If you haven't read this thread (or at least the original post), I highly recommend starting there. This corollary is not necessarily dependent on this decision, as I believe the corollary to be much more obvious than the definition itself. However, by going through the exercise of examining what constitutes a person, you will likely have a much better understanding of what I am trying to achieve with this post.
Since a person is one who is capable of making choices, by definition, what can be said about government? Clearly, the reason for government is to restrict the choices that persons may make. This is obvious in its simplicity, as the rule of law exists to deny freedom of choice as society sees appropriate in order to protect those rights that society deems more important. Thus, absolute freedom of choice comes only with anarchy, while anyone living in a society with government has volunteered, whether consciously or otherwise, some choices. Note that the ability to make a given choice is exactly identical to a right.
Then, this simple examination has led us exactly to social contract theory, under which any citizen gives up certain rights he deems less important to secure those rights he deems more important. The more rights ceded, the more secure the remaining rights become. Of course, as the selection of protected rights and ceded rights is part of a social contract rather than an individual contract, it is clear that the set of rights to be protected and the set of rights to be ceded must be selected by society rather than by an individual. Thus, the examination has arrived at the obvious conclusion that the only just distribution of rights may occur in a society where the rule of law is based on the voice of the society?s members, roughly a democracy.
Now, a cursory examination of the manner in which persons should choose their actions must be undertaken. Certain guiding principles that may be applied broadly, or even universally, due to their basis on logic and its extensions shall be defined as ?ethics.? Principles that are instead based on religious beliefs only shall be defined as ?morals.? Note that in the vast majority of cases, ethics and morals overlap ? that is to say, the principles governing most religions are in alignment with principles of logic. However, there are certain principles that cannot be logically extended outside of a religion due to their reliance on that religion?s peculiar philosophy rather than more generic forms of logic.
So, to this point, two primary conclusions have been reached:
1. Members of any society agree to protect certain rights and cede certain rights based on the ruling of the majority.
2. A given right of the entire society may only be justly restricted when the morals of all (or, at the very least, the vast majority) of the society?s morals overlap on the issue or ethics dictates that the right may be restricted universally based on logical argument for the ceding of that right.
Now, the possibility must be addressed that if one particular sect becomes a majority, it may force its morals on the remainder of society under the guise of democracy. Thus, there must be recourse for society to cast aside such unjust laws to retain the essence of a just social contract. This task must be appointed to a group of learned individuals that society (or society?s elected officials, in the case of a republic) select specifically for this task. These individuals should be well-versed in the ideas of justice and ethics so that they may appropriately ascertain whether a law is truly based on ethics or morals and rule accordingly.
With the selection of such a body, extreme care must be taken to avoid selecting based on criteria other than merit in the areas of ethics and justice. Failing this, the body appointed to ensure justice would surely act in direct opposition to its stated purpose and would essentially negate the guiding principle of society ? that the majority may select any rights to be protected or ceded as it sees fit as long as this selection falls within the bounds provided by ethical justice. If this body falls into corruption, then justice is lost to that society and corruption will consume all that they have and stand for.
Since a person is one who is capable of making choices, by definition, what can be said about government? Clearly, the reason for government is to restrict the choices that persons may make. This is obvious in its simplicity, as the rule of law exists to deny freedom of choice as society sees appropriate in order to protect those rights that society deems more important. Thus, absolute freedom of choice comes only with anarchy, while anyone living in a society with government has volunteered, whether consciously or otherwise, some choices. Note that the ability to make a given choice is exactly identical to a right.
Then, this simple examination has led us exactly to social contract theory, under which any citizen gives up certain rights he deems less important to secure those rights he deems more important. The more rights ceded, the more secure the remaining rights become. Of course, as the selection of protected rights and ceded rights is part of a social contract rather than an individual contract, it is clear that the set of rights to be protected and the set of rights to be ceded must be selected by society rather than by an individual. Thus, the examination has arrived at the obvious conclusion that the only just distribution of rights may occur in a society where the rule of law is based on the voice of the society?s members, roughly a democracy.
Now, a cursory examination of the manner in which persons should choose their actions must be undertaken. Certain guiding principles that may be applied broadly, or even universally, due to their basis on logic and its extensions shall be defined as ?ethics.? Principles that are instead based on religious beliefs only shall be defined as ?morals.? Note that in the vast majority of cases, ethics and morals overlap ? that is to say, the principles governing most religions are in alignment with principles of logic. However, there are certain principles that cannot be logically extended outside of a religion due to their reliance on that religion?s peculiar philosophy rather than more generic forms of logic.
So, to this point, two primary conclusions have been reached:
1. Members of any society agree to protect certain rights and cede certain rights based on the ruling of the majority.
2. A given right of the entire society may only be justly restricted when the morals of all (or, at the very least, the vast majority) of the society?s morals overlap on the issue or ethics dictates that the right may be restricted universally based on logical argument for the ceding of that right.
Now, the possibility must be addressed that if one particular sect becomes a majority, it may force its morals on the remainder of society under the guise of democracy. Thus, there must be recourse for society to cast aside such unjust laws to retain the essence of a just social contract. This task must be appointed to a group of learned individuals that society (or society?s elected officials, in the case of a republic) select specifically for this task. These individuals should be well-versed in the ideas of justice and ethics so that they may appropriately ascertain whether a law is truly based on ethics or morals and rule accordingly.
With the selection of such a body, extreme care must be taken to avoid selecting based on criteria other than merit in the areas of ethics and justice. Failing this, the body appointed to ensure justice would surely act in direct opposition to its stated purpose and would essentially negate the guiding principle of society ? that the majority may select any rights to be protected or ceded as it sees fit as long as this selection falls within the bounds provided by ethical justice. If this body falls into corruption, then justice is lost to that society and corruption will consume all that they have and stand for.
), and I haven't had much time to consider anything other than the situation immediately at hand. I'll check out your links as soon as I get some time.
Facebook
Twitter