Questioning Alex

This journal is for our "Operation Collaboration" assignment. Each E=MC2 student has been assigned to read and question another person's project. I have been assigned to question Alex Gugie who is studying morality throughout this year. You can visit his site, read his incredible writing and gain a more complete understanding of his project here.

How is someone classified as being moral? Do you think those who possess morals grounded in religion are wrong? Is their morality different than your empirically substantiated definition? In claiming that evolution has made humans "moral," are you saying that we have no choice but to be good? Do you think all cases of horrible criminals (such as the Las Vegas shooter which you wrote about) can be ascribed to mental illness or a fluke of genetics? Why then do people raise their children certain ways? Why teach someone to do good if we've already evolved to do so? Why do people differ on so many aspects of morality? If natural selection led to moral human beings, then how are the theoretically "unfit" a continual part of society? Where do you draw the line between variations of principle morality and immorality? What does being moral require? Do those with developmental disorders, who cannot communicate in any way, shape, or form, possess morality even if they do not (traditionally) interact with other humans?

If someone believes that they have free will according to your definition (notion of independence in our thoughts, choices, and actions), do you think this affects the nature of their conduct? If so, how? Do you think a denial of free will makes people less zealous to be good or moral - as if they have submitted to a lack of control over their actions? If we do not have free will, then why can people be justly punished for actions that are perceived as "immoral?" How does the argument for the existence of free will affect your reasoning about evolutionary morality? Is it possible that common uses of free will (in large enough amounts) could have possibly directed this evolution? Can one support evolutionary morality while simultaneously maintaining the existence of free will? Is there any common ground between the two? What is the most objective ideology on free will for the justice system to be based upon? How can safety from crime and "immoral" things be dealt with by a moral system based upon your development of naturally selected morality and general denial of free will? If free will does not exist, how do you define or classify the everyday choices we make? Why do you think people from the same families, with similar experiences, can tend towards very different choices from their like counterparts? What does an exploration of free will change about the way our human society functions? Why does it matter how people regard free will if the truth remains unchanged?

What do you think is the difference in value of physical vs. mental well-being? Can you have one without the other? If well-being (something you're able to define, so, relatively not subjective) is required for the pursuit of happiness, why is happiness such a subjective concept? Is well-being the sum of our resources and the status of our opportunities? Can someone be well but still unable to achieve happiness? Where can that disconnect be found? What is it attributed to? Which is more important, happiness or well-being? How do those two components relate to physical and mental health/well-being? Do you think the fact that well-being is relatively more tangible than happiness (i. e. you can touch medications that maintain normal blood-glucose levels but happiness is an untouchable emotion) makes well-being's status as leading to happiness that much more elusive? Is something devoid of empirical evidence not truly existent? You claimed in earlier discussions of religion and spirituality that a lack of observable evidence makes these things not actual, how does that concept translate into your discourse on well-being vs. happiness? If components of well-being depend on the actions of others, can an immoral person be well and thus happy because others around him/her are kind, despite his/her net negative impact? Is well-being relative? If so, do you think well-being's relative application plays a role in each person's unique criteria for happiness? How would you say that a person's well-being affects their morality? Can you explain the connections between naturally selected morality, well-being leading to happiness, and external morality (to produce one's own well-being)? What do these ideological interactions leave us with? How do they (can they?) explain universal observations of human communication?

Theoretical scenario question: If two moral codes subscribe to the same fundamentals, one coming from religious beliefs, and the other not, what sets these two types of people apart if their resulting actions are the same? Is there someone who is better than the other? Does it matter where people get their morals from? Is there a stereotype or stigma against people who receive their moral code from a religion? Why do you think this occurs even among two moral bases that produce a common ground of conduct between people?

Is it possible that true "goodness" or morality are formed by a combination of the empirical and the intangible? If so, then how does one go about dismantling each separate sector of life? Would it not be more accurate to dismantle the imbalance of or ineffective application of each? Why does the world's state of morality need to be improved if natural selection has already made us moral? Is morality contingent upon personal happiness? Where does well-being come into place here? Is long-term benefit more favorable than short-term benefit? Can there be a moral system that provides both? In this moral system, if humans must be made happier to be moral, then how is happiness the end goal and not absolute morality? Why does the moral system promoting long-term happiness go against humans' tendencies to look for happiness in the moment (short term)? If natural selection made us moral but it also made us seek instant gratification, how is morality sacrificing short term happiness for long term happiness? If someone's an axe murderer, they may never realize that it's easier to survive in groups... and that's assuming that their will to survive doesn't only come from cutting people's heads off.. explain? If by nature, humans are moral, then how is postponement of the human desire for instantaneous pleasure the fundamental basis of a moral system? Do you think that there is free will to choose short term over long term satisfaction (or the other way around)? Is morality defined by or associated with collective well-being? Is there a difference between personal morality and collective morality?

What is the purpose of this project? How does everything you've read, analyzed, and studied contribute to your end goal? Do you think personally, after discovering your opinions on these things, your conduct will change? Does a heightened understanding of why we act the way we act change the way we act? How can you bring it all together? Are you defining your version of the most optimal secularized moral system? Recently, you've been moving away from an analysis of religion, do you think there is a more objective way to go about it? Is it possible that in doing so, you've eliminated your project's application to a large group of the population? What audience are you looking to reach? Have you considered talking to others about their beliefs on these matters? Do you think a lot of people consider these ideological concerns? If not, would you consider bringing the literature to them so that they could form their own opinions? Do you think there is a right answer to any of the questions you have raised about humanity?