In the last two Philosophy Mondays we first defined what values are and then posed the question of a basis for values. The key requirements for such a basis is that it has to be objective so that it can be universal, i.e. apply to all humans. This will be the subject of today's post. Let's first consider some possibilities that fall short of this goal.

What about a God? Much as religions would like to make this claim, there is nothing objective about the existence of a God. That could of course change if one manifested in the present or future. It's an interesting question to speculate about what we would need to see from such a manifestation to consider them a God. Maybe that's for another post. For today's purposes it suffices to say that all the evidence brought forth to date about the existence of gods has a highly narrative quality to it or is an outright (and known) invention. One big give away here is that these are all regional in origin and have made claims to universality only over time (and often through conquest). This critique echoes Ludwig Feuerbach's argument that gods are projections of human ideals rather than objective realities.

What about consciousness? If only we had a handle on what that even is. Yes there are lots of theories floating around about consciousness but it feels only slightly less elusive than a God. It is absolutely fun to read the theories and speculate oneself about what consciousness might be. Of course I would advise to first try to define a bit better what one is even talking about in the first place. For now though it really won't do as a basis for values, with theories as disparate as consciousness being a fundamental aspect of all matter (as in panpsychism accepted by philosophers like David Chalmers) to consciousness being an emergent phenomenon that only occurs in complex systems (and possibly even requires language as a precondition, as suggested by thinkers like Daniel Dennett).

What about emotions? These are a pretty objective fact of our existence. These days we even understand their neural correlates in the limbic system, as well as their relationship to homeostasis and other bodily functions. They might make a potentially good starting point but there is one problem: we share them with all mammals to varying degrees. Now one might consider this a feature and not a bug. After all if emotions are the basis for values then the values would maybe apply to animals as well as to us. But this immediately runs into several problems: the biggest one of these is that the animal world is full of extraordinary violence – despite being around much longer than humans, animals haven't developed values. So we are left returning to something that is in fact germane to humans. Martha Nussbaum has provided a cogent critique of purely sentiment-based ethical theories.

Thankfully there is an objective feature of humanity that does provide a great basis for value: the existence of knowledge. We are to this date the only species on Earth that has the ability to share something we have learned with each other through both time and space. I can read a book today that was written by someone else a thousand years ago in a totally different part of the world. Knowledge makes technology possible which in turn gives us a great many powers. It is only because of knowledge that we can fly (birds are born with this ability). It is only because of knowledge that we can swim under water (fish are born with this ability). Knowledge is the source of our great power. And thus it makes the perfect objective basis for values.

And one of the most fundamental values that flows immediately from this basis is that with great power comes great responsibility: We humans are responsible for whales, not whales for us. 

Over the coming posts, I will first dig a bit deeper into what knowledge is. Then we will work on developing the values that flow from this basis. One important corollary though is that if knowledge is the basis of values then we need to carefully consider what this implies for intelligent machines which also have access to and contribute to the further development of knowledge. This connects to Hans Jonas's principle of responsibility, which argues that expanded technological power demands an expanded ethical framework.

For readers of my book The World After Capital, much of this will sound familiar, as the idea of knowledge as the basis for values is already expressed there, along with a first attempt to develop a set of values that flow from knowledge. A central goal of the Philosophy Mondays series is to further develop this idea and its implications.