• download ayaya moses fred frith guitar quartet

An example of an ought is about how ought parents act in regards to raising their children. A tribe with limited outside contact might want to retain it’s isolated status. Should the children of that tribe have the decision that they are not allowed to have access to outside health care and education made for them by their parents? One can argue that is a parent’s right to govern the lives of their children until they are capable of their own reasoning. Following the same logic Jehova’s witnesses ought to be allowed to deny life saving blood transfusions for their children. Both scenarios are forms of coercion against children, in the Jehova’s case the results are more severe. To resolve this problem we can argue a new ought – for the sanctity of human life. If there is unacceptable (emphasis added to highlight that what is deemed unacceptable would need to be decided) suffering or death involved then it is reasonable for an outside agent to intervene. This resolves the argument by stating that parents have the right to raise their children how they see fit so long as it does not cause unacceptable suffering or death. However if we assume this ought then there are implications for other situations.

How are cost-benefit decisions to be made when it comes to public policy – should no expense be spared to save one life? If a particularly dangerous stretch of road that will statistically save on average ten lives a year diverts funds from immunisation for a communicable disease that might cause ten deaths a year how are we to decide which group is to be spared? What if instead of comparing deaths for deaths we were to compare the deaths of ten people to the happiness or well being of 10 million people? If the sanctity of human life is most important ought we cancel public broadcasting, sponsorship of the arts, and non-essential defence spending and put all of that money into health care? If not, this shifts the emphasis of the ought from the sanctity of human life to measures of utility – maximising happiness (emphasis again added to highlight that what is deemed happiness would need to be decided) for as many people as possible. Maximising utility could address the earlier parent/child issues. We might conclude that in the case of the isolated tribe, happiness is maximised by them being left alone and in the case of the Jehova’s Witnesses, the parent’s happiness is sacrificed for the child’s ability to continue their life with which they experience happiness.

A way out of the moral paradoxes inherent in defining oughts is to advocate against all ought based policy making and completely liberalise all aspects of society. This allows us to absolve ourselves morally about what oughts should be; we ought to do nothing in any given situation as it is neither societies nor another individual’s moral responsibility. Instead of operating because of oughts we as individuals choose our actions and consent to others affecting us. Individuals within a society are affected through societies own natural mechanisms in the same way they are affected by the Universe’s physical laws. This would be a truly anarchist society. It is not global capitalism in its current form because states in the world have their own national interests which interfere with a truly free market and corporations are unnatural entities. It is not democracy in any form because in a democracy minorities always have their views coerced to the majority. For example anti-smoking legislation, crime prevention, affirmative action legislation, or any form of licensing regulation all enforce or control a particular view point. All of these tasks are then dealt with naturalistically by groups who have common goals within societies.

A completely deregulated society organised around small collectives has a few critical problems:

1. Inability to tackle enormous projects and issues (climate change, moon landings, mass education and health care),
2. Organised and highly aggressive neighbours,
3. A denial of certain aspects of what it means to be a human:
1. Desire for some authority,
2. Non-rational decision making,
3. Value of close kin over strangers,
4. Difficulty in enforcing standards (technological, engineering etc) across the globe.

The overall goal is maximising people’s happiness. What constitutes happiness is a subjective quality that is decided upon by the groups at each level. The groups make these decisions based on the shared assumptions of knowledge posited throughout the beginnings, development and human being sections.

Education needs to pre-empt deregulation. Groupings at each level should not be forced into a particular unpalatable decision until a critical-mass of people within that level is reached (I posit around 40% although I have no idea, it will depend on a given situation). These people must be strong advocates within their level when it comes to their personal interactions with other people.

Each level of the system needs to be as minimal as possible based on the level of freedom impinged on the system above it. They also need adequate checks and balances, both internally and from above and below to see if they are meeting the needs of each layer.

Population, food production and consumption growth must be zero, unless it is demonstrably ecologically sustainable. Global and national policies should promote these lack-of-growth axioms. Global leadership is needed in order to prevent high-jacking of these axioms by member states by using mitigating penalties. The number one factor should be the continuance of the human race on planet earth. This will be the prime axiom until another entity has a similar system of value and a conscious volition as humans, otherwise there is no entity to have discussion with.