Report on Human Life (English version)
Especially addressed to philosophers
There is an article to Ernst Mayr in the biologists section of my website which I recommend reading in full. I reproduce a paragraph from his book This is Biology where it says:
Many important works go unnoticed, sometimes completely, because they were published in Russian, Japanese, or even Western European languages other than English. What's more, if the ideas contained in these publications are eventually adopted, it's usually because someone else has subsequently discovered them, and the priority of the first publication is forgotten.
Heeding this warning, in May 2017 I commissioned the translation of Surviving by Loving: A Universal Ethical Principle that was published under the title Survival and Altruism: A Universal Principle of Ethics. Both versions can be downloaded it from the books section. I sent over a hundred copies in English to several English-speaking scholars in different countries, but only a few responded with objections which I clarified that are listed in the objections section of the website.
After eight years, as I have said in 2024 here , I haven't found anyone with academic authority who confirms or challenges my ideas. I've tried to solve the questions raised and I only needed to respond to a recent objection about the impossibility of grounding ethics because there is no finality in the universe.
On this regard, I agree with the wise men, believers and non-believers alike, that we don't know scientifically whether there is a purpose in the universe, nor in the vital process. In other words, we don't know for sure whether our lives have a teleological or transcendent meaning.
On the other hand, there are still different doctrines and opinions about human nature, about the concept of species, about selfishness and altruism as factors in our morality, etc. This variety of criteria makes it difficult to discuss a possible universal ethic.
In the Informe sobre la vida humana. Leyes, ética y futuro I explain and justify my ideas about the survival of the species as the primary human goal or objective and broad altruism as the principal means to achieve it. I also clarify any doubts about the aforementioned concepts related to these issues.
I've sent Spanish copies to some scholars and leaders, to Pope Leo XIV, and to several heads of state in Hispanic countries. And my plan is to continue doing so as long as I can, as I stated in my post from March of this year. I hope this new endeavor bears positive fruit among Spanish speakers and that someone wise will emerge who will see and test the idea.
Today's news is that, following Ernst Mayr's observation, I ordered and have just received three hundred copies of the English version, entitled Report on Human Life. Laws, Ethics, and Future aimed at English-speaking thinkers and leaders.
This post is dedicated especially to philosophers, since they are the ones who have typically been, and continue to be, concerned with searching for the foundations of ethics.
Based on my experience trying to contrast these ideas, I believe that readers of the book may find it useful to understand the difficulties that exist in seeing and understanding them, especially philosophers, given their methods of thinking. I summarize what I say in the philosophers section of the website regarding this problem.
Some reasons why philosophers do not see the basic idea
I'll mention the potential problems that I believe have prevented philosophers from seeing the basic idea of species survival and its applications. The solutions are in the book.
The first reason that comes to mind is that the basic idea is a direct consequence of a biological law or constant, implicit in all living beings, which has worked and works without the need to explain it. In general, philosophers seek a spiritual Good.
Biological life, material life, is almost irrelevant to a philosopher. And until very recently, no one considered the possible self-extinction of our species.
Another important issue is the difficulties to consider species as Subjects capable of having goals and methods for trying to achieve them. Philosophers, especially since Aristotle, seek the good of individuals, not of the Platonic State or human groups. And even less of the species.
This is the most difficult concept for everyone to grasp. The idea of species as evolutionary units or systems is very recent. Not even Darwin himself considered it, despite the title of his most famous book.
Viewing the species as a subject is essential to understanding the basic idea. But until now, "metaethicists", especially philosophers, have worked and continue to work with individuals/people. Anyone who has doubts can go online and read the articles on what biologists Dobzhansky, Gould, and Mayr have to say on this subject .
In all philosophical ethical analysis, there is one issue that makes thinking difficult and produces fundamental errors and problems in mutual understanding. Many thinkers try to find the ethical foundation in human nature, in whatever the human person is. And the result is different depending on whether one sees man as an evolved animal, a spiritual being, or a mixture of both… And there is no agreement on what man is, nor on what good or objective he should strive to achieve to give meaning to his life.
Going deeper into the above, in the history of philosophy multiple partial and contingent ends or "goods" have been proposed: individual life, happiness, the common good in some of its multiple meanings, wisdom, dignity, one's own evolution, moral or material progress...
They all seem like good and useful goals. However, they are partial means and objectives for the main purpose of life, which they obscure, among other reasons, because of their obviousness.
On the other hand, for some, there cannot be such a thing as universal good and ethics, because if they did exist, they would be something transcendent.
However, the existence or not of one or more transcendent ends is perfectly compatible with the vital imperative that commands us to try to survive biologically as a species.
The basic idea is a harsh and demanding mandate. It assumes, as its first partial objective, the preservation of individual existence. Therefore, it encompasses good and evil. Life and death. Peace and war between living beings: of the same and different species. Selfishness and altruism. Love and hate. And personal commitment.
It seems that many philosophers fail to understand these human contradictions. Yet, they are all explained by the basic idea on which they are based.
The similarities with animals are another of the big problems that prevent us from embracing the basic idea. Not only philosophers, but everyone, instinctively rejects the idea that the foundation of our ethical criteria is the same as that of spiders or rats. And that our virtues of solidarity, courage, filial love, etc., are of the same functional nature as the capacities and social uses of elephants, wolves, or dolphins.
We find it hard to admit our resemblance to animals, especially philosophers. And even more so those who believe that humans are made in the image and likeness of their Creator. However, the basic ideas do not refute these others, but rather complement and reinforce them.
And there's a confusion about the concept of freedom. This is a capacity common to all species of living beings, especially the most complex ones. The difference lies in the degree. And in the case of humans, this enormous and growing capacity is another factor that has made us and continues to make us different. Along with self-awareness and the ability to coexist in ever-larger groups.
These capabilities have helped us get this far, but they pose a great danger, since humans, like all living beings, have the mandate to live, and to live as well as possible, individually and in groups. And that freedom, which has served to invent, dominate, and survive, if misused is and has been deadly for individuals and groups. And now it can be deadly for the species itself if there is no universal ethical basis.
Summary
In summary I would like to highlight the following:
We already have an English version of the Informe sobre la vida humana. It's now a matter of reaching English-speaking people who are interested in the goal of human survival. And who have the ability and desire to comment on these ideas.
My appeal is to all thinkers: old, mature, and young. I'm told that, especially among the more experienced, there's the problem of having beliefs, methods, and languages that don't fit these ideas. This is in addition to the biases inherent in each personal ideology. My plea is for you to read the book, trying to put aside your natural prejudices.
I want to emphasize that the important thing is to see and embrace the basic idea, which is very simple and obvious: Humans are living beings, and as such, our vital purpose is the survival of our species. And so far, we have achieved that.
From here, everyone can think whatever seems best to them. In my case, upon "seeing" this idea, I deduced that our vital obligation is to do what is good/best for the survival of the species. And everything else follows from there. I say this to prevent the basic idea, which is obvious and elementary, from being obscured by what is peripheral and follows it.
If, as I say, our life's purpose is the survival of the species, this idea is the most important to grasp, embrace, and utilize in managing the world and its institutions. And it is essential for grounding all the partial and contingent ethics and moral norms of all human cultures, religions, and ideologies of this and future centuries.
In other words: all humans, their groups, leaders, and rulers have the duty to act in the best possible way for the survival of the species. And this objective has absolute priority. The idea is that the best method is broad altruism, and that human well-being is good/better for survival and for humans themselves.
I ask readers of this post, if they know someone thoughtful, capable, and interested, to forward this article to them. Or let me know so I can send them the book, in Spanish or English, depending on their language. Remember, the website is bilingual in almost every way.
🐬
Final note: We're supposedly taking our vacation in August. Happy summer to all our readers. And thank you very much if you study and spread these ideas.