to defend their map.
Because if you show them the map is wrong, their confidence in their ability to navigate the world properly is suddenly destroyed; in that instant, people become fearful the way children are of things they do not understand.
Possibly, all ideology is a product of this map-territory relationship. If you ever catch yourself with a strong belief, ask yourself is this the map or the territory? If we imagine the map of human experience, it is too large to hold in a human mind; There are too many variables, exceptions, and contradictions. So it’s books that expand our worldview: its distilled information to our map.
Ideologues will try to sneak things with confidence they believe are single truths (They say: “If you disagree with me you oppose me). They may say Humans are inherently good, or Patriarchy is a natural order, or a strong economy benefits everyone (cut to 2008, corporate bailouts benefited the wealthy while ordinary people lost jobs and homes)
How can you even make that claim? There have been people before you, now and in the future. You base your arguments on the <<1% percentage of human beings you will get to know in a lifetime.
Catch this absurdity early on in a disagreement, it relieves you from the chore of arguing for or against their view, and determine early on that the person is defending their map, rather than defending based on actual reality.
This finally brings me to my point. I have found, over time, that it is more constructive to light a candle than to curse someone else's darkness.
I don't have very good success in getting people to change their ways through rational argument and examples, and despite thinking of brilliant analogies, metaphors, and solid arguments and debates, everything I have seen suggests that debates very rarely result in a victory in which one participant changes their mind owing to something they heard from someone else.
The cost of my time and energy is far too large.
I will not try to convince people of my truth, I’d much rather meet them where they are. I’d work to see the truth in people, instead of just seeing just good in people.
Speaking truth to power, arguing with people, and attempting to "correct them " can, in my experience, create frustrating psychological barriers. I work in a career where I frequently have to persuade people to do what they don't want to do.
The Solution? Understand their map.
Buy the Sandwich: Altruism
A poor man is begging on the street.
Two women cross him, one says “This is the problem with capitalism, there are haves and have-nots, this divide between rich and poor is to be blamed. This man is begging because capitalism is broken”
The other woman says, “No, this is the problem with a culture of handouts and dependence. He should pull himself up by his bootstraps. Anything is possible if you work hard. And besides, how is this my problem?“
And so the two argue, the starving man is forgotten about as the Capitalist and Socialist scream at each other, demanding the other accept the blame that people in society starve.
I want to be the woman who walks into a nearby shop, buy the starving guy a sandwich.
My truth: I cannot impact starvation, fix society, or critique the status quo so humanity sees the flaws in society and comes together to fix it.
I walk off. And look for someone else to buy a sandwich for.
Action at whatever minimal scale will still have a more positive net impact than beating the drum about an issue.
Maximizing Joy and Optimising Suffering
Here’s my intuition on moral right and wrong, I sum up two principles:
If my actions cause identifiable suffering to someone, don’t do it (even if it brings me pleasure)
My pleasure (which is often temporary and fleeting) isn’t worth the suffering of someone else [people close to me]. Pain and suffering hold a much higher moral priority than pleasure and happiness.
Pleasure and Suffering aren’t opposite sides of a coin. Rather they are separate entities and optimizing one for the other may be the best framework I have so far.
Someone’s closeness to me is inversely proportional to the threshold of suffering I have for them
These theories will take shape as I evolve, it’s also important to note that these aren’t not mathematical theorems and we aren’t entirely rational, but the codes help in ways of making sense of the randomity of the variables and the noise that surrounds us. Some decisions are more important than others and I’d rather have agency in the decisions than life making the decisions for me.
Intentionality will have many benefits, of which leading a life with confidence is the most prominent one.
