Chapter 1: The Dual Universes

In philosophy, one of the essential distinctions is between the moral universe and the physical universe. The physical universe, governed by the principles of physics, is concerned with tangible realities. In contrast, the moral universe typically falls under the purview of various philosophical and theological disciplines. These two realms seldom intersect.

Renowned evolutionary biologist and philosopher Stephen J. Gould described these realms as “non-overlapping magisteria,” where the physical universe pertains to “facts,” while the moral universe pertains to “values.” This separation echoes earlier thoughts by the modern philosopher David Hume, who proposed the famous notion that one cannot derive moral imperatives from mere factual observations—essentially, one cannot conclude “ought” from “is.”

If we borrow from set theory, we can designate the physical universe as “set A” and the moral universe as “set B.” For both Gould and Hume, these sets represent a “symmetric difference,” each being ontologically complete yet fundamentally distinct (A ? B).

An intriguing aspect of this dichotomy is the realization that the intellectual prowess of a scientist has no bearing on their moral character, and vice versa. Often, the archetype of the “evil genius” emerges from extreme analytical intelligence, while the “good saint” is frequently depicted as someone with a simple spiritual mindset. Yet, I find myself pondering whether an overlap exists between these realms, as the idea of a rigid division seems implausible.

Kant's reflection on being in awe of the "starry sky above me" (the physical universe) alongside the "moral law within me" (the moral universe) resonates here. The physical universe appears devoid of morality; atomic reactions or a lion hunting a gazelle lack moral judgment. This is nature's amoral essence.

However, as human beings and complex societies evolved, the necessity for moral frameworks arose to facilitate coexistence. It seems unlikely that early human societies thrived without the establishment of intricate religious moral codes. These moralities are not just lifeless rules passed down through generations; they reflect deep-seated values that resonate within us, as Kant suggested with his notion of the “moral law within me.”

Those who have strayed from their moral codes understand the anguish that accompanies such transgressions. It’s as if the physical universe acquires a moral dimension, suggesting that morality emerges from our psyche and self-awareness.

While projecting morality onto the physical realm may be misguided, the survival of our physical existence seems reliant on nurturing the moral law within ourselves. Thus, the relationship between the physical and moral universes can be characterized not as a symmetric difference but rather as an asymmetric one.

The physical universe may not concern itself with moral considerations, yet the moral universe must engage with the physical. Absent this connection, morality risks becoming a mere abstraction devoid of practical relevance.

Consider those who extend their moral compass to encompass all living beings; Heidegger described this fundamental aspect of our existence, or “Dasein,” as “care.” This notion invites contemplation of a potential overlap between these domains. Could we derive moral imperatives from the foundational tendencies of our physical reality?

If the underlying drive of our evolutionary existence is survival and flourishing, might the ultimate moral imperative be the pursuit of a form of immortality? This perspective may illuminate why morality frequently aligns with the transcendent realms of theology and philosophy.

This video, titled "On this MLK Day, we know the arc of the moral universe won't bend itself," emphasizes the active role we must take in shaping moral progress.

The second video, "Bending The Arc of the Moral Universe Toward Justice," explores the imperative of pursuing justice for our communities and connections.