Existing the Standard of Ethics

Immanuel Kant said nature has a moral dimension. Economists tend to agree. (Adam Smith, for example, remember, was an ethicist describing the natural means of a structurally ethical form of existence on demand.) Structural designs intend to produce incentives that yield to predictable outcomes. Then there is the unintended consequence that does not fit the method yield, then referred to as a moral hazard.

Objectivists contend there is no natural ethical standard except the pursuit of self-interest, which Enlightenment philosophers referred to as “the pursuit of happiness.”

Naturally, since there is a conflict of interest, we end up measuring the harm done to realize the happiness, effectively measuring the cost to the benefit (measuring the utility of the pursuit), which is a ratio, or rationalization, of objective reality using empirical measures.

(Remember that the empirical value of the utility is the law of large numbers. When for, example, Bernie Sanders has to compete for the popularity of a self-endowed party elite to be the presidential nominee, winning is by having the larger number. Having the larger number is the legitimacy of the democratic form, which means how you get there is obliged, like Kant said, to the process of doing it democratically. If you don’t, like Kant said, then the outcome has an imperative value determined by the process–the means-to-ends legitimacy–that empirically describes, or yields to, the objective reality of a moral condition existing on demand in priority.

Having people compete for their approval makes elites feel really good about themselves. It makes them happy, and that’s objective reality, isn’t it?)

Moral measures become readily apparent (categorically imperative) over time, having the emergent property of utility, naturally occupying the space described as “the pursuit of happiness.”

Notice the zero-hedge effect. If the pursuit is so costly it causes an equal amount of unhappiness, measured over time, then it makes no sense to continue the pursuit. It is irrational, based on the ratio (the ECV-symmetry) that measures its utility.

Politics then becomes the means of deciding the distribution of the costs and the benefits, and Objectivists say it is arbitrary. The natural identity of arbitrating it (thus being determined by, and demonstrating, our natural existence) is by coercive means, utilizing on-demand incentives that free-market capitalism provides better than anything else.

Anything else is a moral hazard, and it takes elite authority to prevent it, thus providing for the general welfare in the republican form, just as the Constitution of the United States provides.


About griffithlighton

musician-composer, artist, writer, philosopher and political economist (M.A.)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s