From the point of view of the third hypothesis, there is no such thing as a real
"moral law" that has to be respected, and so there is no need to distinguish between
"good and bad" intentions. Nevertheless, it is clear that every action contains
its own reward within itself or its own punishment, and this goes beyond any kind
of ethical judgement. For this reason, more than the ideology that we can inspire,
it is the actions that we manage to carry out that are important. It they contain
advantages for others, this means that we will be able to benefit from them ourselves
in our future lives. If we apply this principle, we should be encouraged to behave
in the best possible way for humanity and for the whole complex of living beings.
However, seeing that, despite all our good intentions, disasters and painful events
take place even without necessarily presuming the existence of an evil will, as
Leopardi says, all our actions should be directed towards our common defence against
nature, “che de’ mortali / madre è di parto
e di voler matrigna” ("which is mother
to mortals by way of giving birth, but is by will a stepmother").
If it is our will to experience continuously every conceivable "possibility of life",
our best strategy should be to try and avoid in as much as this is possible all
those unpleasant circumstances which are nevertheless an integral part of the set
of "all possible lives". Supposing we are effectively equipped with "margins of
choice", we can at least try to pick those options that worsen our "collective karma"
as rarely as is humanly possible to us, so as not to deteriorate our world and the
life of all the creatures that inhabit it. In practical terms, this means trying
to eliminate every superfluous pain that we stupidly inflict on each other and to
make life an experience that is as pleasant and as gratifying as possible for all.
We will have no other paradise than the one that we will be able to build for ourselves.
It would be wrong to think that the third hypothesis promotes behaviour that is
in any way monastic or totalitarian. The will to improve the conditions of life
is that which encourages individuals to try and make the best possible use of their
abilities. Yet, we should be able to recognize merit in relation to the improvements
that the work of the single human being create for the well being of the whole.
A certain social pecking order is created in an almost automatic way between individuals
who are all of a more or less similar social order. It is reasonable that these
should exist as long as they reflect the real abilities of the single individuals
and the usefulness of the work they perform, and with these limits they should not
be judged as arbitrarily abuse. Needless to say this must be compatible with political
policies of social defence which guarantee for all, the same opportunities in education,
health care and participation in public life. The third hypothesis does not even
exclude limited use of violence in cases where no dialogue is possible and when
it considered the lesser evil for the community in general, even if I can see that
these things might be very difficult to judge. Very often these differences of evaluation
are based on a fundamental prejudice – that "we are ourselves" and that "they are
different from us" and so probably "worth less than us", which means that "they
can be bombed in a summary fashion" as long as "our security is safeguarded, because
we are more important". What all this means is that "the fate of those that are
inferior to us is of no interest to us" in that "at this point I have this life
of privilege that I deserve" and so "all this has nothing to do with me". Quite
the contrary, the third hypothesis warns us that everything has to do with you because
your enemy of today is your reincarnation of tomorrow. This way of thinking should
favour a more objective way of judging what is just and what is unjust.
The moral of the third hypothesis might even be of consolatory value for that who
are hopelessly unfortunate, but who might still be able to think that, in any case,
all those lives which he now considers with frustration, really belong to him. At
the same time, even the others should be conscious of the fact that their life is
a part of their own destiny. No one is ever definitively excluded from anything,
and all destinies belong to us in equal measure. Once we have accepted this idea, it will be easier for us to get over our envy of those who are better off than us,
our indifference with respect to those who are worse off and even our intolerance
against those who are merely different. Differences exist and they can be deep or
even irreconcilable: they are the reflection of all the contradictions in our society
and the different cultures of which it is made. Yet, the knowledge that we are all
expressions of the same "io" could contribute to the foundation of a new culture in which we will go beyond the divisions based on the unjustifiable prejudices that
lacerate the world today.
In that it is the only effective living entity, the common "io" of the third hypothesis
can never be suppressed definitively, though this cannot ever be considered an instigation
to pour scorn on life: on the contrary, the real value of life itself and all living
beings becomes more evident the moment you reset to zero the presumed "sacred nature
of the soul". All the importance of life is to be found in the physical beings that
are living it, in the wealth of their experience, in the abilities that they have
developed and in the network of relationships that they have woven with each other.
However, a certain existential sense of comfort can be derived from the third hypothesis
when we lose people who are dear to us or when our own end draws near. At the last,
we will only be missing ourselves and the multitudinous lives that are all around
us give us faith that we will be back again in the guise of all the people that
we have met.
Hamlet’s nightmarish conception of death as the bourne from which no traveller returns
no longer exists and we can more profitably concentrate on our real problems, from
which we now know it is not possible to escape at the end of our lives. They cannot
be ignored by simply sweeping them out the door, and they will just continue to
grow bigger until we finally face them. We can choose to believe that some transcendent
type of inspiration might possibly come to our aid in difficult moments or that
it will support our choices when they are moved to worthy ends. We might be able
to feel reassured if we consider ourselves the instruments of some superior will
with which we choose to conform. Yet we must always be aware that our lives are
indispensable to give shape to all projects for the improvement of our society.
The third hypothesis puts us face to face with our responsibilities: the social
conditions of our birth were not important, and nor is the present state of our
wealth or lack of it: the task we have to carry out is our present life so as to
find new solutions, to stand witness to the existence of confines or injustice that
we need to resolve. This may frighten us, but at this point we must start to consider
ourselves mature enough to take our own responsibilities instead of continuing to
hope that someone else will fix things in our place. Our destiny depends only on
our ability to cooperate and to share our common resources in mutual agreement.
If you consider the third hypothesis plausible, you should feel even more encouraged
to face the problems of the world with a new sense of urgency and a greater concern.
The destiny of the undernourished children in Sub-Saharan African is suddenly no
longer a statistical number, but something very close and connected to us, a threat
that hangs over our own heads. The possible ecological disaster on the earth is
not only something that will concern our great grandchildren: it concerns each and
everyone of us directly. It is no longer possible to imagine the hereafter as an
eternal holiday that we have justly deserved only on the basis of our own wretched
judgement, while this world continues to struggle for its survival and to cut down
victims that have no defence. Personally, I would much prefer to come back here
and to keep returning because there is still a whole lot of work to be done. The
only thing I hope is to find myself in a state that will allow me to be useful.
This is the "minimum" condition that should be guaranteed to all of us because,
if we believe that the third hypothesis might really be correct, it is surely the
only one that gives us a little faith and hope for all our future lives.
Appendix: open considerations.