Chapter 1: The Humean Dilemma

In a recent essay titled "Morality: From Is to Ought," Ingvar Gríjs elaborates on Hume's assertion that we cannot logically derive an "ought" (a moral directive) from an "is" (a factual state). This means that without additional context or input, we cannot rationally determine how we should ethically respond to real-life situations. Gríjs emphasizes that Hume's argument illustrates a logical fallacy when one attempts to transition from describing reality to prescribing moral behavior without addressing the normative gap.

Gríjs highlights significant implications of this argument, including the necessity for normative premises and the idea that moral frameworks must be justified through rational discourse and consensus. Moreover, if morality isn't grounded in divine authority or revelation, this raises questions about the existence of objective morality. This point is often wielded in debates by theists, who argue that without divinely ordained moral guidelines, atheists may indulge their basest instincts without any moral restraint.

What the is/ought dilemma reveals is a fundamental confusion between moral actions and logical propositions. Morality, fundamentally, resides within our consciousness and is not easily articulated. The moral lessons we learn are more likely to serve as informal guidelines for navigating uncertainty.

Socrates posited that while virtue cannot be directly taught, it can be achieved. His approach was not merely to deconstruct established beliefs but to encourage individuals to recognize a truth that transcends mere opinion. For instance, in the dialogue "Greater Hippias," Socrates engages the sophist Hippias on the essence of beauty, ultimately leaving him to ponder: what is it within you that perceives something as beautiful? More broadly, in any situation, what internal compass guides your moral response?

Jacob Bronowski offered two insightful reflections on this inner sense of morality:

1. “The values by which we are to survive are not rules for just and unjust conduct, but are those deeper illuminations in whose light justice and injustice, good and evil, means and ends are seen in fearful sharpness of outline.”
2. “There are two things that make up morality. One is the sense that other people matter: the sense of common loyalty, of charity and tenderness, the sense of human love. The other is a clear judgment of what is at stake: a cold knowledge, without a trace of deception, of precisely what will happen to oneself and to others if one plays either the hero or the coward.”

Understanding what exists in a situation involves recognizing our internal states and our ability to respond. For example, if I witness someone struggling in the ocean, my ability to assist may depend on my current skills. Sixty years ago, as a lifeguard, I could have intervened effortlessly. Today, however, my only option would be to alert someone more capable. This aspect of moral action can be termed "Master of the Option." Without being able to act effectively, mere awareness of a need is insufficient.

Bronowski's second observation underscores the essential components of moral decision-making: love and knowledge. Knowledge provides clarity about reality, while love inspires the appropriate course of action. Yet, ignorance and personal biases can obscure our judgment. Additionally, moral dilemmas often require immediate responses that reflect character, shaped by ongoing choices within our internal development.

Is it feasible to derive a universal moral principle from these reflections?

Nine centuries ago, the Persian polymath Omar Khayyam suggested that true knowledge is achieved through the purification of one's inner self, which allows the rational soul to reflect the spiritual realm, free from earthly impurities. The ancient Stoics shared similar views, presenting an idealized Stoic Sage who aligns their will with the universal order, or logos. In this state, every action aligns with higher moral standards, though no Stoic claimed to have fully achieved this; rather, they humbly acknowledged their ongoing journey.

Acknowledging our fallibility as humans, the most we can strive for is progress along this path. Thus, I propose that the only expressible universal moral duty is to cultivate our consciousness to better respond ethically to the situations we encounter.

This personal development need not be monumental; it can manifest in small, everyday actions—being courteous, offering help when possible, or treating others with dignity. Those who learned these small lessons in childhood owe a debt of gratitude to their parents.

Generosity is a vital moral attribute, and Idries Shah's book, "Learning How to Learn," illustrates this growth journey. Shah notes that while acts of generosity—such as helping those in need—are commendable, true generosity lies in actions taken without the expectation of acknowledgment. He suggests that the most authentic form of generosity is when one acts selflessly, even to the point of accepting the perception of being ungenerous to avoid self-promotion. This kind of altruism, both in material support and thought, is diligently nurtured among those who aspire to higher moral standings.

Chapter 2: The Inner Workings of Morality

This chapter further explores the dynamics of moral behavior, emphasizing the importance of understanding our internal motivations and the implications for our ethical choices.