THE ASPIRATION MODEL

Commissioned by Ken Young and crafted by Don Pearce in 2020

INTRODUCTION

This model is called “Aspiration”. The jewel on the top represents the highest possible moral aspiration we humans can aim for.  We are all naturally moral to some degree, some more than others.  Those of above average morals are on the top surface of the crown shaped model, around the jewel.   Those below average are down the side.  Most of us are around average morally and are located somewhere near the bulge between the top and the side.  Few are closer in towards the jewel and only a few are way down the side.

Several different aspects of morality are being studied and measured by Social Psychologist, Johnathan Haidt and his team.  These are represented in the model by the overlapping segments around the model.  Moral Theory is a new science and can enhance the efforts of religions and other belief systems to encourage people to aspire to a more moral existence.   Moral Theory certainly got me thinking.

The different coloured woods in the model represent levels of morality that can be measured.  These are only indicative, and a more accurate measure is theoretically possible.  Details of the way this model has been developed is covered elsewhere.

Inside the model there is a conical space and a cone.  The cone represents the level of suffering many people experience through a lack of morality.  I’m suggesting many people struggle to cope with life through a lack of morals.  Many will struggle for other reasons, despite their higher level of morality.  The lack of morality is only one cause of suffering, but it is one of the major causes of the many ills of society.  My suggestion is that suffering can be diminished by more moral behaviour, particularly mental anguish can be reduced.

I believe if more humans can become more moral, society will function better, and more people can flourish.  My hope is the model will go some way to help people understand the idea of the moral aspirations we all have, and what we can do to make the world a better place for ourselves and society generally.

Scientists and philosophers have long been suggesting we need to aim for a universal code of ethics or morality to improve the human condition.  I’m suggesting the jewel in the model is symbolically where a Universal Moral Code (UMC) is located.  Few people, if any will reach this extreme, simply because we are all limited to some degree.  More details of the philosophy and science behind this concept is dealt with elsewhere.

I’m hoping that this model will help those, wanting to make the world a better place, understand a UMC is an aspiration worthy of consideration.  Humanity may never achieve it, but it could be the best direction to proceed.  In my view there is always a better way.

My thanks to Don Pearce who spent many hours crafting this model and helping me with the design.  Thank you to the others at the Lower Plenty Men’s Shed who helped with suggestions and pointed me in the direction of Don.

Ken Young

Draft – 9 April 2020

MEASURING MORALITY

Social Psychologist Johnathan Haidt has been studying morality for decades and is a recognised expert on ethics.  His book, The Righteous Mind, has inspired me to study this topic.  Haidt and his team have been developing Moral Theory and are exploring moral foundations that appear to be universal among all humans.  This is complex because not all humans are the same and each person places a different significance on each moral foundation.  Haidt and his team are using questionnaires to measure these differences.  You can use their questionnaires to get an indication of your own morality at www.yourmorals.org

I’m hoping this is just the start and greater minds will develop better ways of measuring and describing morality and its significance for individuals, human society and the planet.   We need these measures if we are to move towards a Universal Moral Code.  They will point the way.  The average human is naturally moral but capable of a wide range and variation of behaviour.

The results of the questionnaires developed by the Haidt team are indicative of how our moral tendencies compare with the averages of conservatives and liberals in the American sense of these terms.  When you undertake one of these questionnaires you receive a report which gives a score for each of the moral foundations being studied by the team.

We can use this data as an approximate measure of the morality of the population contributing to the questionnaires for the moral foundations being studied.

MORAL FOUNDATIONS

Seven moral foundations are currently (2020) being studied by Haidt and his team with a view to verifying them as a sound analysis of our natural human morality.  The seven are Care, Equality, Equity, Autonomy, Loyalty, Authority and Purity.  Initially five were the subject of a questionnaire and another added when The Righteous Mind was published.  They formed the basis of the seven being tested in the latest questionnaire.

The aspiration model is divided into seven overlapping segments to represent the current seven moral traits being studied.  There are two reasons for the overlap.  Firstly, it makes the model structurally stronger.  Secondly, each moral foundation, with further study, may become divided into more than a single definitive moral foundation.  When you look at the list of moral foundations you will probably see gaps yourself.  Everyone sees the world through different eyes.  I also think the model looks more aesthetically pleasing with them overlapping.

DIFFERENCE

Differences in the significance individuals place on each of the moral foundations have been found between those with different political and religious persuasions.  The subtitle of the Haidt book is “Why good people are divided by politics and religion”.  I’m hoping if we can understand our differences better, we may be able to become more tolerant, or at least better understand divergent personalities and move to a less divisive position.

We are all different for several reasons and we all see the world through different eyes.  The main factors contributing to these differences come under two headings – Nature and Nurture.  In both cases there is a lot of luck involved.  Since we all come from the mating of our parents, we inherit a unique set of genes, unless we’re identical twins.  That unique set of genes comes under the heading of Nature.  Identical twins will also become different for many reasons but mostly from the environment, even in the womb.  This is Nurture at work.  Studies of twins have shown just how much of our personal traits are inherited.  Our genes are only a recipe of how to build a body and can be heavily influenced by the environment we encounter.

Significant differences in the ability to cope can arise from unusual genetic combinations or mutations creating new genes.  Differences can also arise from early childhood experiences, such as poor parenting or trauma, disease or other environmental limitations, like poor nutrition or social upheaval.  Many such events can lead to individual difficulty in coping with the complexity of society and lead to poor mental and physical health.  These are many causes why some people struggle more than others through no fault of their own.  Those struggling may appear to be less moral than average, but this may be a result of a justifiable cause over which they have had no control.

This is an area where we just don’t know what to do anything about.  We put them in gaol.  We let them be poor.  Some are cared for by loving parents who bear a lifetime of responsibility to keep them out of harm’s way when the parents have little or no responsibility for creating their problem child.  Some people are clearly disabled but others appear to be OK but can’t be educated or employed.

Unfortunately, what society generally does with less than able people is to ignore them as much as possible or blame them for a situation they had nothing to do with.  Eugenics is not a solution.  We need humane solutions and ones that don’t destroy the lives of the parents and limits the damage the unfortunate can do to themselves and society generally.   This challenge needs to be recognised and addressed morally.

At the other end of the spectrum differences can enhance the human experience.  It would not be a very interesting world if we were all the same.  The people who can cope are those that find a niche where they can survive and maybe flourish.  Those with higher intelligence and higher consciousness will enjoy the most success in life on average.  These two traits can also be measured as can many other traits.

MATHEMATICS

If you don’t like mathematics you might want to skip this bit, but before you do, this gives some of the theory behind the model.  It’s about the spectrum of morality  from very good through average to very bad.  We are all on the spectra of each of the moral foundations.  We will be higher on some and lower on others.  This can be seen in the report you will get if you undertake one of the questionnaires used to measure morality.  It is unlikely you will score the same for each foundation.  Your personal set of scores will be your moral matrix.

The mathematics comes in when we look at how the population is distributed across these spectra.  The concept of a spectrum comes from the study of the colours of light and is commonly used as any range or scale, for example intelligence quotients.  The most common distribution in nature for a single variable is the normal distribution or a variant thereof.  The normal distribution forms a bell-shaped curve and deviations from the average are predictably measurable.  In a population following a normal distribution will have around two thirds of individuals within one standard deviation from average.

It is not yet known if the distribution of attitudes to the moral foundations follow a normal distribution, but this has been assumed for the model.  It won’t matter to the concept of a Universal Moral Code and the value of the model.  It just means the distribution over the surface of the model will be different.  The curves of the model are based on a bell curve tipped on an angle.

HOW THE MODEL DEVELOPED

I copied a Bell Curve from a book to use as a diagram and cut out that shape.  I then cut out another and lent the two together and liked what I saw.  The triangle they made in the centre later gave me the idea of the amount of suffering those at the bottom of the distribution might be experiencing.  The higher up the triangle are those suffering less and flourishing more.

I then glued seven shapes together in a circle all pointing to the  top with circle to represent the jewel of the crown.  At this stage I wasn’t thinking of the connotations of the shape looking like a crown.  I took this to my friends at the Men’s Shed and they asked me if I has shares in Crown Casino.

When I explained what I wanted I was told in  no uncertain terms Don Pearce was the man for the job.  I later caught up with Don and he was very positive.  I had been to the hardware store at the suggestion of Dave Sedlarevic from the shed to find a suitable decorative knob for the top and found a small glass one.  I decided to drop in on the Shed on the way home and as luck would have it, Don was there.  He had previously been very busy, and it was the first time he’d been at the shed for some time.

Don just saw the project as an upside-down bowl, and he had made plenty of those.  We discussed the design and Don suggested different coloured woods for the layers.  Dave had made a bowl with different coloured woods and it looked great.    Don and I agreed on the size and other details.  The next time I saw Don he had made up the 28 individual pieces to make up the four layers for the seven segments.  He had already made some of the veneer pieces that will separate the segments.

Don suggested the segments should overlap to give the model strength.  It’s the same strength that brick walls get from overlapping bricks.  I decided this could be used to demonstrate that more aspects of morality may be discovered to contribute to the differences between individuals.  I have suggested some of these in my DISS-TRIG analysis of social competence covered elsewhere and will discuss other traits impacting morality.

Don kept me informed of progress.  We talked about the inner cone on one occasion and it struck me that the piece Don had taken out could be a useful model of the human suffering associated with morality.  When turning the finished model was completed it was coated to bring out the colour in the wood and to make the surface moisture proof and strong.  Don estimates he spent 32 hours making the model.

A cross section of the model shows the Bell Curve profile that Don was very careful to reproduce accurately.  The internal cone of suffering wasn’t recognised early, and material was initially removed for practical reasons.  It allowed the jewel at the top to be fitted and made the model lighter.

This Moral Aspiration Model has been designed to make my assertions more understandable.  It may be helpful to those who are not very religious and would like a more scientific explanation of where morals come from and the latest scientific views about human behaviour.  At least it may facilitate the discussion of this topic.

THE HUMAN BRAIN AND PERSONALITY

Humans are very quick to be righteous and judgemental .  We use terms like good and bad, right and wrong as if there was a black and white difference between them.  Our brains are constantly judging all our sensory inputs, sights and sounds, feelings, smells and tastes, etc.  We need to do this instantaneously if danger looms and we need to be alert to opportunities that help us survive.  Luckily, we have a more contemplative part of the brain that is a bit slower that can evaluate any risks associated with any dangers or opportunities if we have the time to think and we take that time.  More often we go with our faster instinctive instantaneous judgement, often to our disadvantage.

This is just one way the human brain is divided. The seven moral foundations being explored by the Haidt team are another set of functions of the brain.  There is also the well established Big Five Personality Traits used by psychologists and as previously mentioned intelligence.  There are many ways of analysing the brain and many popular books about the science of the brain.

To me one of the most significant discoveries about the brain is the work of Kahneman and Tversky which is covered in the book Thinking, fast and slow by Kahneman, a Nobel Laureate in Economics.   This work explains how humans can make very poor decisions using the faster instinctive instantaneous brain system mentioned above.  There appear to be many subsystems in the brain constantly putting out information to other parts of the brain whenever a judgement appears to be required.  This is all done subconsciously until we realise, we need to act or at least think about what is happening.

If you’ve got this far you’re probably thinking how to use my suggestions and apply them, either to improve your life experience or shoot me down in flames or maybe somewhere in between if I’m making any real sense and not off with the fairies.

I find it hard to believe in a soul.  I agree we appear to be a singular individual located in a physical body somewhere just behind our eyes.  One scientist suggested the brain does our thinking.  I suggest we are our brain.  We become an individual when our brain starts working and we die when it stops.  End of story for me.

You may have a different story and it may serve you well and, if it gets you into heaven then lucky you.  There is no way I can prove which one of us will have a better outcome as a result of our different beliefs and as far as I’m concerned this goes for everyone else.  It just seems to me obvious that the more moral we are, the better we will enjoy our life experience, and we will help to make the world a better place.  A lot of people are doing this already, but many could do better.

The above document is part of a 2020 document updated on 28/05/2022.  There doesn’t seem to have been much progress on the revised set of moral domains from six to seven.  I asked Haidt about progress when I paid to meet him at a book launch in 2019.  He was hoping to have verification at some stage.