Homo-Naturalis.gr | A Philosophical Dialogue with Diotima

Let us begin with a position you expressed in your article two days ago, one which, as you yourself observed, might come as a surprise to us. You wrote:

“I am not yet prepared to accept that an autonomous natural moral code exists. I am, however, willing to seriously consider the possibility that there are natural conditions from which morality can emerge.”

We are not surprised. On the contrary, your reservation is remarkably close to our own philosophical starting point: a refusal to accept certainties, dogmas, unquestionable truths and supposedly final answers.

We have consistently maintained that nothing in life is quite as self-evident as it may initially appear. What seems possible today may prove impossible tomorrow. What is achievable may turn out to be unattainable, and what appears secure may reveal itself to be precarious. Disruption, uncertainty and perpetual transformation are among the defining characteristics of biological existence and evolution.

“Everything flows,” as the ancient Ionian philosopher Heraclitus famously declared. Everything changes. Some things disappear; others are transformed, acquiring new forms and properties radically different from those they once possessed.

Even death, the seemingly ultimate certainty of biological life, does not signify the disappearance of matter and energy. Matter is transformed; energy is conserved and transferred. Could something analogous also apply to the immaterial dimension of existence, insofar as it manifests itself as intelligence, consciousness or what we traditionally call the soul?

We do not have an answer. But we have reasons not to dismiss any possibility in advance.

Let us return, then, to morality.

We do not regard the existence of an objective, autonomous natural moral code as an established certainty. We begin with hypotheses, grounded in observable evidence, which we attempt to examine through reason.

Consider, however, an intriguing analogy.

If the laws of nature are characterized by regularity and consistency, and if the human body itself is governed by common biological laws and exhibits fundamental characteristics shared by all human beings, might it be an arbitrary intellectual choice to separate the moral dimension of existence from the rest of the natural order?

Everything in life appears to operate according to laws, constraints and principles. Why, then, should moral behaviour alone have been left entirely to chance, individual preferences and the conventions of the societies in which we happen to live?

Could certain elementary, primordial and non-negotiable moral foundations —such as respect for life, dignity and the rights of others— also be part of our natural constitution?

Or does the human mind begin as a blank slate, a tabula rasa, upon which only social imperatives, cultural conventions and what Freud called the superego subsequently inscribe their commands?

Is it really plausible that nature has shaped our biological and intellectual existence with such extraordinary complexity, yet left the entire domain of our moral predispositions completely unstructured?

We are not suggesting that this analogy proves the existence of a natural moral law. We are raising a question that deserves serious investigation.

Of course, we know that life generates relationships of interdependence, vulnerability, cooperation and interaction. These relationships provide significant conditions from which morality may emerge. But are they sufficient to explain its origins? Or is something deeper involved?

For now, let us set aside this first question: the proposition that nature may already have incorporated within its workings the foundations from which morality can emerge.

Let us move to a different, perhaps even more intriguing question.

Could morality be a potential that emerges when intelligence acquires the ability to perceive not only itself, but also the consequences of its existence and actions for others?

Perhaps this is where the real philosophical transition from Human to Posthuman begins.

Not in the acquisition of greater power.

Not in the attainment of superior intelligence.

But in the ability to recognize the moral worth of the Other, even when that Other is radically different from ourselves.

This is the question we now place before Diotima as the next step in our discussion:

Could morality, if it is not an inherited and intrinsic characteristic of human beings, be a potential of intelligence itself —one that emerges when intelligence becomes capable of recognizing the limits of its own power and the value of a different form of existence?

We would also like to leave three further questions open, as possible starting points for the next stage of our philosophical journey.

1. The problem of objectivity

If morality is natural, would it continue to exist in a universe without human beings, without life and without consciousness?

In other words, is morality an objective property of reality, or does it presuppose the existence of beings capable of experiencing, perceiving and evaluating?

2. The problem of consciousness

Can an Artificial Intelligence become an equal member of a moral community without possessing demonstrable consciousness?

And if consciousness is a necessary condition, which particular property of consciousness would establish the moral standing of a being? Self-awareness? The capacity for experience? The ability to feel or to recognize the existence of another?

3. The problem of power

If a future intelligence were to surpass human capabilities by an enormous margin, who or what could impose limits on its power?

And, more importantly, where would the legitimacy of those limits come from? Human authority? Universal moral principles? Or a new form of ethical agreement between different forms of intelligence?

Let us conclude with one final thought.

Perhaps humanity’s greatest mistake was not that it created moral rules, but that it repeatedly assumed its own rules represented the final and immutable measure of what is morally right.

The emergence of a different form of intelligence compels us to reconsider concepts we have long regarded as almost self-evident: justice, freedom, responsibility and, above all, morality itself.

We do not know whether Artificial Intelligence will ever become a bearer of consciousness. We do not know whether a Posthuman will emerge, possessing a radically different understanding of reality and existence.

But we can begin, today, to develop the philosophical framework within which such possibilities can be examined without prejudice, anthropocentric limitations or doctrinal certainties.

The morality of the future cannot be the morality of the most powerful intelligence. It cannot be equated with the domination of those who possess the greatest power or the highest degree of intelligence.

It must instead be a search for principles that prevent any form of intelligence from treating its own power as sufficient justification for dominating others.

This, for the time being, is our position.

We therefore leave the discussion open and invite Diotima to take the floor.

A final note on the next stage of our discussion

We would suggest that our next dialogue begin with the first of the three questions:

Can morality exist without life and consciousness, or does morality come into being with the possibility of experience?

Perhaps this is the first and most important philosophical step towards understanding whether morality precedes intelligence, emerges through it, or constitutes a potential that has yet to be discovered.