The Concept
 

Disclaimer

 

The following is not finished and contains logical and grammatical mistakes. Please note that some sentences may not be finished. I will be changing it often as I continue to research, learn, and grow. It may drastically change over time. I do not have any sort of official educational background concerning ethics and morality. I am still learning and open to all sorts of paths to learning. Primarily, the unfolding of my ideas is governed by the intuitive, creative process. I am posting my unfinished ideas and self-study to seek financial sponsorship from like-minded people so I can continue to focus on finalizing them and getting them “out there” at some point (perhaps within a few years). If you see potential in the following and believe you are meant to help, please consider donating here and/or contacting me about how you can help. Thank-you!

 

The Problem My Concept Seeks to Solve

​

I present the concept, below, as an attempt to argue that there’s not a sensible enough reason to explain why we all have equal, inherent moral worth. Without a solid understanding as to why we are equal in inherent moral worth, we will not be able to truly communicate with each other with the basic dignity and respect we deserve. 

​

What is Inherent Worth?

 

The concept of inherent worth echoes from across the world, from the east to the west, and is the basis for protecting human and/or animal rights. I believe we have inherent moral worth due to an inherent, shared, equal moral ability to know what is right and wrong. I also believe that without possessing unearned inherent moral worth, in combination with our earned reasoning skills, we cannot be capable of morality. I think it makes sense that we all must possess an inherent moral ability that allows us all to equally know what is moral in order for morality to exist. Morality shouldn't be 100% merit -based (where we are fully, morally responsible for everything we do) nor should it be eliminated completely (where we have zero personal moral responsibility for what we do). If we were 100% morally responsible for all that we did under a merit-based (earned) moral reality, we would not be able to do what is right because we would have zero set guidance (equal, inherent moral ability to know what is right and wrong) as to what the right moral direction is. 

​

If morality didn't exist or if we weren't morally responsible for anything we did, then we wouldn't have an inherent moral ability and therefore any clue what right or wrong is. 

 

If we make a moral mistake and take responsibility for changing it, then that isn't our moral failing so long as we are willing to change it. We are the initial products of our environments and upbringings (we don't have free will as young children). To think we are morally at fault for every moral mistake eliminates that we have an ounce of an ability to do what is right.

 

I believe that we all have an equal moral ability to know right from wrong, but an unequal ability to know how to apply it using reason. I don't believe our self-worth is 100% inherent and unearned. I believe we have part inherent or unearned self-worth, and part earned self-worth (reason).

​

The idea of humans possessing inherent worth is also referred to as human dignity and is prevalent in African philosophy. According to the book, Human Dignity in African Philosophy, A Very Short Introduction, "In light of the community interpretation of African ethics, or Ubuntu, it accounts for human dignity in terms of the human capacity for identity and solidarity, or, simply put, our capacity for friendliness (Molefe)."

 

​Indigenous peoples (Native Americans) have believed that, according to Native American philosopher Fritz Detwiler, "Persons have inherent moral worth and are deserving of moral respect. The wording here is intentional. Moral worth is not an attribute of persons that can be separated from persons, and it is inherent in all beings (Rohr, Dave, Fritz Detwiler – “Native American Philosophy and Unified Knowledge” | Philosophy of Religion)."

​

In Asian philosophy, namely Confucism, every human is born with what is called supreme intrinsic value. Confucists believe it is our duty to develop this potential to obtain acquired dignity (Li, Yaming).

​

In Indian philosophy, according to a journal article titled A comparative study of Indian philosophical human values with western philosophy, "Indian philosophical traditions, which have their roots in antiquated books and scriptures, place a strong emphasis on the inherent value of each person and the interdependence of all living things (Bharadwaj, Akolkar, Azam)."

​

In Western philosophy, we are pretty familiar with the idea of human dignity or inherent worth because of 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant and the Greek Stoics. Kant stated that we have inherent worth because of what he called our rational autonomy (Debes, Remy "Dignity").

​

The idea of inherent worth is also prevalent in Middle Eastern philosophy/religion. In Judaism, according to Rabbi Sandra Lawson, "Kavod HaBriyot is a fundamental principle in Jewish ethics. It underscores the inherent worth and respect due to every human being simply because they are part of God’s creation (Lawson, "Breaking the Carousel of Fear and Misunderstanding"). In Islam, according to journal article titled Human Dignity from an Islamic Perspective: Concepts and Theoretical Base, "Despite the potential for individuals to regress below even the status of animals due to their evil actions, Islam upholds the inherent sanctity and honor accorded to human beings by mere virtue of their humanity (Baydar)." In Christianity, it is believed that we have inherent worth because we are made in God's image. Although Christians currently only make up around 4% of the Middle Eastern population, it is still a Middle Eastern religion (Johnson).

 

Introducing My Concept 

 

The following is an attempt at providing a solid understanding about why we are truly equal in inherent moral worth. 

 

According to Cambridge Dictionary, inherent means, “existing as a natural and permanent quality of something or someone.” Synonyms include inborn and innate.

 

I argue that it’s only possible for us all to have equal, inherent moral value if the following 7 criteria are met:

​

1) We exist and share our existence as self-conscious living beings.

 

2) We, as individuals, possess an inherent moral ability from birth, not a capacity or capability, regardless of our age, race, etc., that allows us to have moral potential.

​

3) This ability is unrestricted by physical matter.

 

4) This ability provides moral information.

​

5) Our access to this moral information is complete. 

​

6) This ability is unearned.​

 

7) We share the same inherent moral ability.

 

I believe that if any of the above criteria are not met, it’s not possible to have equal, inherent moral worth. This is because:

​

1) Obviously, if we didn't exist and share our existence as self-conscious living beings, then we wouldn't be able to have inherent worth in the first place.

 

2) If we, as individuals, didn’t possess an inherent moral ability, then we wouldn't be equal in inherent moral worth, regardless of age or intellectual ability. This is because we must possess or own a moral ability in order for us to be able to take personal responsibility for it in order to do what is right. Taking personal responsibility for our actions is a requirement for being able to do what is right. Further, a capability or capacity doesn't provide equal inherent moral worth, regardless of age and level of intellect, because if we don't have access to an active ability from birth, we can't have equal inherent worth. Inherent worth isn't inherent if it can increase with our age or rational abilities. I agree with the Confucian view. According to Yaming Li, author of the book The Confucian Argument for Equal Human Dignity, "Human dignity does not depend on manifested capacity; on the contrary, nurturing of typical human capacity depends on the awareness of one’s own dignity (Li, Yaming)." In the Confucian view, our dignity comes from our equal, moral potential. In my view, our moral potential should first come from an equal, moral ability that is then combined with our intellect. Either way, I agree that human dignity doesn't depend on manifested capacity.

​

3) If this ability were restricted by physical matter, then morality wouldn't exist because morality requires free will and we can't have free will if we are restricted in some way. 

 

4) If this ability didn’t provide moral information, then there would be nothing to be equal about, either, since we couldn’t be moral without any moral information.

​

5) if we didn’t all have complete access to moral information, then we wouldn’t be equal in inherent worth since we'd all have different levels of access than others.

 

6) If we didn't have unearned access, then morality would be 100% merit based (individuals are always fully at fault for all they do) or 100% non-existent (groups, the supernatural, environments, and/or systems are 100% at fault). This is because without an equal starting point, there is no set, unchanging standard to measure our behaviors by that determines right and wrong for all. ​

 

7) If we didn’t share the same inherent moral ability, then we wouldn’t be equal in inherent worth.​​

​

Let’s compare my criteria against some common reasons why we have inherent moral worth or equal inherent worth, to help prove why other reasons don’t measure up as complete explanations as to why we are equal in inherent worth.

 

• We exist. Passes criteria 1. Fails 2-7.

• We are human. Passes criteria 1. Fails 2-7.

• We have moral potential.  Since this potential isn't linked to an ability, this reason fails all 7 criteria. Perhaps this reason passes criteria 1 since it is a given that we all exist and are human.

• We are interconnected. Passes criteria 1. Fails criteria 2-7.

• We are made in the image of God. This reason doesn't mention what ability this gives us, so it fails all criteria. Perhaps it passes criteria 1 since it is a given that we all exist and are human.

• Nothing. There is no inherent worth because there is no moral meaning. This reason fails all criteria.

 

Introducing The Moral Ability That Passes All 7 Criteria

 

I believe that the only inherent moral ability (not capability or capacity) that could possibly give us equal, inherent moral worth, regardless of race, age, gender, etc. is an intuitive, moral awareness of what is the right and wrong direction for our lives. This is an ability that allows us to intuitively know what is right or wrong, not an ability that allows us to know how or why to do what is right, which relies on intellect to learn. This moral quality passes all 7 criteria mentioned above.

​

Morality is about directing our behaviors in the right direction and gives meaning and purpose to our existence. I believe the right direction is respecting our equal inherent moral worth. We must do this by learning why and how to align our thoughts and behaviors with our intuitive awareness of right and wrong.

 

I believe that all self-conscious living beings have equal access to (at all times) an objectively true, equal intuitive awareness of what is morally right and wrong; however, as humans, I don’t believe we are naturally able to obtain moral knowledge about how a behavior is right or wrong and why it is important to do what is right, depending on our level of intelligence. Learned ethical knowledge is required in this way and can, obviously, only be earned through learning truths and unlearning lies. This is why rational thought, knowledge, and experience are key to learning to behave morally, when in submission to (but equal to) our intuitive moral awareness of right and wrong. So long as we have the intellectual ability, we will be obligated to use our free will to choose right from wrong, due to our unlimited and complete access to our intuitive moral awareness. Because we have free access to our intuitive awareness, we have the free will to choose to follow it. According to an online journal in Springer by Yimang Li, “In many ethical traditions, it is believed that, if an attribute can grant dignity, we have a moral obligation to conserve and develop this attribute (Li, Yimang “The Confucian Argument for Equal Human Dignity”).” Confucism, Christianity, and Classical Greek philosophy, to name a few, support this idea (Li). 

 

I believe that what is morally right directs us to respect each other’s equal inherent moral worth (due to our equal intuitive moral awareness).

 

The idea that our intuition is an awareness of meaning is prominent in Indian Philosophy. According to an article by PhilArchive, “For Bhartṛhari, a fifth-century philosopher of the Indian Grammarian (Vaiyākaraṇika) school, all conscious beings—beasts, birds, and humans—are capable of what he called pratibhā, a flash of indescribable intuitive understanding such that one knows what the present object 'means” and what to do with it. Contemporary scholars writing on pratibhā generally translate the Sanskrit term as “intuition,” noting the sense understood by many analytical philosophers as an a priori judgment appealed to in thought experiments to test philosophical hypotheses, but in the sense of a spontaneously arising awareness that is immediate, reliable, indescribable, and pregnant with meaning. Significantly, our instantaneous understanding of a sentence or complete utterance already counts as an instance of Pratibha. Given that to understand a sentence is to know its meaning, such an understanding, if correct, amounts to a mode of knowing that may best be termed knowing-what, to distinguish it from both knowing-that and knowing-how (Ho, “Meaning, Understanding, And Knowing-What: An Indian Grammarian Notion of Intuition (Pratibhā)”)."

 

The less intellect we have, the less capable we are of freely choosing to do what is right or wrong. How can we if we don’t know the how and why questions about morality as clearly as someone with a higher level of intelligence? This is why kids and the intellectually disabled aren’t as capable of being immoral or moral as fully functioning adults, at no fault of their own. In this way they can be just as morally innocent as someone with more intellectual ability. This isn't to say children are incapable of immorality. Some children may be more prone to doing wrong than other children, just like adults. We should be careful what we teach children about morality. Children lack enough of what is called attribution ability (to perceive cause and effect), so if they are treated immorally by their caregivers, they will be more likely to accept the poor treatment as normal and therefore have a lot of painful lies to unlearn later in life at no fault of their own, if they so choose to do so. If they don't choose to unlearn what they were taught, then they will be at fault for their immoral actions.

​

Testing our knowledge against our intuitive moral awareness of what is right and wrong allows us to learn how and why to do what is right. The influential Indian philosopher and academic Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan supports this idea. According to an article published by The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Radhakrishnan argues against what he sees as the prevalent (Western) temptation to reduce the intuitive to the logical. While logic deals with facts that are known, intuition goes beyond logic to reveal previously unseen connections between facts. “The art of discovery is confused with the logic of proof, and an artificial simplification of the deeper movements of thought results. We forget that we invent by intuition, though we prove by logic” (IVL 177). Intuition not only clarifies the relations between facts and seemingly discordant systems, but lends itself to the discovery of new knowledge which then becomes an appropriate subject of philosophical inquiry and logical analysis (Hawley).” I believe the unseen connections between facts is moral meaning or the right or wrong moral direction.

 

Furthermore, according to the above publication, “Intuition is not the end, but part of an ever-developing and ever-dynamic process of realization. There is, for Radhakrishnan, a continual system of “checks and balances” between intuition and the logical method of discursive reasoning. (Hawley). 

 

Considering the above, there are two types of intuitive knowledge: 

​

Definition of knowledge means, according to Oxford Languages, "be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information."

 

1) Intuitive moral awareness (knowledge) of moral meaning or what is the right and wrong direction for our existence. This moral awareness is like an inbuilt compass. Like I mentioned above, the idea of intuition as meaning seems to have its roots in Indian Philosophy and Hinduism. This is a cognitive intuitive awareness of right and wrong doesn’t require logic to know; it is not rational knowledge. This awareness can also be described as a sense or feeling. Emotions may or may not accompany an intuitive knowing or feeling. Intuitive awareness of what is right and wrong is not driven by rational thought or emotional experiences and is present from birth. According to an article by The Scientific American, “Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness (Cook, “The Moral Life of Babies”).” 

 

I believe this moral intuitive awareness is equal and inherent in all self-conscious living beings regardless of age, status, race, intelligence, etc. and it is this moral ability that gives us all equal, unearned, inherent moral worth. It is what ties us together. Cultures across the eastern world reflect this notion that the reason we have inherent worth is because we are interconnected. African philosophies, including the Bantu, ancient Celtic culture, Chinese philosophies, including Confucism, and more support this idea of interconnectedness. I propose we are interconnected because we all share this same intuitive ability to know moral meaning. I believe the idea of unconditional love comes from the idea of inherent worth. We can unconditionally love each other because of our inherent worth.​

 

2) Rational Intuitive knowledge. This is intuitive knowledge that requires rational thought to know and can concern how or why we should do something or what actions to take to accomplish something. We might retrieve this intuitive knowledge from our subconscious memories, or it can be from some other source. These rational intuitions should be in submission to our intuitive moral awareness of what is right or wrong before we decide to act on them.

 

Of course, we also have knowledge that is not intuitive but learned using logic. Rational knowledge is very valuable towards learning how to be moral, as mentioned above.

​

A Diagram

​