1. Introduction
The greatest horrors of the world are caused by those who claim to act in the name of good, enforcing a perverted vision of order that leaves no room for dissent.
– Edward Henry KC, summing up to the UK Post Office Inquiry, December 2024
Today, I’m going to reduce to its essence, and try to give some pointers towards solving, the predicament in which we human beings currently find ourselves. Most of all in the territory of the state called the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” Abbreviated to “UK,” which I often pronounce as “yuck,” because that word describes how it is today.
In doing so, I’ll examine matters from many different perspectives. Some of these, I have already written about. In these cases, I’ll often repeat, adapt or paraphrase earlier material. Others are new ideas, or new deductions from old ideas. Using a mix of old and new, I’ll try to assemble the whole together into as coherent a picture as I can.
Again, as so often, I find myself warning that this missive will be very long. So much so, that I have divided it into 14 chapters. This makes it more like a book than an essay. And to ease the task for my readers, I have decided to release it on the Internet chapter by chapter.
I must also issue again the Radical Ideas Warning, which is now becoming commonplace at the start of my philosophical works. Some of the ideas I offer here, indeed, are far more than radical. I make no apologies for this. For the future, even the survival, of human civilization, and of our human species as a whole, is at stake.
My Plan of Campaign
This missive is sufficiently radical, long and wide-ranging, that I have decided not even to try to write an abstract in the manner of a scientific paper, or a summary in the style of a management report. Instead, I will here outline the steps I will be taking in order to introduce the various components of my diagnosis of our ills, and some pointers towards solutions.
I will begin by giving my view of the nature, that is shared by all human beings worth the name. I will then look at human history, on three levels. One, our evolution over tens of thousands to millions of years. Two, history over the medium term of centuries to millennia. And three, a summary of where we stand today. As part of this, I will chart some of the stages in the growth of the tyranny by the state and its cronies against us human beings, which has taken place over the last five centuries or so. And lastly from the viewpoint of evolution and history, I will try to put the last 40,000 years or so of our history into its context.
Next, I will summarize my own philosophical system, as it pertains to the areas classically called ethics and politics. And I will discuss the twelve key ideas which underlie it. I will then make some deductions from my philosophical system and my view of history, and apply them to politics as it exists today.
After this, I will review the natural imperatives, which, judging by their actions at least, appear to be experienced by those that I dub the “politicals.” This will lead me towards comparing us, human beings worth the name, against them, our enemies.
Next, I will look at what we human beings need in terms of governance. And I will compare and contrast that with the behaviours shown by those in positions of government power today. I will then outline my proposal for a new, bottom-up system of governance, which can replace, and fix the problems with, the current, top-down, failed system of political states and governments. And I will sketch out some ideas on a possible structure for the new system, which I call “just governance.” To finish, I will then compare the mind-sets of us human beings and of our enemies, and the ways in which I think those mind-sets are developing.
Before the broken arm which I suffered on January 14th, I had planned to complete the exercise by outlining a road-map for how to get from where we are to where we need to be. But I have now decided that this is on its own a sufficiently large task, that I would do best to publish now just my diagnosis and outline of solutions, and to leave the road-map for later.
2. Human nature
I will first give my view of the nature, which is shared by all human beings worth the name today. And of the natural imperatives, which dictate to us how we should behave.
Control over our surroundings
At the most fundamental level, it is natural for us to take control of our surroundings, to use them for our benefit, and to leave our mark on them. It is a major, and vital, part of our nature. It is why we build buildings, take part in economic activity, and engineer solutions to make the world a better place for us to live. It is what elevates us from mere animals into human beings. It is also what leads us to seek to build civilizations, which can provide us with the environment in which we are able to fulfil ourselves.
Reason and rational thought
Beyond this, it is natural to us to seek to understand what we see around us and what we experience. To do this, we need to use our faculties of reason. We need to examine the world as we see and experience it. We need to seek the true facts from the evidence, from all the evidence, and only from the evidence. And we need to think rationally, logically and honestly in our efforts to understand more and better.
In the last few centuries, we have extended our capacities towards what we now call science and the scientific method. Science is a, more or less formalized, set of tools for discovering patterns and connections in, and so knowledge about, phenomena we see or experience. And the scientific method formulates hypotheses, predicts their consequences, and tests their predictions against reality to provide evidence for confirmation or rejection.
The natural law of humanity
At the level of the individual, it is natural for each of us to behave in ways that further our species and move it forward. Put another way, for human beings, just as for all other sentient species, there is a “natural law” or “law of Nature,” which, if we choose to study it, can tell us what are the right and wrong ways for each of us to behave. I will call it the natural law of humanity.
John Locke, in the 17th century, summarized this law as: “being all equal and independent, no-one should harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” That’s a pretty good summary of the rules of civilized human conduct, no?
Moreover, we are social. While every one of us is an individual, each with our own body and mind, it is natural for us to associate with others. And doing so brings us advantages as individuals, such as the division of labour. Thus, the ethically right behaviours for each of us are those which enable us to function effectively as members of a civilization. Which include doing what we can to help take control of our surroundings, including making ourselves economically productive; seeking the facts in any matter; and thinking (and behaving) rationally and honestly.
Those who behave according to the natural law of humanity, I characterize as convivial. That is, fit to be lived with. On the other hand, for those that break the natural law of humanity, and most of all if they do it persistently or in large matters, I have in the past used the term disconvivial. But I am coming to think that a stronger term is necessary. Those, that break the natural law of humanity, fail to measure up to human standards. They are, in a very real sense, inhuman. They are not human beings worth the name.
Civilizations
Above the level of the individual, it is natural for us to form ourselves into social groups, and to organize them in such a way as to bring benefits to everyone in them. By doing this, we build civilizations, providing the habitat in which we human beings can live our lives to the full. When such civilizations succeed, the results can grow to a large scale. And they can endure over time, sometimes for many generations, or even for centuries.
Now, the culture of a civilization, whatever its origins may be, has a tendency to permeate down into the morality of the individuals inside it. This seems like a reverse movement, in which the “politics” of the civilization drives individuals’ ethics, instead of ethical principles driving politics. Some go so far as to conclude that there cannot be a core morality, which is common to all civilizations. And so, to deny the existence of the natural law of humanity.
My take, though, is that these two, apparently opposed, processes are not in reality incompatible. Among human beings, any culture soundly rooted in the natural law of humanity can provide a basis for a successful civilization. But if the culture of a civilization becomes incompatible with the natural law of the species, that civilization is doomed to fail. And that is what happens, whenever politics is allowed to drive ethics, instead of the other way round.
When politics takes control of ethics, the results are wrong. John Locke knew this. For he said that: “a great part of the municipal laws of countries” are no more than “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.” And such laws are “only so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.”
And so, far too often, civilizations do not succeed as they ought to. Perhaps because their organization fails to bring sufficient benefits to their members. Or perhaps because the organization delivers large benefits to some, yet little benefit, or even negatives, to others.
These failures of organization can also lead to the collapse of already existing civilizations. With the fall of Rome as a prime example, and the efforts of our enemies to bring down Western industrial civilization as the latest.
The habitat we need
We have always been by nature an economic species. Economic activity is how we interact with each other when we are seeking to co-operate together to take control of our surroundings. And we have developed our economic talents significantly in the last 250 years or so, since the burgeoning of the Industrial Revolution.
It is natural for us to be creative, to solve problems, and to trade with each other for mutual benefit. The habitat we need is one of peace, individual justice, human rights and freedoms, a free market, and free trade. In which we can all ply our trades and businesses, and develop and make use of our skills. The purpose of building civilizations is to provide such a habitat.
Living in such a habitat enables us to take control over our surroundings more actively, and so to fulfil our nature as human beings. When we are in a time of relatively good habitat, as in Europe during much of the 19th century, we can make astounding progress. But when our habitat is polluted by bad politics – as today – things are far more difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment