Image credit: Freepik
In recent months, I have been writing two strands of essays.
One on theory, ethical and political; the other on current events and issues. Today,
I will extract from my earlier writings a “management overview” of my ethical
and political ideas. And of my ideas on the foundations for a new system of
governance, to replace the awful mess of a political system that we suffer
under today.
Despite all my efforts at brevity, the wide scope of this
essay means that it will be longer than my recent norm; about 5,000 words. To
put this in context, though, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government was
around 56,000 words long!
Four groups of key ideas
My key ethical and political ideas are 22 in number. They
divide into four groups:
1)
Six general ideas on ethics.
2)
Three ideas on inter-personal ethics and human
rights.
3)
Five “organizational” ideas, which seek to
answer the question: How should we organize ourselves for maximum benefit to
all?
4)
Eight sets of rules for a system of governance, whose
objective is to replace and supersede the failed system that is today called
politics.
I covered the first two groups of ideas in my essay “Ethics,
Obligations and Rights,” here: [[1]]. I followed up with more detail
about what I call the natural law of humanity, here: [[2]]. I addressed the third group in an
essay “Community, Society and Justice” at [[3]].
As to the fourth group, I began my design for a new
governmental system by considering what functions a proper governance should
have: [[4]]. I
considered how a proper governance should treat the governed: [[5]]. And
I offered an outline proposal for a proper system of governance, which I call Just
Governance. [[6]].
Where I introduce an idea which has the status of a
Principle, I shall state the principle at the head of the section, in italics.
Terminology
A few points about terminology I will use in the rest of
this essay:
1) I
use the word government to denote the old system, and governance
for the new.
2) Those
who adhere to the natural law of humanity, allowing for the specific exceptions
necessary for practical reasons, I call human beings worth the name.
3) I
define a real wrongdoing as an act that violates the natural law of
humanity, in ways not covered by any of the recognized exceptions.
My key ethical ideas
1. The identity determines morality principle
Right and wrong behaviours for a species of sentient
beings are determined by the nature of the species.
Any species of sentient beings, including humans, has its
own natural law, defining what is right and wrong for members of the species to
do. For human beings, it follows that right and wrong behaviours are determined
by human nature, as at our present state of development.
What is our human nature today? In my view:
1) It
is natural for us to take control of our surroundings, to use them for our
benefit, and to leave our mark on them.
2) It
is natural for us to use our faculties of reason, to seek to understand what we
see around us and what we experience.
3) Moreover,
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.
4) By
doing this, we build civilizations, which provide the habitat in which we human
beings can live our lives to the full, including an economic free market.
5) And
in that habitat, we interact with each other through honest business, economic
activity and trade. And we seek to co-operate to take control of our
surroundings.
2. The ethical equality principle
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.
The principle arises from the premise that all individuals
of a species have the same nature. If they did not have the same nature, they
would be different species. And therefore, what is right and wrong for each
individual to do is the same for all individuals of the species.
Conversely, an individual that fails to demonstrate the
nature of a particular species shouldn’t be considered a member of that
species. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it very probably isn’t
a goose or a swan. Further, if it doesn’t walk like a duck, and doesn’t quack
like a duck, then the evidence for the contention that it is a duck is
slim.
3. The natural law of humanity
At the level of the individual, it is natural for each of
us to behave in ways that better 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 as John Locke called it “law of Nature.” This natural law, if
we choose to study it, can tell us what are the right and wrong ways for each
of us to behave.
Locke paraphrased this natural law as follows: “being all
equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty or possessions.”
I call this law the natural law of humanity. At our
present level of development, this law obliges us to behave in ways that make
us fit to be lived with, and so fit to take part in civilizations. And right
behaviour for a human being is convivial (fit to be lived with) or, otherwise
said, civilized (polite and enlightened) behaviour.
4. The Convivial Code
Because the natural law of humanity consists of
obligations each individual must adhere to, and those obligations are the same
for everyone, it can be codified. I call this list of obligations (once it has
been written!) 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 behaviour for human beings worth the
name.
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 permanent 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, when striving to be economically productive, and the
need for the free market which sustains productive people, became part of human
nature. Because of this, absent such events, the Code will be applicable
retrospectively.
In that same essay, I gave my own best shot at the Convivial
Code. I call this the Code lite. It is a list of 25 obligations, which divide
into three groups: 7 positive obligations, 4 expectations (things which the
individual must strive to do) and 14 prohibitions. Here it is:
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.
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.
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.
I shall discuss the exact meanings of the words justly
and unjustly a little later, when I come to look at the organizational
idea of common-sense justice.
5. Back-to-backing
In my view of ethics, valid human rights or freedoms can
always be mapped into obligations which, when obeyed by everyone, will deliver
those rights or freedoms to all those who respect the equal rights and freedoms
of others. The reverse is true, too. If everyone around an individual keeps to
the obligations which make up the natural law of humanity, then that individual
will enjoy the rights and freedoms, which correspond to those obligations.
I call this process, of mapping between rights and
obligations, “back-to-backing.” But the mapping isn’t always one-to-one.
In constructing the Convivial Code, 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 to be included in
the Code.
6. Practical limitations and exceptions
One problem with viewing ethics in terms of lists of
obligations is that it isn’t always practical to keep to the obligations with
absolute strictness. For example, to include an absolute prohibition on
physical violence would be impractical, because it would not allow those under
attack to defend themselves. The Convivial Code must, therefore, also specify
the conditions under which individuals may reasonably break it, and at what
level.
I identify two sets of exceptional circumstances, which can
justify acts that deviate from ethical obligations, and therefore violate the
Code. These circumstances are self-defence against aggression, and defence of
others against aggression. I shall add some more exceptions later, when I come
to discuss the rules for governance.
My key ideas on inter-personal ethics
7. Judgement by behaviour principle
You should judge others, not by who they are, but by what
they do. And, where appropriate, by what you can deduce about their intent and motives.
Judgement by behaviour represents a practice of judging
individuals by examining how they behave. It means that you should not take too
much account of things outside an individual’s control, such as race,
birthplace, received religion or disability.
Instead, you should simply ask: Is this conduct appropriate
for a convivial human being? Thus, you should judge people by their actions.
And, of course, their motivations for doing what they do, as far as you can
work them out. You judge them, not by who they are, but by how they behave.
8. Rights are earned principle
You earn your human rights by behaving as a human being.
Rights are not granted by a government, a deity or any other
external party. Instead, rights are earned. You earn your human rights by adhering
to the natural law of humanity, including respecting the equal rights of other
human beings around you.
9. Earned rights are sacrosanct principle
If you behave as a human being, no-one may justly violate
your human rights.
The flip side of rights being earned is that by acting as is
natural for a human being, and respecting others’ rights, you acquire an
expectation that others will respect your equal rights.
If you adhere to the natural law of humanity, including respecting
the earned human rights of others, then you are innocent of any real
wrongdoing, no matter what anyone accuses you of. Therefore, your own rights
must be sacrosanct. No-one – least of all government – should ever be allowed
to take away even one jot or one tittle of any of your rights.
My key organizational ideas
10. A community is not a society
A society is a group of people who have agreed to join in a
common cause. A society has a “general will,” a will shared by the members as a
whole. Namely, the objectives for which the society aims. Provided, of course,
that those, who cease to agree with the objectives or the conduct of the
society, can freely leave the society.
A community, on the other hand, is a group of people, bound
together by some shared characteristic; but not necessarily by anything more. A
community has no general will. Thus, it is not a society, and not a collective.
It is merely a group of individuals.
Many use the word “society” in the singular, in a meaning
such as “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered
community.” In this meaning, it is often dignified with a capital S. I regard
this usage as collectivist and misleading. My view is, there is no such thing
as Society, only societies. Many use the term “the community,” with a definite
article, for essentially the same thing. I reject this usage too, for the same
reason.
In summary, a community is not a society. And the people
living in a particular geographical area are only a community, so cannot be
expected to have a general will. Therefore, no individual among them may be
subjected, against his or her will, to any political government.
11. The voluntary society principle
All societies must be voluntary.
This principle is explicitly supported by the UN Declaration
of Human Rights: “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” Thus,
no-one is a member of any society, unless they have voluntarily chosen to
become a member, and have not in the meantime countermanded that choice.
Moreover, no-one has any right to treat you as if you were
part of some collective, that you have not voluntarily joined; or to require
you to abide by the rules of any such collective. As a human being, the only
rules you must obey are the rules of the natural law of humanity.
12. Falsity of the social contract idea
Two forms of the social contract idea have been suggested.
The Hobbesian version, dating from 1651 and enshrined in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan.
And the Lockean version, published in 1690 in John Locke’s Second Treatise
of Government.
According to the Hobbesian narrative, at some time in the
past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority of them) made a contract with
each other. They consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute
sovereign, and by so doing authorized and approved whatever the sovereign chose
to do. Moreover, once the system has been set up, there is no possibility of
changing it, or of escape from it. And we, today, are still bound by their
agreement.
But I find this narrative absurd. Even if my ancestors might
have subscribed to such a thing (and, as far as I know, they didn’t), I as an
individual have never agreed to any social contract! Where is my signature on
any such damn thing? Moreover, where are the statements of the benefits I am
supposed to get from it, and the procedures for me to get justice and redress
if the government party fails to deliver? They do not exist.
John Locke’s form of the social contract idea says that a
group of people may choose to form a “political society.” This they do “by
agreeing to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and
peaceable living.” But he is very clear about the purposes of the agreement:
The objectives are the preservation of their property, and the preservation and
enlargement of their freedoms.
Locke cautions that any government in such a political
society must always act for the “public good.” That is, the good of every
individual in that society, as far as that can be achieved by setting common
rules for all. If a government departs from or goes beyond this, or seeks to
impoverish, harass or subdue the people it is supposed to be serving, then it
has become a tyranny, and is no longer legitimate.
How to deal with a government that fails to deliver its side
of the bargain? Locke gave us three options, in increasing order of severity.
One, put new people in charge. Two, dismantle and replace the system. Or three,
abandon the whole idea of government.
We’ve tried the first of these on many occasions before,
haven’t we? With very few recent successes at all. In fact, over my lifetime,
almost every UK government has been worse to live under than its predecessor. Isn’t
it high time we gave the second level of sanction, the dismantle-and-replace
idea, a go? Let’s get rid of the political state, and in its place build a
system of governance that works for human beings.
13. Common-sense justice principle
Every individual deserves to be treated, over the long
run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.
The principle implies that if you don’t do, or seek to do,
harm to innocent people, you don’t deserve to suffer any harms being done to
you. On the other hand, if you do harm to others, or seek to do harm to others,
or impose on others unreasonable risks that lead to actual harm, you should be
required to compensate those whose lives you damaged, and if appropriate to be
punished in proportion to the seriousness of what you did.
In essence, common-sense justice is Charles Kingsley’s “Be
done by as you did.” It is a hard taskmaster; but it is a fair one.
I will define here what I mean by justice and injustice,
just and unjust. By justice, I mean conditions in which the
common-sense justice principle applies, and outcomes are consistent with it. An
injustice is a situation, in which one or more outcomes are not consistent with
the principle. And when I use the words justly or unjustly, for
example in my Code lite, I mean consistent or not consistent with the
common-sense justice principle.
This kind of justice also teams up with the judgement by
behaviour idea I discussed earlier. Together, they provide an ideal of justice,
in which what matters is not who an individual is, but only how they behave
(and, on some occasions, their motives for doing what they do). It doesn’t (or
shouldn’t) matter what colour someone’s skin is. Or where they were born. Or
what religion they were brought up in. Or what their gender or their sexual
preferences may be. All that matters are their actions and their intent towards
others. Thus, under common-sense justice, everyone is truly “equal before the
law.”
14. Maximum freedom principle
Except where countermanded by common-sense justice or the
natural law of humanity, every individual is free to choose and act as he or
she wishes.
I like to summarize this principle as “maximum freedom for
everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.” Every individual is
free to choose and act as he or she wishes; provided only that their actions do
not unjustly violate the rights or freedoms of, cause harm to, or impose
unreasonable risks of harm on, others.
There will also be a general presumption of freedom.
Anything not prohibited will be allowed, unless it violates others’ rights, or
causes or is intended to cause unjust harm to others, or imposes unreasonable
risks on others.
Rules for the conduct of governance
15. The purpose of governance
The purpose of forming a governance is to provide for a
group of people a habitat of:
1) Peace and tranquillity.
2)
Objective, individual, common-sense justice.
3)
Human rights and freedoms, including respect for
the humanity and dignity of every individual human being worth the name.
4) An economic free market with free trade.
16. The capabilities of governance
Here are some things governance must have the capability to
do:
1)
Governance can make laws, as long as they are
consistent with the natural law of humanity, which forbids everyone to harm
another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.
2)
Laws made by governance may only interpret or
explicate the natural law of humanity. They must never contradict it, violate
it, go into areas beyond its bounds, or seek to enforce any political agenda.
3)
Laws made by governance must always aim at the
public good of the people, and of every individual human being worth the name
among them.
4)
Laws made by governance must defend the lives, rights
and freedoms, and possessions of the governed. They must never destroy or
damage any of these things.
5)
Laws made by governance can carry penalties if
broken.
6)
Governance can order reparations to the victims
of objective, proven harms.
7)
Governance can use reasonable and proportionate
force to restrain and, where appropriate, to punish those that break its laws,
or fail to pay reparations it has ordered. Individuals can assist if they are
so minded.
8)
Governance and individuals can use force to
defend or retaliate against violent attack.
9)
Payment for governance in any period must be in
proportion to the wealth of an individual’s estate. No other taxes may be
levied on any individual without the consent of that individual.
10) Everything
governance does must be for the public good. That is, the good of every human
being worth the name among the governed, as far as it can be achieved by making
and enforcing laws common to all.
11) The
power of governance rests ultimately with the people, and may not be
transferred to external parties.
17. The functions of governance
The functions of a proper governance are envisaged as:
1)
A legislative, whose powers are strictly circumscribed
by the limitations above.
2)
A police force or equivalent.
3)
A defensive and retaliatory force, to resist violent
attack.
4)
Impartial, objective and honest courts of
justice, covering restitutive and penal law.
5)
The support services associated with the courts
of justice.
6)
A quality control system, to ensure that
governance always acts for the public good, and for the good of every
individual human being worth the name.
7)
A fair and just system of financing the other
governance functions, in which the payment is in proportion to total wealth,
and there are no further taxes without individual consent.
18. How governance must treat the people
In an essay on the Nolan Principles of Public Life, [[7]], I
gave a list of expectations, which individuals can reasonably have of how
government should behave towards them. It may be summarized as follows:
1)
Selflessness: Everyone in governance must act
solely in the interests of the governed. (That means in the interests of every
individual among them, real wrongdoers excepted).
2)
Integrity: No-one in governance may allow
themselves to be inappropriately influenced.
3)
Objectivity: All governance decisions must be
impartial, fair, unbiased, and based on merit and the best evidence available.
4)
Accountability: Those in governance must be held
accountable for the effects on the governed of what they do.
5)
Openness: Governance must act and take decisions
in an open and transparent manner, and may not withhold information from the
governed without very good cause.
6)
Honesty: All holders of office in governance must
be truthful, candid, straightforward and sincere.
7)
Leadership: Everyone in governance must treat
the governed with the respect due to them as human beings. And everyone in governance must practise whatever
they preach.
In particular, no-one may enrich themselves, parties they
favour, or governance itself, by adjudging penalties to be paid to themselves,
to favoured parties, or to any organization that implements governance.
19. Adherence to ethical and organizational principles
The following rules must apply to any governance:
1) Governance
must always adhere to the ethical equality principle. Thus, it must deliver the
rule of law, and must not arrogate to itself moral privileges.
2) The
law to be upheld, and at need enforced, by governance must be the natural law
of humanity. In particular, no-one – including anyone in governance – may
unjustly harm any human being who adheres to this natural law.
3) Governance
must always uphold the rights and freedoms of all human beings who adhere to
the natural law of humanity, and respect the equal rights and freedoms of
others. This includes the right to dignity: that is, to be treated with the
respect due to a human being.
4) Governance
must always adhere to and uphold the common-sense justice principle.
5) Governance
must always adhere to and uphold the maximum freedom principle.
20. Code of conduct for governance
In its conduct, governance must adhere to the following
principles:
1)
Governance must make its decisions impartially, rationally
and objectively.
2)
Governance must ensure that all its decisions
are based on evidence, reason and, where appropriate, science that has been
honestly carried out according to the scientific method.
3)
Governance must not use its powers to impose on
anyone any particular religion or philosophy. Nor may it prohibit the practices
of any religion or philosophy, unless they violate the natural law of humanity.
Nor should it tolerate those that seek to impose on others, against their
wills, any religion or philosophy.
4)
Governance must not allow any political ideology
or agenda to be imposed on anyone against their wills.
5)
Governance must never discriminate against those
who seek individual liberty and independence.
6)
Governance must not seek to control or to interfere
with economic activity in any way, unless that activity unjustly causes
objective damage to others, or violates their rights, or imposes on others
unreasonable risks of harm.
7)
Governance must always recognize and uphold all
the rights and freedoms identified in the Convivial Code.
21. Adherence to Enlightenment principles
In addition, to measure up to the Enlightenment values, to
which all governance must keep:
1) Governance
must have a clear and publicly available constitution, specifying the limits of
what it may and may not do.
2) No
part of the power of governance may ever be transferred to any external party
or parties.
3) Everything
governance does must be directed to the benefit of those it governs. Indeed, to
the benefit of every single individual among them; except only those that
commit real wrongdoings.
4) Governance
must never undertake any project for which the costs to the governed, financial
or otherwise, are greater than the benefits which accrue to them from the
project.
5) Governance
may not unjustly put any obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or of
anyone’s access to it; or in the way of honest business activity.
21. Further exceptions to apply in the context of a governance
The function of just governance, which assures peace and
tranquillity and defends rights and freedoms, must be able to intervene in the
event of breaches or planned breaches of peace, tranquillity, rights or
freedoms. This implies another four exceptional situations, in which deviation
from the Convivial Code can be allowed.
Because of the ethical equality principle, what is right for
anyone to do if employed by governance to monitor, or to seek out, detain, enforce
compensation by, or mete out punishment to, real wrongdoers, must also be right
for anyone else to do.
1) Anyone
who has reasonable suspicion that an individual or individuals have carried
out, are carrying out, or are planning to carry out, real wrongdoings, may
monitor them in a reasonable and proportionate way, provided this does not
violate their rights or freedoms.
2) Anyone
who has reasonable suspicion that an individual or individuals have carried
out, are carrying out, or are planning to carry out, real wrongdoings, may use
reasonable and proportionate force to detain them for the purpose of bringing
them before the judicial function of governance.
3) Once
the judicial function of governance has determined that reparations are payable
by one individual or group to another individual or group, it may delegate to
an appropriate individual or group the power to enforce the payment of these
reparations.
4) Once
the judicial function of governance has determined any criminal punishment to
be laid on an individual, it may delegate to an appropriate individual or group
the power to carry out this punishment in the correct measure and severity.
In conclusion
Let all that sink in. Do you have a sense of… a new space?
Perhaps, a better world coming?
To those who have read this far: Thank you. And please make
some time to think about the ideas I have expressed here.
