The Moral Guide (Interactive Article)

[Phuein]

After many months, on and off, writing and editing a special page on my website, it's now publicly released.

 

http://guide.assafkoss.com/

 

The Moral Guide is a page dedicated to be a concise guide to morality; personal morality. What behaviors should a person turn into habits. What makes for justice. How to define a free person. And how to make sure these ideas, and others, have a place in each person's life.

 

I made it somewhat interactive, to browse the chapters and sections more easily. They are all very very short. This is not intended to be a book, or even an article per se. It's intended to be a short accessible guide for individuals. A clear introduction and reference.

 

I have no reason to assume it is conclusive nor complete! It's designed to be regularly updated, and I am looking for feedback about it.

[Blackout]

First, I want to thank you for sharing your work and inviting discussion. I like how it is easy to read and the language feels more personal, which I think will help you reach a wider audience. I have a question about why you feel that agreements should not be morally binding when extended beyond the present. If you universalize this concept, doesn't it mean that voluntary agreements about future services are worthless? If the prerequisite for me to obtain a job involving technical work that requires 6 months of training, what rational employer is going to invest the resources to train me if I can quit right afterwards and work for someone else? Since the new employer wouldn't have to spend the resources to train me to do the same job, he/she could offer better compensation and win over the worker. This seems more like freedom from the responsibilities of your voluntary associations rather than freedom of voluntary association. How does this viewpoint extend to insurance arrangements or loans?

[Phuein]

First, I want to thank you for sharing your work and inviting discussion. I like how it is easy to read and the language feels more personal, which I think will help you reach a wider audience. I have a question about why you feel that agreements should not be morally binding when extended beyond the present. If you universalize this concept, doesn't it mean that voluntary agreements about future services are worthless? If the prerequisite for me to obtain a job involving technical work that requires 6 months of training, what rational employer is going to invest the resources to train me if I can quit right afterwards and work for someone else? Since the new employer wouldn't have to spend the resources to train me to do the same job, he/she could offer better compensation and win over the worker. This seems more like freedom from the responsibilities of your voluntary associations rather than freedom of voluntary association. How does this viewpoint extend to insurance arrangements or loans?

 

There is no reason for an employer to invest in you, unless they trust you, or have other leverages on you. All investments include risk. However, if you betray your first employer, and move to another, then others will know that you are not trustworthy. This may affect your professional future, and may be a great social-leverage on you, already.

 

A responsibility over an agreement is outside of morality. The freedom to choose what you wish with your own body and property - at all times - is fundamental to morality. But how you treat other people, without threatening them, has no moral value. It's generally a good idea to be reliable, trustworthy, and kind to others, so you get similar treatment. But it's entirely a personal subjective choice, and no one can [properly] argue that you're a bad person, if you don't.

 

Also, don't confuse "voluntary association versus free association", with the term "freedom of association." These are different terminologies. Who you associate with isn't sufficient for moral judgement. Below is google's definition of the latter. In my Guide, there former are defined.

 

Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.

 

The term "association" is a sub-category of "make an agreement." So, instead of discussing who you spend time and identify with, the object of discussion is what agreements you have made with others; or simply, what you agree to do.

 

To voluntarily agree with someone, does not mean that you must continue that agreement indefinitely, or for any period of time. You are free to agree or disagree, at all times. Without constant individual choice, morality becomes irrelevant.

 

The simplest example is sexual consent. A person may agree to have sex at first, but later on disagree, and is entirely free to do so. If the other party insists, by force, because consent was already given, then it is rape.

 

Obviously, a person who repeats such a behavior, will soon see themselves alone and disliked by the thirsty hoards.

[Blackout]

 

A responsibility over an agreement is outside of morality. The freedom to choose what you wish with your own body and property - at all times - is fundamental to morality. But how you treat other people, without threatening them, has no moral value. It's generally a good idea to be reliable, trustworthy, and kind to others, so you get similar treatment. But it's entirely a personal subjective choice, and no one can [properly] argue that you're a bad person, if you don't.

I think this is the heart of the issue; I have a hard time with the idea that someone can take a course of action with the knowledge that it will cause tangible harm, simply out of utility, with no moral value attached to such an action. I realize that I automatically equated trustworthiness with moral good and I’ll have to take some time to ponder whether that is true.

 

Also, don't confuse "voluntary association versus free association", with the term "freedom of association." These are different terminologies. Who you associate with isn't sufficient for moral judgement. Below is google's definition of the latter. In my Guide, there former are defined.

Yes, that is an important distinction and I appreciate the correction.

 

 

To voluntarily agree with someone, does not mean that you must continue that agreement indefinitely, or for any period of time. You are free to agree or disagree, at all times. Without constant individual choice, morality becomes irrelevant.

 

The simplest example is sexual consent. A person may agree to have sex at first, but later on disagree, and is entirely free to do so. If the other party insists, by force, because consent was already given, then it is rape.

 

Yes, I absolutely agree that a person always has the freedom to disengage from any agreement as that is part of voluntary association. What I take issue with is that the idea no restitution is morally required whatsoever. It’s also not the case restitution can be forced by the aggrieved, but rather I’m asking if one ought to be compelled by moral sense to give it.

[chrisdjmorgan]

I've only skimmed over it, but so far I like it and would love to see more

Adding to my list of resources for my own writing

[ribuck]

...I absolutely agree that a person always has the freedom to disengage from any agreement as that is part of voluntary association. What I take issue with is that the idea no restitution is morally required whatsoever. It’s also not the case restitution can be forced by the aggrieved, but rather I’m asking if one ought to be compelled by moral sense to give it.

 

In real life, most disengagements from agreements aren't fraudulent in nature; instead they are simply due to conditions being different from when the agreement was drafted, or due to disagreements over interpretation. Adjudication, whether legal or moral, is almost impossible due to the subjectivity of the situation.

 

In my opinion, life would be better for everyone if every agreement for a future undertaking was treated not as a Contract but as a Memorandum of Understanding. These Memoranda are sometimes used in business to provide a framework for a productive future co-operative activity, without binding the participants to the risk of damages if things don't turn out as anticipated. In my business experience, Memoranda of Understanding have generally had a more positive outcome than Contracts.

 

Harry Browne, in his book "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World", explores a related idea. He suggests that one should always structure agreements so that either party is free to walk away at any time. A good agreement necessarily provides a win-win for both parties, so no-one walks away from a good agreement. And if an agreement goes bad, and one party is gaining at the expense of the suffering of the other, there is no good outcome for anyone. No retailer, for example, gains by putting their supplier out of business. And in any adversarial dispute, both players lose and only the lawyers and the court system win.

 

As Phuein pointed out, reputation and trustworthiness is what makes this non-binding association work in the real world. Furthermore, you can gain the same benefits as a contract by leveraging additional participants. To take Blackout's example of the job which requires 6 months preliminary training ... If the employer is genuinely concerned, the employer can include some additional people in the agreement.

 

Suppose the agreement was along the lines of "If you don't work for at least six months after completing the training, you repay the cost of training". The employer can ask the trainee to agree with this, and also get the trainee's parents to each agree to repay the cost of training if the trainee fails to do so. Whatever the level of risk, you can always protect against it by getting enough people to co-sign the agreement, so that you can find at least one of them who won't let their reputation go down the drain by failing to pay.

 

But that's all theoretical. What would be more likely to happen, in a world where future commitments where non-binding, is that things would be done differently. The employer would train the person part-time while also employing them part-time. That way, the trainee is continuously "paying back" the training. And anyway, training usually works better if it's being put into practise as it's being learned.

 

[Phuein]

I've only skimmed over it, but so far I like it and would love to see more

Adding to my list of resources for my own writing

 

Thanks.

 

I don't expect there to be more. I'll definitely edit it, for readability and correctness, but I intended it to be short and to the point. Do you feel it's lacking anything?

[Matt D]

I like this! The logical progression from simplest to most complex reminds me of Kohlberg's three stages of moral development.

 

My one suggestion would be to replace "authority" with "sovereignty". After all, my dentist has authority over me because I trust his opinion. Authority could be confusing to some people.

 

Also, I'm curious why you chose to not mention parental responsibility towards children?

[Phuein]

I like this! The logical progression from simplest to most complex reminds me of Kohlberg's three stages of moral development.

 

My one suggestion would be to replace "authority" with "sovereignty". After all, my dentist has authority over me because I trust his opinion. Authority could be confusing to some people.

 

Also, I'm curious why you chose to not mention parental responsibility towards children?

 

Thanks.

 

Authority can be used in both ways, and the context of the section is coercion, so it's not vague. I also clearly define it there, to avoid confusion.

 

 

 

 

While sovereignty is used mostly within the context of states. Even in a personal context, it tends to borrow the word authority.

 

 

 

I don't see why I should mention parental responsibility in the guide. The guide is intended for personal use, regardless of the social or familial situation. Or rather, I'm not seeing any rule that may apply only, or differently to parents.

 

Do you think I'm missing something specific?

[Blackout]

In real life, most disengagements from agreements aren't fraudulent in nature; instead they are simply due to conditions being different from when the agreement was drafted, or due to disagreements over interpretation. Adjudication, whether legal or moral, is almost impossible due to the subjectivity of the situation.

 

I took a break from the forum while work deadlines came due, but I've been working this out on paper for a while and I came to a similar conclusion. Those who disengage from agreements for personal gain really do no enter into them in good faith and thus commit fraud, which is clearly immoral. When agreements are adopted by parties in good faith, rational actors will not seek to break a win-win agreement nor accept entering losing propositions. In this case, if conditions change such that a win-win situation turns into a win-lose situation, it would be ideal to re-negotiate the agreement and if that is not possible, I do see a good case for disengagement. I think that I find comfort in the legal protection of contractual relationships (essentially enforced by threat of force) because I perceive the people around me to be fairly irrational or irresponsible, which I suppose would also apply to my views on anarchy. I have some reservations about what happens to transaction costs in an economy when one cannot recoup the loses from broken contractual agreements but that is one based on subjective values rather than morality.