Emergence of the scientific method changed the way we perceive objective reality. It was The Enlightenment.
Intellectuals like Immanuel Kant said morality reduces to incontrovertible truths in a nomenological dimension that science today describes as having CPT-symmetry. In other words, to know what a natural law really is independent of our perception (no matter what), it is a natural existence even if we did not exist to know it. Since there is no way to “actually” know that (not without actually perceiving it), we then assume that CPT-symmetry has the authority of a purely natural existence (a natural-law identity) no matter how we try to change it, or how we may perceive it.
At the time of Immanuel Kant, intellectuals, like Kant, emerged with new properties that describe objective reality. Although this was an intellectual pursuit, like Marxists say, there was a materialistic agenda driving it, from which derives the “pursuit of happiness.”
Naturally, the categorical imperative ends up being measurable utility by the numbers.
Being both a measure of pure and practical reason, the utility of the numbers is determined by both mathematical measure and verifiable effectiveness. It has the “willful” dimension of existing with an on-demand utility, which is then, actually, the final authority of the action really taken, thus considered to be devoid of any liability, naturally deontologizing risk-value that derives from doing detrimental deeds.
For capitalists, this “formulates” a nice tight package for arguing the limited-liability doctrine. What Ayn Rand described as “natural identity” and “objective reality” is clearly visible when intellectuals talk about the ration-ality (utility by the numbers) of bail-outs and, now, bail-ins.
The bail-in is the financial authority to repossess your assets (to reduce debt and increase equity) on demand, reducing risk to a purely financial dimension. The reduction (disambiguation of the argument) can then be “formulated” as a phenomenal reality that is “naturally” TBTF and thus categorically imperative (going gamma), yielding to emergency measures that are used to describe an independent, objective reality (or a natural-risk ontology) that just happens no matter what.
So, how do you feel about being forced to conform to what naturally resists failure in a TBTF dimension, exactly?
Do you feel like sacrificing, to make rich people (like Donald Trump) richer!
Conforming to the duty of a natural existence (knowing your objective identity), is sacrificing for rich people really the right thing to do? Or do you, more naturally, feel the Bern, whether you are a republican or a democrat; or the birds and the bees, depending on me, and depending on you, to do the right thing.
Gaining the natural utility, what is the emergent value that formulates the imperative disambiguation (the natural deontology) of the argument?