Summary

The topic discussed on this site is called Moral Covariance, or Special Moral Covariance, and is structured from the same principles as the Special theory of Relativity.

The Special Theory of Relativity is a theory that is both subjective and objective.  One subjective aspect of special relativity is that the laws of physics, and space-time itself, may be viewed differently from different reference frames.  However, special relativity also makes use of some powerful universal statements such as the "speed of light must be the same in every reference frame".  Special Relativity makes very absolute claims, such as proving that the Newtonian view of mechanics is "incorrect".

Moral Covariance is an attempt to faithfully apply the principles of Special Relativity to ethical spaces.  Moral Covariance is what Moral Relativism should have been.  Moral Covariance provides subjective freedom without devolving into a mere excuse for irresponsible moral decisions.

Moral Covariance is both subjective and absolute.

The critical components of Moral Covariance are laid out below.

• Moral Observers are people capable of observing moral constructs and positing ethical models.  A Moral Observer can only directly observe morality from their own reference frame.
• Moral Reference Frame is the set of tools used by Moral Observers to measure morality.  This set of tools includes:
• Language.  Even when speaking the same language, we don't always apply the same meaning to particular words.
• Bias.  This is our primary tool for building expectations for the outcomes of moral inquiries.
• Lack of Understanding.  We all have different holes in our knowledge, and the holes of one Moral Observer may not line up exactly with the holes of another.
• Rationality.  This represents a state of equivalency between different reference frames.  This state of equivalency can sometimes be characterized by a willingness to see things from another persons point of view, or to find common ground.
• Special Moral Covariance is restricted to only include rational reference frames.  General Moral Covariance will deal with reference frames that are irrational, and obviously represents a trickier problem.
• Subjective Freedom is the fact that there is no preferred reference frame (among the set of rational reference frames.)  This does not mean that all moral conclusions are equivalent and "correct", rather, all Moral Observers have equal capacity to observe morality with their own set of subjective tools.
• Moral Invariants are moral concepts that are viewed the same in all reference frames.  Two likely Moral Invariants are
• Love
• Self Preservation
• Morally Significant concepts are concepts that are framed with respect to Moral Invariants.
• Moral Transformations are processes by which we may try to build relationships between different Moral Reference Frames.  Moral Transformations must:
• Exist
• Preserve the Moral Invariants

The Principle of Moral Covariance is axiomatically translated directly from the Principle of Relativity upon which all relativistic mechanics is founded.  It is stated as:

All moral laws must be expressed in terms of concepts which when observed from two different reference frames can be unambiguously correlated.

Restated, this means that two Moral Observers who observe morality from two different Moral Reference Frames can build ethical models that are based on Morally Significant Concepts, and if they are successful, they can expect that their ethical models will translate well from one observer to the other.

Moral Transformations

The most famous, and bizarre, results of Special Relativity was the fact that two different observers may not measure space and time the same way.  In other words, if someone travels past you at speeds close to the speed of light, you will observe their clocks moving very slowly.  You will also observe them to be squished in the same direction that they are traveling.

This incredible result comes directly from a set of equations called the Lorentz Transformations.  These equations transform the space-time of one observer into the space-time of the other.  In order for the statement that "the laws of physics apply in every reference frame" to be true, we need a way to determine how the laws of physics might look in another reference frame, given that we know how they look in our own.

One of the subtleties of Special Relativity is that not only do the Lorentz Transformations exist, but they can't NOT exist!  In other words, the Lorentz Transformations aren't just a happy accident, but rather a requirement in order for Special Relativity to be self consistent.

This subtlety is also present for the more generalized principle of Covariance.  We therefore will apply it to the principle of Moral Covariance in the following way.

A Moral Transformation is the act of viewing an ethical problem from another Moral Observers reference frame.  Moral Covariance promises that a Moral Transformation always exists.

Though a Moral Transformation must always exist, it may not always be applied correctly.  In order to correctly apply a Moral Transformation, you must first understand your own reference frame.  Then you must understand the reference frame of your counterpart.

When applying Moral Transformations, it is so important for each party to understand both reference frames, that any attempt to hide or mask or misrepresent a reference frame will endanger the accessibility of the Moral Transformation.

Too often when someone wants to supply a convincing argument for an ethical issue, they seek to appear "objective."  In so doing, they are making an appeal to a preferred reference frame, supposedly to prove that they are somehow more capable of observing moral truth.  This is a fallacy, since there is no preferred reference frame.  Some people also try to misrepresent the reference frame of their opponent to make them seem less capable of understanding moral truth.

If a subscriber of Moral Covariance seeks to supply a convincing ethical argument, they must first make their own reference frame utterly transparent.  This may involve a disclosure of bias, as well as a disclosure of understanding which may be lacking.  They must then diligently acquire a comprehension of the reference frame of their counterpart.  Only then will they be in a position to construct Moral Transformations, which lead to constructive ethical dialogue.

Moral Invariants

If all Special Relativity did was dictate the fact that there were different reference frames, and that none of them was preferred, it wouldn't be a very interesting theory, nor would have done much to advance our understanding of physics.

The true magic of Special Relativity is that it deals with concepts which are subjective, and ties them together with concepts that are objective.

Special Relativity states that:  knowing that there is no preferred reference frame, the laws of physics must apply in every reference frame.

This statement provides the mechanism for determining if a physical model is correct or incorrect.  It also gives us a hint as to how to construct correct physical models.  A correct physical model must be constructed from quantities that are the same in every reference frame.  These quantities are called Invariants.  If a concept is physically significant, it can and should be expressed in terms of Invariants.  If it cannot be expressed in terms of Invariants, then it is not a physically significant concept.

Special Relativity identifies two particularly useful invariants.  One Invariant is global - the speed of light.  The speed of light is measured to be the same value in every reference frame.  The other Invariant is subjective - the proper time of an observer.  The proper time is the time as measured in the observers own reference frame, and there is a prescription for calculating it, which results in the same value if measured in any reference frame.

It is interesting that Special Relativity successfully connects a subjective act (measurement within a reference frame) with a universal objective reality: the speed of light is constant.  

A Moral Invariant should be a moral concept which is the same in every Moral Reference Frame.  There may exist both global as well as subjective Moral Invariants, however the act of observing them will always be a necessarily subjective exercise.

The search for ethical truth must involve a search for Moral Invariants.  And a test of absolute correctness of an ethical model will be that it is framed in terms of Moral Invariants.  Concepts that can be phrased in terms of Moral Invariants are called Morally Significant concepts.

One hint that a concept is a Morally Significant is that it crosses cultural boundaries.  The ethic space has more boundaries than just cultural boundaries, but the cultural boundaries are the most visible, as well as the hardest for complex concepts to bridge.

The best way for two Moral Observers to seek "common ground" is to phrase their discussion in a Morally Significant way.

Morally Significant statements are likely not the type of thing that can be phrased as "A good person does X".  Rather it will be things like "It makes me feel good when someone I love spends time with me," or "I don't like it when someone forces me to do something."  Statements like this cross all cultural boundaries.  Statements like this give us hints as to what the underlying Moral Invariant is.

I'm not sure if I can, at this time, claim a specific concept as THE Moral Invariant, though I have a few likely candidates, the primary one being Love.  Love is a concept that is extolled in the texts of religions who seem to have nothing else to agree on.  It is held as something that is at least desirable amongst those who are religious, as well as those who aren't.

Another likely candidate for a Moral Invariant is self preservation.  This is an inborn desire that manifests itself incredibly early, and in fact manifests across species.

My personal bias produces the ethical expectation that Love is "higher" than self preservation, in that it may require a higher level of intelligence to comprehend principles of love.

Even if we don't have an exact identification of what a Moral Invariant actually is, the promise of Moral Covariance (as well as common experience with other members of the Human Race) is that they exist, and that if we want to construct Morally Significant models, we should try to determine what the Moral Invariants are. 

In the absence of a well identified Moral Invariant, an indication that two Moral Observers are employing Morally Significant models, is that the models are based on the common ground of the two Moral Observers.

Moral Observers

The starting point for any discussion of Relativity is to discuss observers. There are well defined mathematical considerations that are applied to Relativistic observers.

Different observers reside at different points in space and time. Different observers may have different frames of reference, referring to the relative velocity of the two observers.

You cannot discuss relativity if only a single observer is involved.  Relativity necessarily involves the differences between the observations of two observers.  You cannot even begin to apply the Principles of Relativity unless the states of two different observes is known.

One remarkable feature of the Theory of Relativity is that it states that there is "no preferred reference frame."  This means that no observer can lay special claim at being able to observe the laws of physics better than any other observer.

Let us wrap the idea of an Observer within the language of Moral Covariance.

A Moral Observer has a reference frame by which he may observe moral laws.  For physical observers, the reference frame is defined by the state of motion.  What components are involved in the reference frame of a Moral Observer?

• Language.  We use words according to the meaning which we hope to convey.  However, our understanding of the meaning is something completely intrinsic.  It is my opinion that most ethical conflicts arise due to the fact that the sender and the receiver of the message are applying different meanings to a particular word.
• Bias.  This is the mechanism a Moral Observer relies on to predict the outcome of ethical queries.  Without a bias we would be ethically handicapped.  Our bias gives us the first approximation when resolving ethical conflicts.
• Incomplete Understanding.  None of us understand everything.  However, the holes in one persons understanding don't always match up with the holes in another persons understanding.  Part of a Moral Observers reference frame is what they do, and what they don't know.
• Rationality.  In special relativity, physical observers are restricted to have states of motion that are not accelerating.  This makes all states of motion equivalent, in that you may always find a reference frame where any given observer is at rest.  The way we will describe this concept of equivalent states in terms of Moral Covariance, is by using the word Rational.  Two Moral Observers should seek to be rationally minded in order to apply Covariance Principles.  Obviously a Moral Observer may be Irrationally minded, but we will restrict the discussion to only Rationally minded individuals, and highlight this restriction by using the term Special Moral Covariance.

Before even beginning to resolve ethical conflicts, a Moral Observer must seek to understand, as much as possible, both their own reference frame and the reference frame of the other party.

As with physical Relativity, Moral Covariance provides subjective freedom.  "There is no preferred Moral Reference frame," (at least among the set of Rational reference frames.) 

Please take note that subjective freedom is not a statement that every ethical model is correct.  This would be like saying that physical Relativity dictates that all physical models are correct, when in fact physical Relativity is the mechanism by which we may determine if physical models are correct or incorrect.

Subjective freedom is a statement that every Moral Observer is equally capable of observing moral laws.  A Christian, a Muslim and an Atheist all have the same capability to acquire moral understanding (given that they have a Rational mindset.)

Moral Covariance

The Principles of Relativity, as articulated by physicists, have definite mathematical implications that may (or may not) translate well to an ethical representation. There is a more general expression of Relativity which is less "equation oriented" called Covariance. Therefore, to disambiguate our ethical model from the orthodox version of Moral Relativity, I have chosen to refer to it as Moral Covariance.

Moral Covariance is a theory about moral theories.  It derives by analogy from the Principle of Covariance, which is a physical principle.

The Principle of Covariance is very simple. It states that all laws must be expressed in terms of elements which when observed from two different points of view can be unambiguously correlated.

If you've never heard of the Covariance Principle before, you may not grasp its full meaning merely by reading this sentence.  I will give as much attention as I can to making this statement meaningful, as we progress in the development.

You also may not catch the relationship between Covariance and Relativity, other than the fact that the phrase different points of view is mentioned, which seems kind of like a relativistic thing to say.  Different points of view is the easiest concept to pick up on when discussing Relativity.  I will attempt to explain the more subtle concepts as we go.

The fundamental axiom of Moral Covariance is that the Principle of Covariance may be applied directly to ethical considerations.

The only authority that the Covariance Principle may claim is that it is the prime operating principle for every physical law in our universe (so far as we know).  This may not be a good reason for adopting it as the foundation of ethical modeling, but it is a good enough reason to at least make an attempt at doing so.

Ethical models will either stand or fall by their ability to achieve their desired function.  In the case of a physical model, it must precisely predict observed phenomena.  In the case of ethical models, it must provide a mechanism for constructive ethical discourse, and moral decision making.

Introduction

The Special Theory of Relativity represents a revolution in physics. With the advent of Relativity, we discovered that there were inconsistencies in the methods used by science to model observable phenomena. We then were able to apply the Principles of Relativity to construct consistent models.

Relativity is not just a theory of physics per-se. More so, it is a theory about how we might test the veracity of physical theories. One of my professors once said, "It's a theory about theories".

Some moral philosophers may have borrowed concepts and terminology from Relativity, (including the concept that "There are no Preferred Reference Frames,") in order to construct, or at least to justify, an ethical model that is referred to as Moral Relativity.

According to my own understanding - which is subjective, biased, incomplete, and sometimes irrational - I think the present incarnation of Moral Relativity as an analogy, or derivative of Special Relativity can only have been constructed through misunderstanding the Principles of Relativity.

In otherwords, Special Relativity cannot be employed to grant logical leverage to Moral Relativity. At least not without grossly misunderstanding the implications of Relativity.

Relativity is subtle. I use the word subtle to mean that the components that are easiest to miss tend to be the most profound, as well as the most beautiful. The architects of Moral Relativity missed the subtlety, and ended up constructing half a theory, which generally gets employed as an excuse for moral irresponsibility, rather than the tool of constructive ethical discourse it might have been, had the Principles of Relativity truly been applied.

It is definitely possible to construct a theory of ethics from the Special Theory of Relativity - not by making an appeal to Relativity as a theory of physics, but by the fact that Relativity is a "Theory about Theories." We will use the concepts of Relativity to determine how to test the veracity of ethical models, just like Einstein did when he applied the Principles of Relativity to physical models.

The Principles of Relativity are well known (at least to physicists), well articulated, and capable of distinguishing truth from error. It is not surprising that a faithful application of these same principles to ethical models will lead to a system that is also able to distinguish truth, and produce effective discourse between potentially irreconcilable points of view. This approach to ethics definitely contrasts that of the orthodox Moral Relativist who may not believe that moral truth exists, or that viewpoints can't, or maybe shouldn't be reconciled.

Here we will attempt to outline how such an application of the Principles of Relativity might be applied to Ethics and Morality. We will construct Moral Relativity as it should have been.