The Natural Law of Humanity

Image credit: Tumisu, Pixabay

Last week, I looked at ethics in general, and the relations between moral obligations and human rights. Today, I’m going to try to answer head-on the question: What is right, and what is wrong, for a human being to do?

Where I came in

To list my first three conclusions from last week’s essay:

1)     Identity determines morality. Right and wrong behaviours for a species of sentient beings are determined by the nature of the species.

2)     Ethical equality. Among members of the same species, what is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.

3)     The natural law of humanity. There exists a list of ethical obligations, which represent the behaviours natural to human beings. This can be codified.

The second and third of these statements follow directly from the first. And as evidence for the first, I gave you the behaviours of different species co-existing in the same environment, such as waterfowl around a lake. Their behaviours have a similar core, but each species has its own variations too.

Our nature

In last week’s essay, I also stated my view of the present stage of development of humanity as a species. I identified the main elements of our nature as: To take control of our surroundings, to use them for our benefit, and to leave our mark on them. To use our faculties of reason, to seek to understand what we see around us and what we experience. To form ourselves into social groups, and to organize them in such a way as to bring benefits to everyone in them; and so, to provide a civilized habitat, in which we human beings can live our lives to the full. To interact with each other using Franz Oppenheimer’s economic means, “the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others.” And thus, to seek to co-operate in order to take control of our surroundings.

I introduced these elements of our nature in an essay called “The Rhythms of History,” back in late July. In which, I looked at our history in terms of a series of forward-moving revolutions; interspersed with periods of stagnation or backsliding, which result from counter-revolutions, or reactions, launched by those that want to hold us back.

The elements I listed above are those aspects of our nature, which have been most apparent during some of the best and most revolutionary periods in our history. In particular, the first “age of reason” in ancient Greece; the Renaissance; the second age of reason, otherwise known as the Enlightenment; and the Industrial Revolution. They are the aspects of ourselves, which have made us human beings as a species what we are today.

My plan of action

I dub the codified version of the natural law of humanity, as at our present stage of development, “the Convivial Code.” I use the word “convivial,” not only in its basic sense of living together, and in its sense of being friendly and jovial (with a sub-text of feasting in good company!), but also in the sense of “fit to be lived with.” Thus, convivial conduct is the conduct of a human being, who is fit to be lived with in a civilization.

That said, to codify the natural law of humanity completely is a monster of a task. Certainly not one which can be done by one individual, or in just a couple of thousand words!

I shall, therefore, structure the rest of this essay in three parts. First, I will make some general remarks about the Code. Second, I will look at John Locke’s one-sentence statement of the law of Nature in his Second Treatise of Government. And third, I will list the obligations, which I see as my best shot so far at capturing the salient features of the Code.

General features of the Convivial Code

The Convivial Code will be an ethical code of conduct, which encapsulates the natural law of humanity. It will be, in essence, a touchstone for humanity, at the stage at which we are today. It will be independent of any particular culture, religious belief or non-belief. It will constitute a core set of standards of “civilized” behaviour for human beings worth the name.

It will make allowance for those exceptional situations, in which strict adherence to the Code may not be practical. Self-defence and defence of others, in particular, will under certain specified circumstances be seen as valid reasons for deviating from the letter of the Code.

People who make every effort to keep up to the standards of the Code, and so to obey the natural law of humanity, make themselves convivial, or “fit to be lived with.” Together, these people constitute what I call the “convivial community.” What binds this community together is a shared willingness to behave convivially. I equate this with the “great and natural community” of John Locke, to which all human beings would naturally belong, if it were not for “the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men.” (And degenerate women).

The opposite, behaviours that violate the Code, I call disconvivial behaviours. I also sometimes use the term “real wrongdoing” for such behaviours, or even inhumanity. For those that fail to measure up to the core standards of human behaviour, most of all if they do so habitually or in large matters, are failing to behave as human beings. They are degenerates. Thus, they are not fit to be accepted into any civilization of human beings worth the name.

The Code has nothing necessarily to do with “laws” as they are made today. It cannot, and must not, be invented – and most of all, it cannot be made by edicts of any cabal of politicians or their hangers-on. That route, as Locke identified, results in laws that are often no more than “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.” Instead, the Code must be discovered, by examining and understanding ourselves, our cultures and our history.

One major way in which the Code will differ from systems of political laws is that, for long periods, sometimes even over many centuries, the Code will be timeless. So, once set up, it needs no legislative. Changes only become necessary when circumstances occur which have not been envisaged before, or human nature itself changes, or new knowledge becomes available about what it is. And these events are rare. For example, the latest change in human nature came with the Industrial Revolution. Because of this, absent such events, the Code will be applicable retrospectively.

Once constructed and agreed – and that is a monster of a project in itself – the Code must be tried out in practice, very likely in prototype communities. These can then be used as seeds towards its wider and wider adoption. Other aspects to be hammered out would include the procedures for determining when a change is necessary to the Code, for specifying the changes, and for introducing a new version of the Code.

John Locke’s summary

Here is the text of John Locke’s one-sentence summary of the Code, from §6 of his Second Treatise. “The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no-one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”

In what sense did Locke mean that we are all equal? He certainly didn’t mean a socialist idiocy like equality of economic outcome. Indeed, he wrote: “I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of ‘equality.’ Age or virtue may give men a just precedency. Excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level.”

No: he meant ethical equality! In the same sense as I do. For he said, of the law of Nature: “What any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.” As to being all independent, it is a fact that each of us has our own body, our own mind, and our own will. It is up to each of us, as an individual, to live our lives as best we can. And as long as we behave as human beings, no-one should have any right to stop us doing so.

As to “no-one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions,” Locke is saying: no killing of human beings, no physical assaults, no infringing on others’ rights or freedoms, and no stealing or destruction of property. That’s a pretty good first shot at a law of civilized behaviour for human beings, is it not?

And yet, when we look at the actions of leaders, functionaries and hangers-on of political states around the world today, we see that a lot, even most of, the time they fall seriously short of this mark. Indeed, wars, physical assaults and destruction of property are built into the very foundations of the “Westphalian” states we suffer under. As is taxation, which enables the politically rich to extort earnings or property, or both, from the politically poor. And violations of our human rights and freedoms have become all but routine. Such as the “on-line safety act,” and facial recognition cameras in the public space.

My own contribution – “the Code lite”

It may not surprise you, at this point, to find that I have been working for many years towards my own best shot at writing the Convivial Code.

As I explained in last week’s essay, I see ethical codes in terms of lists of obligations to be kept to. Therefore, that is how I will express my approximation to the Code. As to its level of detail, I am aiming somewhere in between John Locke’s one-sentence statement, and a full treatment, which I would expect to extend to many dozens, if not hundreds, of pages.

I have expressed my version, which I will call “the Code lite,” as a list of 25 obligations. Of these, the first seven are positive obligations, to which the individual must keep if they are not to violate the natural law of humanity. The next four are expectations – things which the individual must strive to do. The remainder are negative obligations or prohibitions; things which the individual must not do. In each of these, the exceptional situations I discussed above, like self-defence, which may justify a deviation, must be borne in mind.

And I will define here what I mean by justice and injustice, and the adjectives just and unjust. By “justice,” I mean what I call “common-sense justice.” That is, the condition in which each individual is to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others. And when I use the words “just” or “unjust,” I mean in accordance with, or not in accordance with, common-sense justice.

As I did above with John Locke’s version, you may care to contemplate how well the behaviours of those in positions with political power today, whether they are publicly visible or not, measure up to these obligations, expectations and prohibitions.

The positive obligations

1)     Respect the human rights and freedoms of all those who respect your equal rights and freedoms.

2)     Always seek the facts on any matter, and tell the truth as you understand it.

3)     Be honest, candid, straightforward and sincere in all your dealings.

4)     Take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable effects on others of your voluntary actions.

5)     If your voluntary actions cause objective and unjust harm or inconvenience to others, you have an obligation to compensate them.

6)     If you engage in activities that impose a risk of harm on others, you must have in place resources to enable you to compensate them if such a harm eventuates.

7)     Always practise what you preach.

The first of these obligations, obviously, does not answer the question “precisely what are the rights and freedoms, which everyone must respect?” This I regard as something which must be fleshed out in the process of detailing the Code. But in outline, any right in any of the major lists of rights, from Magna Carta, via the 1689 bill of rights and the 1791 US bill of rights, to the UN declaration and the European Convention, must be checked to see if it is in reality a valid right. And if it is, it must be back-to-backed with an obligation or set of obligations, in the way I explained in last week’s essay.

The remaining obligations are more self-explanatory. They require close adherence to truth and honesty. They impose on you a responsibility for what you do to others; require you to provide compensation if you unjustly harm others; and impose a restriction on the risks to which you may subject others.

The last obligation is, perhaps, the most important of all. For hypocrisy – preaching that in a given situation, people should act in one way, yet yourself acting differently – is a sure sign of disconviviality.

The expectations

8)     Strive to be independent, self-reliant and rational in all your thoughts and actions.

9)     Always strive to carry out what you have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to do.

10) Always strive to behave with objectivity, justice, integrity and good faith.

11) Strive to be tolerant of all those who are convivial and tolerant towards you.

These are all couched in terms of striving to meet an obligation, rather than simply meeting it in every situation. This reflects the fact that these expectations are, for many if not all of us, harder to keep to than are obligations such as truthfulness, honesty and straightforwardness.

The prohibitions

12) Don’t bully anyone, or commit any aggression against anyone’s life, person or property.

13) Don’t interfere in other people’s lives without a good, objectively justifiable reason.

14) Don’t unjustly do to others what they do not want done to them.

15) Don’t intentionally do or aggravate injustice.

16) Don’t promote, support, co-operate with or condone any unjust violation of human rights or freedoms.

17) Don’t promote, support, make or enforce any law that harms, inconveniences, or violates the rights or freedoms of, innocent people.

18) Don’t seek to control others through emotional manipulation or obfuscation.

19) Don’t put any obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or unjustly deny anyone’s access to it.

20) Don’t unjustly deny others the right to make their own decisions in thought or action.

21) Don’t deny anyone the presumption of innocence, or require them to prove a negative.

22) Don’t try to take more from others than you are justly entitled to, or to impose costs on others that bring no benefit to them.

23) Don't pick favourites, or operate double standards with anyone.

24) Don't recklessly impose harm, or unreasonable risk of harm, on others.

25) Don’t willingly let yourself become a drain on others.

Would you agree with me, that these are all things which every civilized human being should refrain from doing? If you agree, would you also agree that under today’s conditions, we are all of us, again and again, subjected to violations of many, if not all, of these prohibitions?

To sum up

In this essay, I have made my best attempt to “put some flesh” on what I call the Convivial Code, the ethical code which specifies the natural law of civilized humanity. I have noted some of its general characteristics. I have given John Locke’s one-sentence summary of it, and my own “Convivial code lite” of 25 obligations. And I have suggested, for your consideration, that the behaviours of those with positions of political privilege today are very, very far from satisfying either John Locke’s summary of the Code or mine.