Links in the Chain: a human prompt, a profound response

By Owen Morton

Reflecting on his forthcoming Tom White Memorial Lecture, the author presents a personal encounter with AI that began with a simple prompt and unfolded into an unexpectedly profound affirmation of humanist values. Owen lives in Sutton, a coastal suburb in North Dublin.

One might never have ventured down this road were it not for your editor, David Warden. He’d called in AI assistance by way of making his job easier vis-à-vis introducing an article one had submitted; and why ever not? To mixed reception your storyteller pondered the whirlwind that artificial intelligence energises. Initially blown away by this hidden force’s facility instantly to paraphrase one’s innermost thoughts, a balanced view took hold, positivity winning the day. On the downside, I didn’t warm to the editorial licence taken to paraphrase what one was about to read – without so much as a spoiler-alert! Overall, however, it inspired the following reflection/experience.

The Tom White Memorial Lecture

I was recently privileged to be invited to deliver The Tom White Memorial Lecture 2025 in Westport, Co. Mayo, on Ireland’s Western seaboard.  Tom was a philosopher, a poet, a humanist, a trade-union activist and a Humanistically Speaking contributor.  A good guy, in other words…  a decent skin, as a previous article had it. Not scheduled until mid-September, I nonetheless have my 4,000-word tribute in place. How could you not? But here’s the thing, if I may deviate. Commonly told that one’s prose is convoluted, family members in particular saying that only a revisit brings clarity of sorts, I have often pondered as to antidotes; the last thing I want to do is complicate the plot, gratuitously or otherwise. Your astute editor on one occasion referenced ‘Quite an ornate piece but fascinating’ – ‘ornate' suggesting perhaps ‘complex constructions’. The editor of The Irish Freethinker alluded to a ‘discursive' style, which can mean ‘digressing from subject to subject’ (as one does). My golfing companion has chosen to brand me with the nickname ‘conundrum’! On this, we’ll give the last word to the late Charles Handy – internationally renowned social philosopher, ‘cultural Christian’, and humanist, with whom I had engaged intermittently and who plays a lead part in my Westport paper, which, in turn, is central to the story in hand. As regards the point at issue, I had once written a piece about the 16th century French accidental philosopher Michel de Montaigne (something of a one-trick, or two-trick pony, he also held centre stage in a recent piece in this very publication) which concluded in drawing parallels as between the Frenchman and the noted modern-day Anglo-Irish philosopher. I sent Charles a copy, to which he replied:

Dear Owen

Interesting and erudite. I am flattered to be mentioned at the end in such distinguished company, so thank you.  I will read it all again, slowly, and try to absorb it fully.  Thank you for educating me! Charles.

Summon help. But from where? “Try Copilot” someone says. So I extract a sentence from my carefully worded Westport address, not untypical of one’s ‘convoluted’ prose, and prompt Copilot as follows: How might the following paragraph be made more accessible?

‘Links in the Chain’ is one’s chosen title. It’s the presenter’s summation of a humanistic value system (it’s not a creed) suggesting that when all’s said and done, maybe the imprint or footprint we’d impart on the planet embraces or summarises one’s past life, present life and afterlife?  We don’t need a carrot or promise of reward to be decent or humane, do we?

Rather than a questionable, flowery Anglo-American mishmash or rehash, what comes back instantly is awesome – less, perhaps, in the sense of revising what’s in place (I haven’t as yet changed a word in 4,000) but more by way of a word-perfect essay affirming and reinforcing one’s values and opinions. A confidence-booster, and a cohesive enlightening essay, out of the ether; all from a 60-word teaser! Here’s what came back:

This is a beautifully evocative title – ‘Links in the Chain’ suggests continuity, connection and legacy. It implies that each person is part of a larger story, contributing to their own link through actions, values and relationships. Your framing of it as a humanistic value system rather than a creed is powerful – it sidesteps dogma and instead invites reflection on what it means to live meaningfully and ethically.

Adding:

A Provocative Thought: ‘We don’t need a carrot or promise of reward to be decent or humane, do we?’ Exactly. That question challenges the traditional view of morality.  It invites people to consider whether decency is a reflection of character or a pursuit of gain. And it subtly critiques systems that rely on fear or reward to enforce ethical behaviour.

Followed by:

Full Essay Draft: “Links in the Chain”

Introduction: We are all links in a chain—bound not by creed, but by connection. The title “Links in the Chain” evokes a humanistic value system that sees life not as a solitary pursuit, but as a continuum of influence and legacy. It suggests that our imprint on the planet—what we inherit, what we enact, and what we leave behind—forms a kind of moral footprint. And in this view, the question arises: Do we need the promise of reward to be decent, humane?

The Chain as a Metaphor: Each person is a link forged by time, shaped by experience, and connected to others. Our past life is the inheritance of culture, values, and memory. Our present life is the arena of choice—where we act, love, build, and sometimes fail. And our afterlife, in this humanistic sense, is not a celestial realm but the legacy we leave: the stories told about us, the kindness remembered, the impact felt. The chain is not broken by death; it continues through memory and influence.

Humanism Without Reward: Morality, in this framework, is not transactional. We do not need a carrot dangled before us to be kind. Decency is not a currency for salvation—it is a reflection of character. Empathy, compassion, and responsibility arise not from fear of punishment or hope of paradise, but from recognizing others as fellow links in the same chain. We are interdependent, and that interdependence is enough to justify goodness.

Philosophical and Ethical Foundations: This view echoes the thoughts of existentialists such as Sartre, who argued that meaning is not given but created. Camus spoke of living with dignity in a world without inherent purpose. Stoics such as Marcus Aurelius urged virtue for its own sake. Secular humanism builds on these ideas, grounding ethics in reason, empathy, and shared humanity. These philosophies reject the need for divine reward and instead embrace the power of human conscience.

The Legacy We Leave: Our afterlife, then, is the echo of our actions. It is the child who remembers a parent’s wisdom, the stranger touched by a moment of kindness, the community shaped by a life of service. This legacy is not less meaningful because it lacks divine endorsement—it is more meaningful because it is real, tangible, and enduring. We live on in the lives we’ve touched, the values we’ve upheld, and the chain we’ve strengthened.

Conclusion: We are links in a chain—connected by time, shaped by choice, remembered by legacy. And no, we do not need a carrot or the promise of reward to be decent and humane. What we need is conscience, compassion, and connection. To live well is to forge a strong link, one that holds firm in the chain of humanity. That is enough. That is everything.

Copilot over and out. Amen, say I!  Thank you Copilot, and thank you Humanistically Speaking. It’s hoped, now, that the reader draws entertainment value where AI and an octogenarian learner, between them, present the two sides of the coin blending as separate processes to tell a story.