Universalism

There are many layers of collective identity, from the most local one, the neighborhood, to the city, the state, the nation and ultimately humanity itself, where usually most people tend to stop (prematurely though as we will see in a while).

As human beings, we simultaneously belong to all these identities, yet for most of us one ultimately takes precedence, and it is usually the nation. There are, of course, many who reject national identity in favor of humanity, diminishing the importance of lower levels of collective belonging in the name of humanism. This is certainly a noble sentiment, but perhaps it should not end there. After all, what exactly is it about humanity that we identify with, in this case? Is it human values, intelligence, consciousness? Suppose that one day we encounter an extraterrestrial civilization composed of conscious beings possessing these very qualities, perhaps to an even greater degree than we do. Instantly, a new layer of collective identity emerges, that of the universal conscious being, a universal rather than merely a human identity. By the same logic with which a humanist could act independently of what benefits their own nation, a universalist could act independently of what benefits their own species. That thought alone may already make some readers uneasy, especially once we realize that universalism is simply the logical extension of humanism.

Diverse negative utilitarianism

At this point, however, such an approach remains somewhat naïve. We cannot meaningfully debate acting for or against anything without first clarifying the ethical framework within which we operate. How do we distinguish good from evil? By what standard do we judge an action? There is, of course, no universally accepted answer. Different ethical theories each establish their own criteria. My own approach though, is grounded in the intrinsic value of consciousness and in a particular form of negative utilitarianism that places special emphasis on preserving positive conscious diversity. Let’s call this “diverse negative utilitarianism”. But what does this actually mean in practice?

Negative utilitarianism is an ethical theory that prioritizes minimizing suffering over maximizing happiness. Suppose you have a choice between increasing the happiness of one thousand people or ending the torture of a single one. A negative utilitarian would unequivocally choose the latter. The classical objection is straightforward. If eliminating suffering is the ultimate goal, then one could very simply achieve it by eliminating all conscious life, thereby eliminating suffering altogether. Clearly, we need at least one constraint that prevents us from embracing such an apocalyptic solution. My proposed constraint is the preservation of positive conscious diversity.

For me consciousness is both the universe’s deepest mystery and its most precious trait. Preserving it and allowing it to flourish is, in my view, our highest purpose. Every conscious being experiences its own unique landscape of conscious states. These differ across species and across individuals. Some experiences are common, while others are inseparable from the particular reality of the individual who lives them. Together, they form an extraordinarily rich mosaic that fills the universe with subjective experience. Every conscious state contributes something unique to that whole simply by existing. My ideal situation would therefore be to eliminate the negative regions of this spectrum entirely while preserving every positive conscious state and enriching that positive diversity as much as possible.

As a practical example, imagine designing an advanced wildlife park. We would create two complementary versions of it. In one, the preys would be conscious while the predators non-conscious and vice versa. The non-conscious predators would be programmed never to succeed in killing their prey. The prey would always escape, preserving the exaltation of victory as a genuine conscious experience. So we would accept the existence of the mild negative experience of fear, because it gives rise to the experience of psychological elevation, while eliminating the extreme negative experiences of pain, suffering, and of an agonizing death. The same principle could be extended much further to all kinds of different situations.

Human and national conscious states

Having taken this brief but necessary detour on ethics, we can now return to the ideas of nation, humanism, and universalism. Within this ethical framework, no matter how intellectually or consciously advanced an extraterrestrial civilization might be, it is highly unlikely that it could experience the full range of uniquely human conscious states. Consequently, preserving humanity becomes essential for safeguarding the universe’s conscious diversity. The same reasoning applies to nations. The distinctive forms of conscious experience that arise from national cultures also constitute part of that diversity and deserve preservation, provided they are stripped of the extreme forms of suffering they can produce.

History offers countless examples of peoples who have coexisted peacefully for centuries and of peoples who have fallen into devastating conflict. Yet even if, in some hypothetical future, we succeeded in abolishing nations altogether, would we also abolish war? I seriously doubt it. War is ultimately a product of two factors: finite resources and human nature. As long as those two conditions remain unchanged, conflict would almost certainly persist. It might be happening in different places and times, but it would exist nevertheless, changing its form from war between nations to war within them. In that case, we would have sacrificed an immense reservoir of conscious richness for virtually nothing and in my opinion, it isn’t worth it at the slightest.