How preferences are reconciled

Can everyone's preferences be met? Certainly not, because some preferences contradict each-other. Most people prefer to have property and are willing to work to earn it. Some people, on the other hand, prefer to minimise the effort and not work for property but to steal it from others. These two preferences clearly cannot be reconciled with each-other, we had better brace ourselves for conflict.

While everyone prefers to have sex with the person (s)he desires and most people accept a firm refusal from that person, some people prefer to force the person to have sex nonetheless. Fulfilling this preference is commonly called rape. In this case, the preferences of a rapist cannot be reconciled with the preferences of the victim.

As a rule of thumb, moral persons are expected to control and delay their urges, and to satisfy them only in socially acceptable ways.

It would be unreasonable to expect a proposed moral system to reconcile everyone's preferences with everyone else's.

Fine-tuning the definition of preference to mean only reasonable preference may help here, but at the expense of clarity. By stating that a fair and equitable moral system can reconcile everyone's reasonable preferences with everyone else's reasonable preferences, we create confusion about what is reasonable. It is much clearer to say that any proposed moral system can only reconcile morally compatible preferences, and any system that promises more is trying to mislead those involved.

Can morality make everyone happy?

The best moral system in the world would be one that makes everybody as happy as possible. But can everybody be happy? As long as everybody's preferences are aligned to behaviour rules, everybody can be happy in a moral way. However, experience suggests that not everybody's preferences are in line with the moral code, which means that they can only be happy by breaking the rules. If the rules are enforced, these people won't be happy. So although it would be nice to make everyone happy, this is clearly impossible. For example, you can't protect private property and make thieves happy at the same time.

Can a moral system be challenged on the grounds that it keeps some people unhappy? Only if people agree that those who are currently unhappy could be made happy in a harmless way. If making rule-breakers happy is harmless, the rule should be scrapped. On the other hand, if breaking the rule is actually considered harmful, the rule should be upheld and the unhappiness of those who could only be happy by breaking it should be accepted as inevitable. Murderers may challenge morality on the grounds that it's leaving them unhappy, but their challenge will not lift the ban on killing. Let murderers be unhappy if they insist on their preference for killing people. You can't please everybody, and though you are expected to make a reasonable effort, you are not expected to reconcile a contradiction in terms.

Brexit and its aftermath

Frankly, I never saw Brexit coming. Not in a million years. It took me completely by surprise. And I think its implications will take Brits by surprise, too. They include financial consequences and, perhaps, another Scottish referendum on leaving the UK. A referendum in Northern Ireland? We'll see.

I remain optimistic, because we are talking about a self-regulating framework here: if the financial projections were correct, the UK stands to lose out economically. When and if it does, people may have second thoughts about Brexit and stage a new referendum to stay. On the other hand, if these consequences never manifest themselves, the projections weren't technically correct, and there'll be no reason for buyer's remorse. Either case works out well for those involved.

I would caution against playing down the importance of the majority. That would amount to playing down democracy itself. The majority decides is the name of the game.

As for the campaign, the EU wasn't sold well. Those responsible for selling the European project to at least 51 percent of the European voting public may draw the conclusions and follow Cameron's resignation. Then again, they may not draw the conclusions and continue to not sell the EU's benefits well to citizens. This is also a self-regulating framework: the longer EU leaders continue to not sell the project well, the harder they'll fall. Input leads to proportional output. The EU may be the best co-operation process in the world - I certainly think it is - but it's up to leaders to make sure this gets reflected in public perception. It may take better selling techniques, better packaging and occasionally, better substance.

I hope soon we'll see a team of EU leaders who can enthuse citizens about the European project - by clearly showing that it works, that it makes sense, that it leaves everyone better off, and that it offers the brightest future anybody on this continent can wish for.

For and against rules

Any community needs rules to function as intended. The transport community needs a highway code, the banking community needs a financial code of conduct, the media need a rulebook to guarantee the freedom of expression and ensure fair coverage, the consumer community needs consumer protection legislation, states need laws, etc. No community can function without rules, so they are very much needed.

However, most people dislike rules intuitively. I, too, dislike rules. It's part of my biology. It's part of almost everyone's biology. I even intuitively dislike the few people who impose rules per se. I definitely detest people who want me to have a bad time at work and create rules to make sure I can't enjoy myself while doing my job. I think it should be possible to work and simultaneously have a good time. Rules should make sure that I do my job, rather than make sure I don't have fun while I'm at it. In a broader context, life should be a pleasurable experience, and being part of a good community should always be more pleasurable than staying out of it. Excessive rules can ruin the mood, while no rules can ruin the community.

I can only be sold rules on the rationale that they serve a good and valid purpose, such as keeping a community safe and prosperous.

For and against moral rules
If humans were fully rational, rational rules would suffice. But since they are not fully rational, we also need emotional rules, aka morality. Emotions have the advantage of being faster and easier to condition. For example, if our eyes didn't have an involuntary shut-down mechanism for avoiding the impact of flying objects, most of us would soon have no eyes left. If children were not equipped with emotional rules against leaping from heights, soon there would be no children left. If women were not biologically and parentally conditioned to think twice before having sex, most of them would soon be trapped in unwanted pregnancies. So emotional (moral) rules are clearly necessary.

However, moral rules are a drag. Some moral rules are more observed in the breach and lead to hypocrisy. Some moral rules may no longer make sense and yet are not repealed, because being emotional, it's hard to measure them against a rational standard. Most importantly, moral rules put some degree of pressure on rule-breakers, and humans are biologically programmed to minimise pressure.

So both rational rules and emotional rules are a mixed blessing.

The case for communities

Ask a Westerner whether communities are necessary and (s)he'll tell you they are optional and the individual should be free to choose whether (s)he wants to belong to any. So, community membership is supposed to be elective, and communities, especially nations, are to be transcended.

Then ask the same person whether (s)he agrees that highway codes, banking rules, court systems, media freedoms and central budget benefits are optional and you'll get a very different answer. Would (s)he like to drive in a place where people are free to break the highway code? Probably not. Would (s)he put money in a bank that has decided to opt out of the banking community? Absolutely not. Would (s)he live in a place where anyone could smash the editorial office if (s)he disagreed with a newspaper article? That's not a bright idea. Would (s)he agree to live with a court system that tries crime cases on an optional basis? No way. Would (s)he like to live in a transcended national community where local authorities are free to decide whether they will or will not pay social benefits? That sounds like a serious violation of human rights. Would (s)he agree that taxes are optional - also for the wealthy? Certainly not. Can these systems be transcended? It's a crazy notion.

Then what in the world is going on in people's minds?

Though most Westerners maintain that the obligations that come with a community should be optional, they also maintain that none of the rights that come from a community should be optional. Now, rights suppose that other people keep their obligations. In a system of no obligations, there are no rights either. If you transcend communities, you lose rights. Everybody would like to have optional obligations, but nobody would like everyone else to have optional obligations, too. A congruent understanding of communities accepts the mandatory nature of obligations, because everyone meeting their obligations is exactly what gives rise to rights.

So if we put two and two together, there is a very clear case for communities with mandatory membership and obligations.

The Philosopher's Stone Issue 3

The need for ethics

There clearly is a need for ethics as a set of behavioural rules to safeguard community interests. How do we know there is such a thing as a community with its own interests? This can be demonstrated through a game theory example, the tragedy of the commons.

Villagers use common land to let their cows graze. The grass supports 5 cows per inhabitant. However, those who secretly put more cows out there realise a profit. Every villager has an incentive to exceed the allotted number of cows. This reduces the amount of food per cow, the land can no longer feed the cows, and the system inevitably collapses.

Leaving the number of cows up to the individual will inevitably lead to a tragic outcome. The commons can only be utilised for everyone's benefit by referring to community interest or the common good of all stakeholders, i.e. that of preventing overuse. Sustainability depends on whether community interest as such is acknowledged and safeguarded. The function of ethics is to safeguard community interests for the benefit of all the individuals involved.

The tragedy of the commons can be applied in a lot of ways: people should not lie or steal as any community is based on the idea that most statements are truthful and that property is respected. In the absence of that the community collapses. Ethics is there to sustain communities and keep them prosperous.