Contents.- About good and evil.- About the human behavior.- About human rights and
ethical dilemmas.- About free will.- Evolution of the morals.

Things and phenomena of our universe are neither good nor evil by themselves. These terms express appreciation of effects on living beings of interactions with objects of inanimate nature or with other living beings. Good is conservation and reproduction of life, good are feelings of well-being, satisfaction, pleasure. Evil is the contrary of good: destruction of life, failure of its reproduction, feelings of discomfort, discontent and suffering. The same terms (good and evil or bad) are applied to animate and inanimate objects, according to the respective effects in living beings of interaction with them. So good and evil become qualities of those objects and phenomena. But these qualities are quite relative. This relativity becomes evident e.g. when the same phenomenon is good for one living being and evil for some other, particularly when good and evil are effects of interaction between them. The same phenomenon may be also cause of a good effect first and of an evil afterwards (or vice versa) for the same living being, i.e. its quality changes respectively. The above considerations correspond not only to interactions between individuals, but to those between groups of them too. The only difference is that good and evil for human groups are the respective effects on common interests instead on those of individuals.

Good and evil can be felt, can be inferred from objective signs and, in case of the humans, can be described verbally. Animals possessing brains can feel good and evil, though they cannot communicate their feelings verbally. The main difference between mammalian and human brains is the stage of development of the neocortex. The older part of the human brain from where come sensations of pain and pleasure and the emotions is essentially the same as that of even lower mammals. This older part interacts with the neocortex and therefore phenomena in the latter influence its activity, but emotions even may prevail the reason.[i] All this means that at least the sufficiently developed animals do experience pain and pleasure, and do have emotions. It may be presumed too that they experience them consciously. System of the brain critically related to consciousness _ exists also in the brains of those animals. Difference with human experience is that without resources of the human language animals cannot apprehend (and express) their experience in terms of concepts: “... the visceral brain is not at all unconscious .... but rather eludes the grasp of the intellect because its animalistic and primitive structure makes it impossible to communicate in verbal terms.”[ii] Nevertheless, certain primates can communicate their feelings, emotions and desires with help of learned symbols. On the other hand conviction that other people do have feelings is due not only to verbal communication, but to interpretation also of objective signs of them and of the conduct. There is no valid reason for the rejection of application of the same criterion to animals. Development of the brain of vertebrates from fish to man was gradual (though accelerated at its last stage). It can be presumed therefore that rudiments of conscious sensations and emotions were emerging with advancing stages of evolution and developing with them. In other words, even lower vertebrates may have them.[iii]

A few examples may illustrate the relativity of good and evil of things and of phenomena appreciated from the subjective standpoint. For a carnivorous animal devour its prey is good because it satisfies its hunger. For its prey, it is a supreme evil because it suffers violent annihilation. Excess of alcohol at a late cocktail party may rejoice, but makes one sick the next morning. Eat cookies may be pleasant for some, but is harmful for a diabetic. One of the most characteristic features of the humanity (and in a sense of all other living beings) is propensity to competition, direct or indirect, intended or forced by circumstances. It occurs about means of subsistence, or induced by instincts (sex, domination), by social motives (customs, ideas and beliefs, politics) and by personal benefits and desires. Competition means that when one side wins the other looses, i.e. again what is good for one side is evil for the other.

The considered above concept of relativity of good and evil concerns not only individuals but groups of them too, up to entire populations and the whole of humanity. But in this case criteria for the appreciation cease to be subjective of individuals. Now they are gain (often at the cost of much individual sacrifice and suffering) or loss of advantages for the respective group or population: social, economic, political, military. An evident example of the relativity of collective good and evil is a war: good for the victorious nation, bad for the vanquished. Development for military purposes of radar and nuclear fission was made use of afterwards for the benefit of humanity. For the sake of progress of science and medicine, great number of animals are infected with diseases, mutilated and killed in laboratories all over the world. Progresses of technology and medicine contributed to the demographic explosion. It is accompanied by growing disparity between the rich and the poor and increasing populations of the latter, more violence, progressive contamination and destruction of the biosphere, gradual exhaustion of the vital and useful natural resources and by consequent aggravation of any kind of disasters.

The relativity of good and evil is expressed even more insofar it depends on the ideologies, religious and philosophical beliefs, corporate and personal interests and other psychological factors, all of them products of heredity, education, influences of the environment and of the experience.

Observation of animal conduct revealed that overcrowding leads to social abnormalities (among rats, cats) and aggressiveness (among fishes in an aquarium, rats in a cage, and monkeys in a zoo). Something similar is occurring now at a growing rate within the humanity, as in case of depravity and aggressiveness in big cities. The whole of human history up to the present, and in spite of all progress of civilization and morality, is rich in acts of destruction, atrocities and murder. The scale of them varies from individual victims of crime, torture or execution to wars, revolutions, selective or general extermination affecting entire populations, from occasional vandalism to devastation of whole countries and annihilation of accumulated treasures of past civilizations. Enormity of the consequent suffering is unimaginable.

Often the particularly bad cases of aggression are attributed to the animal instincts, to bestiality. That is not just. Wild animals may kill for food, also they may fight for prey or for females, but these fights use to end by the flight of the vanquished. So that, apart of rare exceptions, there is no killing between individuals of the same species. Hunting for food is not aggression. Animals become aggressive when frightened. Anyway, they do not commit atrocities. There are several circumstances explaining these differences between humans and animals. One of them is that beasts do not posses arms. Their weapons are tusks and claws. Animals of the same species are armed with them equally and permanently. Death in a struggle is not instantaneous and the weaker has a chance to escape. To the contrary, crimes and military aggressions use to be perpetrated by individuals or nations convinced of ttheir superiority over the attacked, that have no way out.

It was proposed also that beasts posses an inhibitory instinct, which prevents killing members of the same species. If this is so, then that instinct changed in the course of transition from animal ancestors to human descendants. Taboos in the world of primitive man prevented aggression against members of the own tribe, but not against the rest of the humanity. I.e. the scope of the inhibition was reduced from a species to a social group. Biologic limits were replaced by the social. Present-day wide range of different races, languages, cultures, of social, economical, political, and religious groups, became a source of mutual aversion between and increased cohesion within them. It may be supposed that the inhibitory instinct, if it still exists, became apportioned accordingly.[iv]

In the animal world, aggression is corporeal. In the human kinds of aggression multiplied and its range extended from the relatively innocuous verbal to monstrosities mentioned above. Aggression may be irrational, spontaneous, product of violent emotions or of alcohol or drugs. However, even a premeditated aggression may have a background of emotion or prejudice and so be irrational too. Irrationality means lack of control of the conduct by reason. It was attributed to discordant functioning of the phylogenetically old and new parts of cortex, an error of evolution from the animal to the human brain.[v] Therefore, any hope to eradicate at least the worst forms of aggression with the progress of morals and civilization seems to be vain. Proofs of it are atrocities committed by Nazis in the Christian and civilized Germany, land of famous philosophers, scientists, poets and composers.

In 1948 was approved by United Nations the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a compilation of anybody’s rights to enjoy a safe and decent existence, freedom and independence of mind. However, whatever be their legal status, human rights are never absolute. All human beings are different physically and mentally. Equality is impossible. Above was mentioned the fragmentation of the humanity and that good for some is usually paid by some others. Therefore those rights are limited and conditioned, or infringed anyway. Often the conflict of interests becomes an ethical problem, theme of discussions and cause of the political and religious contest. A frequent legal infringement occurs in favor of the interests of society or of the government. Some cases are considered in the following.

Observance of human rights of individuals is regulated by customs and the laws. Their infringement brings with it censure or punishment, the latter being itself an infringement of human rights of the punished (as to the ethical judgment of customs and laws, it depends on the premises). Therefore, better way of preservation of human rights of a population is the prevention of transgressions and crimes. Favorable conditions of life and good education are appropriate means to the purpose, but due to the already considered defect of human mentality, they are not sufficient. It is impossible, at least at present, to take specific measures of prevention of not yet committed crimes. What remains then is try to prevent them by the menace of punishment proportionate to the gravity of infringement. Punishment by confinement or execution of dangerous criminals protects virtual victims of aggression from probable repetition of attacks by them, definitely or at least temporarily. But application of these sanctions to convicts violates their human rights (and in case of executions exists furthermore a real danger of fatal errors).

In case of a conflict between rights of virtual victims and those of convict criminals, there is no doubt about whose rights do prevail. Aggression has to be resisted to assure peaceful coexistence in a civilized society. A controversial question is whether the right to life of a criminal, however dangerous, is inviolable. And in consequence society is obliged to provide him for the rest of his life decent conditions of existence in a high security prison, while lives of soldiers may be sacrificed freely in war, and many millions of innocent people live and die in extreme poverty.

In connection with the above should be mentioned the non-responsibility of minors of age (in some parts up to 18 years), while lately is growing the frequency of murders and other crimes committed by minors down to the age of 12 and less. It is pretended that they are not yet conscious of the significance of their acts. Anyway, a fixed age limit for the non-responsibility is absurd in principle. Indeed, progress of mental development is not the same for every individual and its stage does not change abruptly at a date of almanac. Therefore, the degree of non-responsibility should not be established with help of an almanac but by means of an analysis of mentality of the individual. May be it was not possible hundred years ago, but not now. On the other hand if a minor is not imputable because of his age, then should be charged his or her parents.

Innocent people by no means are exempt of a breach of their, even fundamental, human rights for the sake of common good. One of the worst examples is war, whether defensive or aggressive. The latter is an enormous crime, but paradoxically, in spite of progress in international relations, a powerful nation still may attack without suffering any sanction. Traditionally (at least in principle) difference between murder and killing in war was that a murderer kills people which have no chance to oppose effective resistance to him, while combatant’s dilemma is kill or be killed, which is a kind of relative justification. The other justification was that one is defending one’s fatherland. But recent developments of military technology, in particular of efficient long-range weapons, made it possible for some powerful nations to attack, at no or small risk for own military personnel or peril for their fatherland, countries possessing no adequate defensive resources. I.e. the difference mentioned above vanishes. Usual causes of military aggression are of political, economic and strategic nature, sometimes concealed with more or less elevated ideals (lately, defense of human rights) and menace of the pretended imminent aggression (with media of mass extermination). Consent of the society is prepared emotionally by diffusion of selected appropriately information. In case of the just described kind of wars, apart of probable strategic advantages, evident beneficiaries are victorious armed forces (training of personnel, replacement of the spent equipment by perfected new) and industry (production of the mentioned equipment and contracts for the reconstruction of the devastated overpowered country).

Few subjects produced so many controversies as that of abortion. The principal discrepancies may be attributed to different conceptions concerning the being in the uterus. For advocates of absolute prohibition of abortion organism in the uterus is human from the very moment of conception, so that abortion is murder like premeditated killing of any innocent person. The other extreme is unrestricted abortion upon the request of the potential mother. In this case unborn being has no rights whatever, which is equivalent to consider it not yet human. However, the process of birth, normal or premature, does not change the organism instantly, converting it from non-human into human. Both extremes seem to disregard the process of organic development in the uterus from a zygote to a child. Its first part is a kind of abridged repetition of phylogenesis of the human species previous to becoming human. Near the end of the second month of pregnancy an embryo becomes a fetus.. After 23 weeks from conception a fetus can survive and its brain becomes sustainable human. [vi] I.e., it becomes potential living being. Before it was only part of the organism of potential mother. In view of all the above it may be concluded that human rights may be claimed for the fetus after 23 weeks but not for the embryo.

Other factors are also to be taken into account. At some stage of development, presumably rather early, the being in the uterus begins feel pain. When necessary, the process of abortion should at least avoid pain to the creature that is going to be sacrificed. Other ingredient of the problem of abortion is related to philosophical and religious beliefs concerning the human nature. A human embryo is a future human being. If it is accepted that the latter is a conjunction of a material organism with a non-material mind and this conjunction is formed at conception, then abortion even of an embryo is destruction of this conjunction.

In view of all the above, the question of abortion remains as controversial as it was. Anyway, it should be remembered also, as was mentioned before, that under specific circumstances whatever human rights are violated legally. Total prohibition of abortions would be as absurd as the absolute freedom. What is needed is reasonable limitation of their freedom or of their prohibition.

Other controversial problem is that of euthanasia: is it allowable to provoke death to avoid suffering of a terminal disease? Prohibition of euthanasia may be judged unjust. A young, healthy and useful individual enjoying his life may be exposed legally, for the sake of common good, to mutilation or death in war, but at the same time to abbreviate cruel suffering of a dying person is considered to be a punishable murder. Moreover, cease to maintain life artificially is not a murder, specially when the maintained life is not human but “vegetal”. It is let die naturally Objection that euthanasia may be misused criminally is similar to the fear that transplantation of organs may be misused too. Nevertheless, it is legal. Strict regulations and control, like those for the ablation of organs, would be a similar guarantee against misuse of euthanasia.

In case of a conflict between human rights the answer to the question about which of them should prevail depends unfortunately not only on convictions and beliefs of who judges, but also on egoistic interests too, personal or of the group to which he or she belongs. This circumstance, together with the propensity to consider own convictions as the only valid ones and therefore to be forced on others, and with the exacerbated instinct of domination too led in course of human history to many disasters, much suffering and to frequent retrocession of morals. As examples can be mentioned the three major ones among the latest: Bolshevism, Nazism and Islamic fundamentalism.

Free will is a topic related to contents of the preceding sections of the paper. The problem of free will arises mainly in case of infringement of laws and rules of civilized coexistence in society or of the claims of religions. The will of the potential transgressor is free or is not? In principle, if it is free he would be responsible of the transgression and should be punished, but if not, can he be made responsible and be punished for an act that he did not will freely?

However, what is the free will? Recurring to the derided common-sense, the will may be described as the capacity to pursue one’s ends even against hindrances. And “free” seems to mean that there are no restrictions for it. Of course, it is not so. What it means in reality is that in the given case there is no physical, physiologic or neurological cause for the infringement of a law or rule in question. This conception of the free will is adequate for maintaining the ordered existence of the society, but not always for the keeping of human rights and even less for the justice of certain religious concepts. The topic is treated In what follows, with reference to the essay ”Integrated Cosmos” .

The mental self of a person is a conjunction of the psychological mind-memory complex with ego. Psychological complex, linked to the brain, is an immaterial entity analog of material computer. Ego is immaterial entity apt of consciousness, intelligence and will. The role of ego in the mental self in part is converting the unconscious activity of the psychological complex into conscious intelligence of the mental self, of information into perception, of processing in thinking, presence of contradictory alternatives in hesitation and decision. The other part is guiding the activity of the complex and exerting the will: electing from alternatives and initiating the action. It is to be noted that ego treats information processed by the psychological complex, database of which is product of inheritance, and of all influences and experiences to which was exposed the individual in course of his life.

In view of the above, it may be supposed that in case of a conflict between the due and the desired, ego chooses freely the solution from alternatives presented by the psychological complex together with respective considerations pro and con. These arguments and sensations are influenced by contents of the memory of psychological complex. It means that the will of ego is free within limits determined by factors of the subject’s character such as convictions and beliefs, culture, conditions of life, social relations and respective feelings, state of the health etc. So, will of ego is free, but will of the mental self, that is of the subject, is not. It is to be accentuated that ego intervenes in case of conflict. Common choosing of an alternative is done usually by the psychological complex. Ego may become conscious of it, or not.

For the society is important not so much the will of a person as his or her conduct obedient of laws and rules. However, not for all of the society. Poor and defenseless may be exploited and maltreated without infringing laws and without conflict with religion (priests of some religions may remit sins of any kind and frequency; on the other hand, belief in karma predisposes to indifference for misery of the poor).

According to a dictionary of philosophy, the term “morals” is used sometimes as equivalent to “ethics”, but more frequently, it designates codes, customs and conduct of individuals and groups.[vii] Morals in the latter sense are not the same everywhere and always. They are part of the cultural inheritance, which nowadays changes rapidly under the influence of the conditions and circumstances of existence, of the beliefs and ideologies, of the mass media of communication, of the propaganda and fashions. Viewed historically and geographically morals sometimes improved, sometimes deteriorated, but in general progressed gradually. Evolution of morals will be considered briefly, in what follows.

Wild animals feed on plants or prey. Primitive man collected fruits and hunted. Growth of a population of animals is limited by the want of vital resources and by the presence of beasts preying on them. The first of these factors in some cases implies control over a portion of the habitat, which is defended from intruders. Resulting fights end usually with the flight of one or other of the rivals. Humans presumably were always gregarious and lived at first in families and tribes. Organization of a tribe and life in it must have been not too different from those of animals living in organized groups, except that instinctive conduct of animals was replaced gradually by the domination of traditions. However, in both cases the maintenance of order depended on the authority of a leader. There existed nevertheless a negative difference between the behavior of humans and that of animals, inferred from what occurs at present among residual primitive tribes and considered already in a preceding section of the paper: murder of congeners extraneous to one’s tribe was not taboo.

While human population of some region consisted of sparse families or tribes, they lived isolated and were autonomous economically and socially. Later increase of population and development of agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts and trades produced its concentration in nomadic hordes and settled communities. Population of agricultural settlements remained rather homogeneous, people in cities and in big hordes became separated in different occupational, social and sometimes religious communities, interests of which were often mutually opposed. Therefore, traditions alone could not any more secure an orderly coexistence. It became necessary to regulate the conduct of people with help of appropriate prescribed and enforced rules.

Observance of rules of conduct in some particular group of individuals depends in first place from their fitness (an evident example is the difference between the rules of conduct for the adults of some community and for the children). Their observance may be improved by means of appropriate education. But in case of laws their observance is not voluntary. They are enforced by the menace of sanctions corresponding to the kind and degree of infringement. In ancient times (and not so ancient in some places) these sanctions were sometimes exaggerated and utterly cruel, sometimes beyond the law of talion, according to which a criminal was to suffer the same damage as that inflicted to his victim. . So debtors were imprisoned up to the payment of their debt or enslaved, to thieves were cut off hands, women that committed adultery were stoned Laws were dictated and sanctions applied not only as means to assure acceptable relations within and between horizontally differentiated communities mentioned above. Appearance of bronze weapons, less accessible, contributed to vertical segregation into a privileged dominant fraction of a population and the subjugated and exploited rest of it. In following laws and sanctions were used also to secure authority and privileges of the dominant group. There was too, and in some countries still is, subdivision into the dominant and privileged and the subdued and ill-treated according to the sex of individuals.

On the other hand, from ancient times on, religions prescribed rules of good conduct.[viii] These rules, essentially similar in case of the great religions, were attributed in some of them to divine revelation and therefore absolute, valid for everybody and always. Philosophers for their part tried to ascertain criteria for good and evil and derive rules of desirable conduct, both for the private and for the public life, including interactions between the governors and the governed. However, those rules and criteria were rarely followed in practice. There were many traditional exceptions to them: abasement of women, privileges of members of the dominant group and exploitation by them of the dominated population and the slavery. Division in classes and hereditary privileges were accepted as natural; sovereigns were held for God’s delegates on earth. Nevertheless, the idea was maturing and spreading gradually that everybody should possess rights protecting from arbitrary treatment by authorities and from unjust discrimination. In some countries sooner, in some other later monarchies became constitutional or were abolished, and sets of those rights were included in the constitutions. At last, United Nations approved in l948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Progressive recognition, spontaneous or imposed by custom or law, of human rights is merit of individuals who, since the antiquity, endeavored to improve the fate of their suffering congeners. The unavoidable criminal and legal infringement of these rights was considered above. However, progress of morals, reflected in formal recognition of human rights, brought with it efforts to mitigate consequences of these infringements and to prevent arbitrariness. When a mob claims justice, they want punishment and they mean vengeance. Nevertheless, conditions in prisons tend to improve because imprisonment is considered now as means against crime (by menace, confinement, education) and not of vengeance. In 1864 union of some humanitarian organizations became International Red Cross (since 1986 Red Cross and Red Crescent). At first, it was established to care for victims of battles, but afterwards was dedicated to prevention and relief of human suffering in general. Goals of Geneva Conventions of 1864-1949 were to ameliorate the effects of war suffered by soldiers and civilians. Slavery began to be abolished in some countries about the end of 18th and beginning of the 19th century and completed about 1960. Condition of women was improving, though not everywhere or not quite. Today, in countries that deserve the name of civilized, women have, at least legally, the same rights as men. They have even some benefits corresponding to their sex and the motherhood. Primary purposes of United Nations (its foundation was concluded in 1945) are preservation of the international peace and security, improvement of the international relations and cooperation, and the promotion of human rights.[ix]

The above are some examples of efforts tending to ameliorate conditions of human existence, effect of moral progress of at least a part of the humanity.