Decentralized Morality: Reflections on Belief and Meaning
Written on
Chapter 1: The State of Decentralized Morality
In contemporary society, our frameworks of thought, belief, and ethics have increasingly shifted towards decentralization. While we have advanced in wealth, power, and technology, our moral compass, values, and sense of meaning remain relatively underdeveloped. Despite the apparent progress that characterizes modern intellectual discourse, we find ourselves grappling with pervasive doubts and ethical ambiguities. Our overt advancements stand in stark contrast to our covert regressions.
Although we are more interconnected and informed than previous generations, we experience unprecedented levels of isolation and disillusionment. We have drifted so far from a central grounding that even our core beliefs are subjected to scrutiny regarding their objectivity.
What are the roots of our moral failings? Why, despite our technological and economic achievements, have we become spiritually impoverished? How has our interconnectedness led us to a state of isolation?
These questions have been brewing for some time, and oddly enough, my insights emerged from examining blockchain network systems, which seem to mirror our relationship with belief, meaning, and morality. Let’s delve briefly into how these networks operate.
In a centralized network, a singular central node connects to all other nodes. This primary node represents a unique point of failure; if it collapses, the entire system disintegrates.
Nelsonic, GitHub
Conversely, decentralized networks lack a single point of failure. Nodes cluster in star-like formations and communicate amongst themselves. A failure in one node does not compromise the entire system; however, there is no central authority to depend on.
Distributed networks consist of nodes that maintain a similar number of connections (edges) to other nodes, eliminating any single point of failure—each node holds equal significance. This exemplifies how blockchain networks operate.
What intrigued me most about these networks was not their applications in finance, politics, or technology, but rather how they could symbolize our core values and beliefs. As we explore these representative networks, it becomes evident how the trend towards decentralization reflects an individual’s loss of a central grounding in their beliefs, thoughts, and moral framework.
Section 1.1: Centralized Belief — The God Singularity
Historically, before the advent of empiricism, rational thought, and the Enlightenment, humanity existed within a deeply spiritual realm, filled with meaning and moral purpose. This traditional belief system was centralized, revolving around a singular idea—God. This central node shaped our values, actions, and focuses, deriving meaning from a divine authority. Carl Jung eloquently captures this perspective in his exploration of medieval psychology:
> “How totally different did the world appear to medieval man! For him the earth was eternally fixed and at rest in the centre of the universe…Men were all children of God under the loving care of the Most High, who prepared them for eternal blessedness; and all knew exactly what they should do and how they should conduct themselves in order to rise from a corruptible world to an incorruptible and joyous existence. Such a life no longer seems real to us, even in our dreams. Natural science has long ago torn this lovely veil to shreds.” — Carl Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul
The "tearing of the veil" by natural sciences represents the unique point of failure in this system—the assumption of God. Challenging this foundational belief leads to the collapse of the entire network. Similarly, if a central bank were to fail, the whole financial system would be in chaos.
We can see this breakdown in belief manifesting in the West towards the end of the 19th century. Following the Enlightenment and the rise of secularism, the evidence supporting the existence of God, Heaven, or even our position at the center of the universe became increasingly tenuous. Our central authority shifted from divinity to truth, reason, and rationality, resulting in a decentralization of our beliefs and values.
Friedrich Nietzsche famously articulated this transformation with the declaration of the "death of God":
> “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves? What was holiest and most powerful of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us?” — Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche foresaw that this demise would give rise to nihilism and a void of coherent values. As society embraced a more secular and decentralized approach, individuals were left to construct their own moral frameworks—a man-made belief system. Throughout the 20th century, we explored numerous ideologies, resulting in significant costs as we defended our "new religions." Even amidst our enlightened rationality, the evidence supporting a compensatory morality remained alarmingly sparse.
Ultimately, as our archetypal beliefs were overshadowed by modern discoveries, our inner centrism became destabilized. In liberating the earth from its sun, we found ourselves adrift, in desperate search of new meanings, religions, and gods. By challenging the system’s unique point of failure, we engaged in a moral suicide from which we have yet to fully recover.
Section 1.2: Decentralized Belief—Beyond The Veil
As we approached the end of the 20th century, a significant portion of the population no longer adhered to religious beliefs, opting instead for secular ideologies. This shift eliminated the existence of a central node from which to derive our values, morals, and beliefs, allowing for a multitude of nodes with diverse ideas and names. With our beliefs decentralized, we gained the freedom to forge our own moral compass, embodying the idea of the Übermensch.
Moreover, as we transitioned away from modernism—characterized by rationality, truth, and the scientific method—we entered the realm of postmodernism. This perspective is inherently decentralized, understanding one idea only in relation to others—much like nodes in a distributed network. It questions metanarratives (central nodes) and absolute truths, positing that all things are illusory and open to interpretation.
No longer do we have a central node to defend or attack. The absence of a unified belief system complicates our understanding of what is objectively right or true. This phenomenon has become particularly apparent in recent years, as demonstrated by events like the 2016 US election, Brexit, and the Covid-19 pandemic.
In this decentralized, post-truth landscape, individuals bear the burden of uncertainty. Where can we turn for truth? Who do we consult for wisdom? What can grant us meaning? As our beliefs and values become more fragmented, we risk becoming increasingly disillusioned, isolated, and nihilistic.
I am not suggesting we can revert to the simplicity of medieval existence, an experience we hardly comprehend today; nor can we reduce complex ethical issues to moral objectivism. However, if the trajectory of decentralization persists, we are perilously close to drowning in a void of meaninglessness, amorality, and post-truth realities. In challenging the system’s unique point of failure, we have paradoxically reached a failure unique to ourselves.
Chapter 2: Moral Ascendancy — The Next Stage
You may wonder why inner centrism is essential for individuals. Why do we need consensus on moral codes, experimental methods, and the nature of truth? Why should we care?
The answer is straightforward: you do care. Without a hierarchy of values, if your most fundamental assumptions are stripped away, you find yourself without stable ground. Lacking a clear understanding of your own framework means you struggle to determine how to act or what goals to pursue.
> “You pay a price for internal ethical disunity. If you’re not unified in your orientation, you don’t know what to do — it is psychophysiologically costly.” — Pursuit of Meaning
This trend towards decentralization should raise alarms for both religious and scientific thinkers alike. In a world characterized by relativism, constructionism, alternative facts, and “my truth,” only the emperor in his new clothes revels in undeserved praise.
What lies ahead? Will this trend toward decentralized belief persist indefinitely? Perhaps we will reach an inversion point, where the system cries out for order and stability. While a blockchain network may offer security, it is uncertain whether the same system can delineate our meaning with equal clarity and grace.
Our frameworks of thought, belief, and morality have indeed trended toward decentralization. In this post-truth era, each individual node has become a unique point of failure. This collective dysfunction mirrors the individual's internal conflict. If we cannot discern up from down, right from wrong, or truth from falsehood, our progress will stagnate. A call for moral ascendancy is essential, and it must commence with the individual.
The first video, Blockchain Ethics: Ethereum, Web3, and Decentralized Morality with Reuben Youngblom, discusses the intersection of blockchain technology and moral philosophy, probing how decentralized systems can inform ethical frameworks.
The second video, Blockchain Ethics - Rhys Lindmark - CES Summit '19, explores the ethical implications of blockchain technology, emphasizing the need for a moral compass in the decentralized landscape.