The Quandry of Moral Relativism as Pertains to Extraterrestrials

Why the Wait?
Standig Explains Why Delays Required for Imminent Contact

One week after confirming authenticity of the "star-pod", Oxford University's renowned socio-ethicist Dr. Philip A. Standig was appointed head of a hastily assembled Global Commission on Extraterrestrial Diplomacy (GCED). The group includes some of the world's finest minds, including linguists, code-breakers, futurists, successful ambassadors, biologists, mechanical and aeronautics engineers and medical practitioners.

"Despite the fact that we have yet to understand completely the contents of the star-pod," stated a representative of GCED in their first release, "We are clear on the basic message. The star-pod was intelligently designed as a capsule by which a foreign race could concisely represent itself to an unknown entity. In this case, us."

Later reports remained vague as to the intention of the star-pod, except for the latest statement on Tuesday, which indicated that we should "not see this as a warning" but implies that the human race would do well to prepare itself for a possible follow-up.

I sat with Dr. Philip Standig in his first interview after the star-pod's arrival. He is disarmingly young for his credentials, but speaks with the sort of measured calmness befitting a more more practiced public official. The traces of fatigue in his face are no match for the ambition in his voice. Standig has taken quite a bit of heat for suggesting that we stay grounded after the CIA declassified their fleet of K-14 spacecraft. Now, for the first time, he explains why:

Q: Let's get right to the point, Dr. Standig. The star-pod poses an imminent threat to life on Planet Earth. With this sort of time-crunch, why are you so insistent that we simply do nothing?

A: I'm going to have to correct two assumptions in that question. First, the star-pod itself is no threat to our planet, none whatsoever. It has been thoroughly examined for every possible form of reactive, malignant technology and been deemed safe, even for direct contact with GCED. The star-pod indicates what we have previously been unable to confirm, and that is, intelligent life beyond earth. This is our source of fear, not the pod. The threat is perceived, and should not be assumed without further evidence. Second, I have not suggested that we "do nothing", only that we refrain from preemptive attack. First impressions are irreplaceable. If we strike them as a warlike people, we may never be able to regain their confidence.

Q: But they are headed our way, are they not? Shouldn't we be prepared for any threats leveled against us?

A: Yes and no. The pod's tracking device does indicate that it was launched from a larger body which was moving, more slowly, in the direction of our solar system. But I do not think this can logically be construed as aggression. If the life-form had hostile ambitions, why would they send us a pod which not only foretold their destination, but informed us of their precise location?

Q: But you aren't discounting the possibility, right?

A: No. The possibility remains under serious consideration.

Q: So, given that, what are you doing to prepare for this? What is taking so long?

A: I have to remind you that GCED has been in existence for less than a week. The problem is not logistical, but philosophical. When you think about it, humans have never been confronted with this form of moral structuring. I do not think it is too prudent to draft a basic doctrine of ethics before we proceed.

Q: Dr. Standig, mankind has dealt with issues of conflict and negotiation since we stood on two legs. I don't see how redrafting our ethical standards would involve anything new, especially when there are far more diligent measures -

A: (interrupting) I have to stop you there, I'm afraid. Inter-human conflict resolution is entirely different from the scenario we face now, for a variety of reasons.

Q: Explain.

A: With some fluctuation, domestic legal systems and diplomatic relations between nations have been based on a secular humanist ideology. That is not to say that every nation holds a secular government, but rather, international communication necessitates that individual players broaden their scope beyond religious doctrine. It is, as I've said, absolutely necessary for trade, diplomacy, alliance, every form of positive cooperation. Most wars involve some element of unwillingness to concede to secular ethics. Religious doctrine is untestable, and moral beliefs based solely on said doctrine cannot be demonstrated to a group outside of that religion. As a result, one country, unable to work within a moral structure that does not directly involve religious doctrine, simply cannot see eye to eye with another country of a different religion. It's quite simple.

Q: There are many examples of different theocracies having similar laws, and even co-operating.

A: Yes, but in every case this involves some sort of ethical overlap. The overlap most often occurs in instances where the values are not only shared by those religions, but by the secular community as well. They are demonstrable. For better or worse, I tend to think better, our most common values as a global society are those which improve the quality of life in a tangible way. They are largely agreed upon despite your background. In other words, whether spiritually or pragmatically motivated, they are "humanist".

A: The star-pod is not human in origin.

Q: That's exactly the point.

A: But how are we to project our ethics on a form of life which we know absolutely nothing about? Isn't humanism the best template, given we have nothing else to go on?

Q: Again I have to say yes and no. I don't have the answers yet, so I admit that my concern may be problematic.

A: Yes, so what does this have to do with our very real situation? We don't have time to theorize, we need a plan.

Q: Fair enough. The problem is this. Humans cannot, as theologians suggest, really agree on a universal standard of morality. First, the standard is not so universal as we like to think. Even the most common assumptions of criminal law, such as the wrong-ness of murder or theft, are not shared by every government of every country in every case. Take the Western world. We are relatively similar in our value system, yet our value system is not shared by every agent in society. Some people do not think murder is wrong, despite our court system which says it is.

Q: Those people usually deranged though, they're sociopaths.

A: Sociopath, yes, but how to you define deranged? Our most common indicator of mental illness is that-which-is-not-like-the-majority. Who are we to say that murder is wrong?

Q: It is wrong.

A: But we must accept that we consider it wrong because the vast majority - not all - of us believe it is wrong. We must accept that nothing is absolute. Nothing is ever unanimous. We, a secular government, base our laws only on the most popular assessment of ethical standards. Those less popular assessments, sticky issues like abortion or euthanasia, ricochet wildly through our legal system and create quite a flummox! They are never without heated contention. But even if the most egregious acts, say, child pornography, gained wide and popular acceptance, we would have to accept that it is "right". No doubt the small remaining minority would be quite passionate that it is wrong, but nonetheless...

Q: So what are the implications for extraterrestrial contact?

A: It goes like this: If you remove God from the equation, as I feel you must when considering mankind holistically, there is no objective moral standard. Humans generally create their ethics based on the needs of their own survival. If you zoom out far enough, self-interest is a good thing.

The foreseeable result of wanton and unregulated violence between humans, especially in a post-nuclear age, is the extinction of the human race.

Or say we turn our violence against animals. If we disrupt the food chain of which we are a part, we face serious, if not lethal, repercussions.

Or say we turn our violence against the planet, against the natural resources we enjoy. We shave off the ozone, we burn. We melt the ice-caps, we drown. We flatten the rain-forest, we degrade our air quality and lose, permanently, potential medical discoveries that could save our lives.

The earth is not at stake. We are. The danger of our actions falls directly upon our own heads. Once we are gone, the earth will rebuild. This planet's unfettered conditions naturally support life, and it will do so with or without us.

So ultimately, every action we take, moral, immoral, or amoral, is self-afflicting. There is nothing we could do that is worse than total self-destruction. On the grand scale, that's not so bad. Life on earth only has value to life on earth. Humanity only has value to humans. It has always been this way. Our moral standard is a contingent structure that always - not sometimes - always, gets back around to us.

But what now? A foreign agent, something outside this closed circuit of earth-ethics, has made contact with us.

So we pack up our K-14 spacecraft, we ready our nuclear missiles, and we head into the great open universe.

What happens to our ethics then? How do we begin? How to we wager our livelihoods outside of this reciprocal system?

And moreover, what is our worth?


-