When dealing with public policy, policymakers must have a sense of moral value, operating with a Moral Intelligence Quotient (MIQ).
Ferguson, for example, demonstrates the measure of an ethical standard when managing risk. (It can be the wrong way to measure doing it right, the right way to measure doing it wrong, or maybe, as Objectivists explain, something that can’t be measured at all, so the moral measurement is more a delusion of grandeur than the difference between right and wrong, thus having no MIQ.) Without an objective standard (a measuring stick) there is no way to know the difference between right and wrong, which is why science relies on reducing it to a conforming confirmation that “naturally” builds consensus through a critique of practical reason.
Measures of propriety are utilized to manage a “clear and present danger,” for example. This legal test defines risk to be of such an obvious dimension that the immediacy, probable size, and/or severity of the detriment demands the measures necessary to be taken, giving “cause” to suspend the absolute value of natural rights, attending to “the risk.”
The attending risk has exculpatory value, excusing the suspension of rights shown by the apparent intention to control risk.
Despite the tendency to treat the clear-and-present-danger test with the color of natural law, pro-testing hypotheses is both the ethic of science and the natural right to freely assemble. Whether it is the right to assemble the components of a nuclear weapon or the right to use it, in either case (doing the science or doing the right thing) there is a moral imperative (an objective measure–MIQ–that suffers no delusion) to which we must yield. If we don’t yield, the intending risk objectively shows itself, pro-testing all the hypotheses, occupying space, existing measure, and resisting nothing, pressing in on us over time.
If we don’t do the right thing we suffer the non-delusional, “natural identity” of the consequences. The right thing to do, absolutely valued, is always present, always existing, (indefinitely) now. It is pathological to build-out a psychopathy that organizes risk so that it presents The Wrong Way to Measure Doing It Right!
Whether at the local level or the international level, whether we like it or recognize it or not, here there and everywhere the measure of a clear and present danger is the same–indivisible. Isn’t that what we mean when we say “all politics is local?”
Despite the moral measure in the form of immediate risk, there is a reasonable expectation of an unmitigated, inviolable, absolute value, like in Ferguson, to protest (measure) the way things are against the way, maybe, in the abstract, it otherwise is, or should be, by default.
The test of “clear and present danger” is a practical application of a logical reduction–a critique of practical reason that Kant, for example, said naturally leads to a universal standard: an imperative value, fully reduced. Whether on this side of the universe or on the other side, or in any dimension, the value is categorically applicable, or true (like the value of the number “2” always has been and always will be measurably “2” by default no matter what). Categorical value does not occupy a space in time, “it” occupies space and time–“It” is always imperatively now which, resisting nothing, is the MIQ.