Is TBA Objective?
In this shallow dive, we’re going to scrutinize the claim that The Big Answer (TBA) is, in fact, “objective”. How could a system of values be anything but subjective? “Good” and “bad” aren’t concepts that exist independently in reality.
This is true! The key insight of TBA is that it uncovers how reality *acts* like it values the qualities objectively necessary for existence (The Core Qualities, or TCQs). This then creates a mould, a scaffold, a template for subjective values of conscious beings to align with over time as they evolve.
How does reality act as if it has a preference for TCQs? After all, reality has no conscious awareness, no subjective preference, and it doesn’t care if something continues to exist or not. Well, simply put:
Things that have the qualities necessary to exist continue to exist, while those that lack the qualities necessary to exist cease to exist. There is nothing else that reality can or does weigh in on.
Simple. Logical. Objective.
However, in this way, reality mimics having a preference for TCQs by keeping things with them (they continue to exist) and rejecting things that lack them (they cease to exist). Would anything change if reality were, in fact, consciously aware and had this subjective preference? No! However, no such subjectivity is needed, this is just logically and objectively how it has to work.
Now let’s add organisms that also lack any conscious awareness, such as bacteria or sponges. Even though they can’t consciously value anything, if they act like they have values in line with TCQs, they will have the qualities reality acts like it values; therefore, reality will keep them around. Those organisms that don’t act as if they value TCQs are terminated. For example, those that move towards thermal vents get boiled while those that move away from them and, instead, move toward safe habitats with lots of nutrients will thrive and reproduce.
A complex, complete, self-contained and self-supporting value system based on TCQs has naturally and logically emerged from the interaction between organisms and reality, despite the total lack of any conscious awareness capable of holding subjective values.
As early organisms evolved and gained the ability to hold subjective preferences and values, this process would continue. It doesn’t matter that simpler organisms were merely acting as if they had values while more complex organisms do, actually, consciously hold those subjective values; the outcome is the same.
Those whose subjective values objectively undermined their existence would objectively cease to exist, as would their values. Those whose subjective values objectively supported their existence would be objectively more likely to continue to exist, as would their values. Further, those whose subjective values were objectively better at helping them continue to exist would be even more likely to keep existing and to hand down those values, either genetically or socially, meaning those subjective values would also be more likely to persist through generations.
To be more specific, reality either allows or prevents something from acting on its values in the long term. You can hold any value you want without consequence if you don’t act on it, since a value that isn’t acted on has no objective effect in reality. You can even act on any value you want in the short term.
If you value jumping into volcanoes, reality isn’t going to stop you. If you want to start a religion where every adherent needs to sterilize themselves to join, reality will absolutely allow that, too. But it’s pretty obvious why, today, we don’t have a lot of organisms that value jumping into volcanoes, or religions that demand all adherents sterilize themselves!
While theoretically one could hold one set of values but act in accordance with a different set of values, values do tend to guide one’s actions, and, because of this, reality can guide the evolution of the values themselves.
Further, if one “values their values” and they don’t want to see those values disappear, this logically and objectively necessitates the ongoing existence of the value holders. Therefore, for any value system to be sustained, existence itself must objectively be held as a foundational, prerequisite value. A value system that undermines the existence of its own valuers is, by definition, self-defeating.
This means that any and every sustainable value system must place the objective qualities necessary to exist as their primary values above all others, and any other values outside of these would be completely subjective, without an objective correlate; they could come and go at whim.
Since TBA presents a complete value system on its own, and because it would be difficult to balance prioritizing TCQs while also getting around to supporting other values as time and energy allow, we would expect to see value systems that support TCQs being the most persistent over time. Conversely, systems that pursue other values, or an imbalance of TCQs, are rendered more brittle and are statistically far more likely to fail in the long term
And again, this isn’t subjective. TBA is as objective as gravity. If you don’t build a relationship or business or government that aligns its values to support TCQs, it will collapse just as objectively as if you didn’t build a house to be aligned with the force of gravity.
We’ve arrived at the only viable, complete, self-contained, self-supporting, naturally arising, objective value system that is possible to have.
