The Method of Biomorality

Biomorality offers not just a set of conclusions about the world, but a distinctive philosophical methodology—a way of approaching questions about reality, knowledge, and value that differs from many traditional philosophical frameworks. This methodology provides both a path for inquiry and boundaries that define what makes an explanation biomorally sound.

The Biocentric Starting Point

At its foundation, biomorality begins from a single, powerful insight: philosophy should start by recognizing what we are—living beings engaged in the continuous project of maintaining our existence through interaction with our surroundings.

This might seem obvious, but much of traditional philosophy proceeds differently. It often starts from abstract concepts like "pure reason," "consciousness," or "language," treating these human-specific capacities as foundations separate from our biological nature. Biomorality inverts this approach, grounding all explanation in our continuous embodied existence as living beings.

When we recognize ourselves as living beings first and foremost, several profound implications follow, which together form the methodological principles of biomorality.

The Five Fundamental Principles

1. Ontological Continuity

The world is a single, continuous reality. Biomorality rejects explanations that introduce separate "realms" or domains of reality (like dividing mind from matter, or separating human consciousness from the natural world).

All that exists—from physical processes to human values—exists within the same continuous reality where living beings maintain themselves through constant interaction with their environments. Our thoughts, feelings, and values are not from another realm; they emerge from and remain part of the same reality as mountains, molecules, and microbes.

This principle does not reduce everything to physics or eliminate the reality of human experience. Rather, it recognizes that all aspects of our experience, from the most physical to the most cultural, exist on a continuum rather than in separate domains.

Example: Instead of explaining consciousness as something mystical that exists in a non-physical realm, we understand it as an integrated process that emerges from the same reality as our bodies and the environments they inhabit.

2. Permanent Revision

All explanations remain permanently open to revision. Unlike frameworks that seek eternal, unchanging truths, biomorality recognizes that all explanations are provisional adaptations to particular circumstances.

Just as living beings must continuously adjust their behaviors to survive in changing environments, our explanations must remain open to adjustment in light of new evidence and changing conditions. No explanation—not even biomorality itself—can claim finality or immunity from revision.

This doesn't mean that all explanations are equally valid or that truth is merely subjective. Some explanations work better than others at helping us navigate reality. But even our most successful explanations remain open to refinement or replacement as we gain new understanding.

Analogy: Like an immune system that must continuously update to recognize new pathogens, our knowledge systems must constantly adapt to new discoveries and changing circumstances.
Self-application: Even as biomorality offers specific assertions about the world, this principle ensures that these ideas themselves cannot be considered final or static. This methodological commitment prevents the theory from becoming dogmatic or resistant to improvement.

3. Primacy of the External

Our internal experiences, beliefs, and representations matter primarily because of how they connect to external reality. The world responds not to what we think or feel, but to our actual embodied interactions with it.

This principle challenges the tendency to become trapped in purely abstract or linguistic analyses disconnected from empirical reality. It reminds us that all living beings—from bacteria to humans—must ultimately validate their internal models through actual interaction with the external world.

This doesn't diminish the importance of our internal lives but places them in proper context: as adaptive mechanisms that help us coordinate our interactions with a reality that exceeds and encompasses us.

Test question: "Does this concept help actual living beings navigate their environments effectively, or does it merely sound elegant in theoretical discussion?"

4. Contingent Conditions of Knowledge

All explanation depends on specific material, social, and historical conditions. The knowledge we can develop, the questions we can ask, and the answers we can find are all shaped by the particular circumstances in which we exist.

This principle reminds us that explanation is never independent of its conditions. The energy, resources, technologies, social structures, and historical contexts available to us both enable and constrain what we can know and understand about the world.

By recognizing these contingent conditions, we avoid mistaking our particular perspective for a universal viewpoint or assuming that our current understanding represents the final word on any subject.

Practice: When analyzing political systems, we first examine their material foundations and social realities—their energy requirements, resource flows, ecological impacts, power distributions, and actual decision-making processes—before evaluating their abstract ideals or formal structures. This reveals the gap between stated principles and lived reality.

5. Rejecting Satisfaction

We must resist the tendency to settle for explanations merely because they feel intuitively satisfying or provide psychological comfort. Living beings naturally seek permanency, security, and certainty—but these desires can lead us to accept inadequate explanations prematurely.

This principle challenges us to continue questioning even when we feel we've reached a satisfying answer. It warns against the human tendency to prefer theories that offer absolute certainty, eternal permanence, or special status to humans, regardless of their empirical adequacy.

This doesn't mean we must live in perpetual doubt about everything, but it reminds us to maintain intellectual humility and openness even about our most cherished beliefs.

Warning sign: If you believe you've found "The Final Answer" to a complex question, you've likely fallen into the satisfaction trap. Life's complexity always exceeds our models.

A Method for Our Time

These five principles—ontological continuity, permanent revision, primacy of the external, contingent conditions of knowledge, and rejecting satisfaction—together form a philosophical methodology suited to our contemporary challenges.

In an era of environmental crisis, technological transformation, and global interconnection, we need philosophical approaches that recognize human continuity with all living processes, remain open to revision in light of changing conditions, prioritize empirical adequacy over internal coherence alone, acknowledge the material conditions that shape knowledge, and resist the temptation to settle for comforting but inadequate explanations.

Biomorality offers such an approach—not as a final answer but as a methodology for ongoing inquiry. It provides guidance for navigating the complex questions we face without claiming to offer absolute certainty or unchanging truth.

By recognizing ourselves as living beings engaged in continuous interaction with our surroundings, we develop a philosophical methodology that aligns with the actual conditions of our existence rather than with comforting but misleading abstractions. This recognition doesn't diminish human uniqueness but places it within its proper context—as one remarkable manifestation of life's continuous adaptation to a dynamic world.

Applying the Method

The biomorality method transforms how we approach fundamental questions across multiple domains:

• Knowledge: Instead of asking "What can I know with absolute certainty?" we ask "What understanding helps living beings navigate their environments successfully?"
• Ethics: Rather than seeking abstract universal principles, we examine how social organisms balance individual and collective survival needs
• Politics: Instead of evaluating political systems against ideological purity, we assess how they enable both human and ecological flourishing
• Technology: Beyond asking if an innovation is possible, we consider how it affects the broader web of life that sustains us

In each domain, the method provides not answers but guidance—a way of approaching questions that aligns with our nature as living beings and with the challenges of our time.

Why This Matters

Biomorality's method matters because it makes three transformative shifts in our thinking:

1. From Mirror to Window
   We stop staring at reflections of human thought and look outward to life's diverse expressions. This helps us escape the echo chamber of human-centered philosophy.

2. From Debate to Experiment
   Questions resolve through empirical engagement with the world, not just logical argumentation. This grounds our thinking in reality rather than abstraction.

3. From Perfection to Fitness
   We seek ideas that work well enough for current conditions, knowing they'll need revision as circumstances change. This prevents rigid dogmatism.

By embracing this methodology, we move beyond the self-absorbed phase of human thinking that treats consciousness, language, or social construction as the measure of all reality. We step outside the mirror-lined room of our self-reflection into engagement with a world that exceeds and encompasses human concerns without excluding them.

This step represents not a diminishment but an expansion—an opening to deeper understanding of ourselves and our place within the broader tapestry of life.