Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature

I enjoy the learning experience while debating potential new ideas on the human endeavor of enlightenment, a never ending endeavor. This debate on morality was inspired by the research of Bejan (“Design in Nature”) and Takac (“Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights”). . http://www.amazon.com...http://www.bookdaily.com...These two books offer a new way of looking at a common and a repeating pattern found throughout nature. Relative to humans, the Constructal Law (Bejan) extends into many facets of life, “shaping everything from traffic patterns to the hierarchical flowcharts in corporations, the military, science, academia, political bodies,” etc. Takac points to the force of morality via life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, responsible for the group attraction forming those hierarchical patterns found in corporations, the military, science, academia, political bodies, etc. The Constructal Law covering both inanimate and animate (Bejan):Given freedom, for a finite-sized flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it. Life's primitives (Takac):Once an organism comes to (1) Life, it has the (2) freedom, (3) in the pursuit of survival; otherwise, there is no life. Linkage between Life's primitives to Constructal Law: (1) Life, aka (Constructal) “flow system (to live). ” (2) freedom, aka (Constructal) “given freedom. ” (3) in the pursuit of, aka (Constructal) “provides easier access. ”Thomas Jefferson’s Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. ” Takac generalized Unalienable Rights to all living-systems, by simply replacing the human emotion of Happiness with positive-feedback. Linkage between Life's primitives to Unalienable Rights: (1) Life, aka (Unalienable Rights) “Life. ” (2) freedom, aka (Unalienable Rights) “Liberty. ” (3) in the pursuit of, aka (Unalienable Rights) “in the pursuit of. ” The above linkage presents the traceable path from the physical Constructal Law to Unalienable Rights. Living systems, are physical, confined within the Laws of Nature, requiring a constant flow of bio-energy to live, where pursuit is the work (function of force and displacement). From the energy in the force generating a thought, to the force in taking your next breath, to the force needed in mutual positive-feedback sustaining a moral force of attraction holding a group together. The empirical existence of groups, packs, cultures, tribes, etc are manifestations from the moral force of attraction. The empirical symmetry from the Constructal Law to morality being the agent of attraction between physical living-systems, describes, morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature. Such patterns in living nature may have a profound renaissance in social and economic systems relative to the physical Laws of Nature. Studying repeatable and symmetrical related patterns in nature is the foundation to the scientific method. Comments on Con’s items of 1 through 6. “1) Hume's Law” Con complains about the limits on metaphysics, defined in Round 1. I would remind Con, he accepted that condition by entering this debate. Hume's Law is metaphysics, case closed, and is narrowly focused on humans, and is outside the debate parameters. But in the insistence of Con, I'll comment on it in this closing Round. As in all transitions from metaphysics to the empirical, one will find resistance from classical ideologies. For example, during the Dark Ages, the popular ideology of the earth being flat, and the center of the universe, relative to today’s accepted scientific empirical solar system understanding. Another example is found in today's classical ideologies over creationism, being in conflict with, the empirical from Darwin, DNA mapping, and now the Constructal Law. And in saying that, one day Hume's Law may also fall victim to such transition. There is no conflict between Hume and Pro at the human level. . http://plato.stanford.edu... According to Stanford. edu, in general, “Hume sides with the moral sense theorists: we gain awareness of moral good and evil by experiencing the pleasure of approval and the uneasiness of disapproval when we contemplate a character trait or action from an imaginatively sensitive and unbiased point of view. ”From a human standpoint, this is the point I (Pro) was making all along. Moral being good, right, by the mutual positive-feedback experience between humans embracing the pleasure of approval. Immoral being evil, wrong, by the non-mutual negative-feedback experiencing uneasiness of disapproval between humans. Where, feed-back is a function on how one “contemplates a character trait or action from an imaginatively sensitive and unbiased point of view. ” Con pointed out the following, “It is absurd to claim that every natural desire of humans justifies moral claims to pursue those desires – some humans have a desire to rape but that doesn’t justify promoting rape. ”Pro did not make that claim! Rape is an event resulting in, not a mutual positive-feedback; hence, an immoral event! When both parties experience positive-feedback we have mutual positive-feedback resulting in a moral, physically attractive, event. In the event of rape, one member experiences positive-feedback, while the other does not; resulting in an immoral, physically repulsive, event. I find most of Con's arguments of a metaphysical nature. Where I (Pro) is focused on symmetrical patterns found in nature on the physical level. Too bad Con could not debate on that level. “2a) Constructal Law is devoid of Value Judgments”According to Bejan: “Good ideas travel and persist. They keep on traveling. This is why culture is a constructal design [Constructal Law]…”For “good ideas” to travel from person to person, is simply a function of “value judgment. ” Therefore, Constructal Law is not void of value judgment at the human level. On this issue, Con is debating Bejan not Pro. “2b) Constructal Law does not necessitate moral outcomes”For “good ideas” to travel from person to person, embraces mutual positive-feedback resulting in the evolution of cultural norms. Cultural norms are the result, or the “outcome” from the force of morality. “This is why culture is a constructal design [Constructal Law]. ” “3) Pro’s concept of “right” yields bizarre moral judgments”A moral action embraces the positive end of the spectrum of the Unalienable Rights within the group approaching or “embracing Life, and/or Liberty, and/or positive-feedback. ” An immoral action embraces the negative end of the spectrum of the Unalienable Rights within the group approaching or “embracing Death, and/or Tyranny, and/or negative-feedback. ” What is so “bizarre” with that? Con is stuck on crack cocaine. Again, relative to the crack-head, positive-feedback happens during the next fix. To the crack-head this is a moral event. Since the crack-head is a member of society, such self-centered positive-feedback over the fix, causes negative-feedback relative to others as a function of society’s norms, resulting in an immoral event. “4) Pro fails to account for cases where moral behavior requires embracing negative feedback”Con made a good point relative to negative-feedback. Negative-feedback in cultural evolution is a manifestation of the natural selection process, where there are many eddy currents within the flow of cultural norms. In the moment of disciplining your child, both parent and child are not happy during this immoral event of a painful beating. The parent knows, in time this immoral event will help place the child on a moral direction relative to cultural norms. On the other hand, and in addition to “good ideas,” travel from person to person being Constructal Law, includes those “good ideas” flow from one generation to the next. One facet of cultural evolution happens when a child finds their parent's norms (a reflection of cultural norms) to be old-fashioned and rigid (high resistance), the child offers little resistance to the subtle change of those norms, and such change will flow through the child. The child, influenced by its generational peers, sees cultural improvement, while the parent questions the child's morality; hence, the majestic clockwork known as the “generation gap. ”“5) Pro fails to justify his assertions of Universal Rights”See the above discussion on Unalienable Rights before item 1). “6) Pro has not proven a force of nature”See the above discussion before item 1). In closing, I wish Pro a healthy “Life,” having the freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral “pursuit of Happiness. ” Morality, that attractive force holding a physical group together.