A Workshop on John Rawls
Jhongli, Taoyuan 32001
Sponsored by
The Graduate Institute of Philosophy
Charles Tandy
Abstract
John Rawls (1921-2002) analyzed the conditions of a just society and of
decent relations between societies. We piece together his various revisions of
his own work and present a new and original scheme of five (not two) principles
of a revised Rawlsian “justice as fairness” original position, listed in
lexical priority. This “Revised Rawls” is then used as a springboard toward
developing our own alternative position. Rawls’s
conception of “fairness” leaves out, in an important way, the injustices of
nature. We show that “almost now” is the opportune time for “almost universal
peace” via implementation of our non-controversial
PFIT (Peaceful, Free, Intentional, Transparent physical-social technology)
proposal. Technological humans have become a force of nature.
Keywords: Buford (Thomas Buford); intentional community/intentional
communities;
Kant (Immanuel Kant);
obligations; outer space/extraterrestrial space; peace; political philosophy;
Rawls (John Rawls); rights; transparency/accountability.
§1.
Introductory Remarks
... the limits of the possible are not given by the
actual, for we can to a greater or lesser extent change political and social
institutions, and much else.
– John Rawls (Rawls, 2001: 5)
We have become more powerful than any force of nature.
– Al Gore (Gore, 2006: 300)
To
what extent is universal peace (stable world peace) politically feasible? How
and when may world peace be achieved? With help from John Rawls (1921-2002), we
look at these questions. We
piece together Rawls’s various revisions of his own work and present a new and
original scheme of five (not two) principles of a revised Rawlsian “justice as
fairness” original position, listed in lexical priority. This “Revised Rawls”
is then used as a springboard toward developing our own alternative position. Rawls’s conception of “fairness” leaves out, in an
important way, the injustices of nature. We show that “almost now” is the
opportune time for “almost universal peace” via implementation of our non-controversial PFIT (Peaceful, Free,
Intentional, Transparent physical-social technology) proposal. Technological
humans have become a force of nature. The presentation consists of nine
sections, as follows:
§1.
Introductory Remarks
§2.
Rawlsian Basics
§3. Alternative
Original Positions
§4. Alternative
Approaches to Theory Construction
§5.
A Revisionist Rawls, and an Alternative Position
§6.
Historical Dynamics and the “Force of Nature” Position
§7.
Technology Today to Implement Principles Zero and One
§8.
An Evolutionary Implementation of the Principles
§9.
Closing Remarks
§2. Rawlsian Basics
According to the distinguished
philosopher, Martha Nussbaum: John Rawls “is the most distinguished moral and
political philosopher of our age.” (Nussbaum, 2001) John Rawls (1921-2002) is known for his
theory of “justice as fairness” based on his methodology of the “original
position.” The “justice as fairness” idea is that of a just society perceived
as a system of cooperation, publicly transparent, which is fair to all its free
and equal citizens. In Rawls’s initial A Theory of Justice (1971) [TofJ],
he focuses on the domestic dimensions of a just society. The “original
position” idea is that of a kind of original or first step to help us engage in
fair or impartial deliberation about the principles and structures of a just
society. In said thought experiment, one attempts to modify the principles and
structures, and the conditions of the original position, while taking into
account other relevant considerations such as the empirics of the actual world,
until they coordinate to produce a reasonable political conception.
Rawls later said that his initial TofJ
was flawed or confused in that he there failed to understand the proper role of
a political conception in his theorizing. (Rawls, 1999: 179-180) Herein we will
try to take seriously the distinction Rawls makes between a "political
conception" and "comprehensive doctrines." A political
conception addresses persons only with respect to, or at the level of,
citizenship. However, comprehensive doctrines, whether religious or secular,
address the full range, or deep levels, of one’s personhood and relationships.
Rawls says that his TofJ should have attempted to formulate a political
conception rather than a comprehensive doctrine. For Rawls, it is possible for
numerous comprehensive doctrines to live together in a single society (with a
common political conception). It may be possible to formulate a reasonable
political conception without first formulating and justifying a comprehensive
doctrine or paying too much attention to metaphysics.
§3. Alternative Original Positions
Rawls has formulated more than one
original position; e.g., he analyzed (1) the conditions of a just society (in
TofJ, 1971); and, (2) the conditions of decent relations between societies (in The
Law of Peoples, 1999 [LofP]). In alternative thought experiments in the
form of original positions, there can be alternative topics to be deliberated
and alternative parties to the deliberation. Likewise, the “veil of ignorance”
(explained below) is modifiable. Rawls is here influenced or inspired by Kant,
who argued that reasonable moral decisions and authentic autonomy are closely
related. Authentic autonomy and reasonable moral decisions are difficult in
that we too easily become confused by our own passions and perspectives. We may
passionately feel or firmly think that our decision was fair only later to
change our mind.
So in TofJ, Rawls drapes each party in
the original position with a “veil of ignorance”; here this means that each
party does not know which person (citizen) she is representing in the dialogue.
Citizens will vary in passions, perspectives, skills, abilities, personalities,
religions, luck, etc. With fairness in mind, the parties are deliberating for
the purpose of formulating and agreeing to the domestic principles of justice.
The veiling of the parties in the original position is meant to help provide a
fair “state of nature” for rational deliberation and thus a hopeful basis for
constructing a reasonable theory that can move us toward a more nearly just
society. The persons in the original position are to reach unanimous agreement
in their choice of principles. “Therefore, we can view the choice in the
original position from the standpoint of one person selected at random.”
(Rawls, 1971: 139) In the following section, we will compare the TofJ and LofP
original positions and more; we will describe in some detail how the different
theories (TofJ and LofP) are constructed differently.
§4. Alternative
Approaches to Theory Construction
The original position (including the veil
of ignorance) is only part of a Rawlsian approach to theory construction; we
have already seen that, according to Rawls, alternative original positions are
desirable. In this section, we will see
that Rawls also believes, more generally, that alternative approaches to theory construction are called for.
In §31 of TofJ, Rawls outlines the
four-stage sequence he uses to construct his domestic theory (“justice as
fairness”). But at (Rawls, 2001: 48) he provides the following short summary:
“In the first stage, the parties adopt the principles of justice behind a veil
of ignorance. Limitations on knowledge available to the parties are
progressively relaxed in the next three stages: the stage of the constitutional
convention, the legislative stage in which laws are enacted as the constitution
allows and as the principles of justice require and permit, and the final stage
in which the rules are applied.”
It is now time to mention major
principles arrived at in the “justice as fairness” original position – as
revised by Rawls in (Rawls, 2001: 42-44, 48):
●
Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of
equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of
liberties for all: freedom of thought and liberty of conscience; political
liberties (for example, the right to vote and to participate in politics) and
freedom of association, as well as the rights and liberties specified by the
liberty and integrity (physical and psychological) of the person; and finally,
the rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.
●
Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they
are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of
fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest
benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
According to Rawls, the first of the two
principles has priority; it establishes basic liberties and a just
constitution. The second applies to social and economic justice in the
background institutions, where fair equality of opportunity has priority over
the difference principle. Taken together, these are sometimes viewed as Rawls’s
“two principles and two priorities”; however we will see below that Rawls will
add more principles and priorities to the original position. In the meantime,
here is a simplified outline of the “justice as fairness” four-stage
sequence:
1.
Original Position: Establish the two principles above.
2.
Constitutional Convention: Incorporate the first principle above.
3.
Legislative Stage: Incorporate the second principle above.
4.
Administrative Stage: Apply the rules.
As previously stated, Rawls has
formulated more than one theory. We have just described his TofJ approach to
theory construction with respect to establishing a just domestic society. But
his LofP approach to theory construction with respect to establishing decent
relations between societies is another matter. In LofP, Rawls is able to
imagine various kinds of societies, some of whom may be “well-ordered” enough
to become members of a cooperative system of peoples that includes
constitutional democracies and decent non-democracies. Rawls does not believe
that any decent non-democracies presently exist, but he does not want to rule
out the possibility that they may exist in the future.
Rawls compares his two (TofJ and LofP)
original positions in three respects, as follows (Rawls, 2001: 40): 1.
In TofJ, the parties represent individual citizens; actual citizens
often subscribe to comprehensive doctrines. In LofP, the parties
represent peoples (societies); peoples (as peoples) often do NOT subscribe to
comprehensive doctrines. (Specifically, a constitutional democracy as such
subscribes to a political conception and does NOT subscribe to a comprehensive
doctrine.) 2. (TofJ:) An individual’s fundamental interests as
such have to do with their individual conception of the good, such as the
pursuit of their happiness. (LofP:) A society’s fundamental interests as
such have to do with its conception of justice, such as receiving proper
respect from other peoples. 3. In TofJ, the parties are selecting
the principles of a just structure or political conception for a domestic
society. In LofP, the parties are selecting the principles of the Law of
Peoples for direct and mutual use by all well-ordered peoples.
Another difference between the 1971 TofJ
original position and the 1999 LofP original position is that the veils of
ignorance differ. In the 1999 LofP original position, the veil seems lighter in
that the parties know they are not representing any society whatsoever, but
only well-ordered peoples. One may be tempted to say more, that each party also
knows if they are representing a constitutional democracy, on the one hand, or
a decent non-democracy, on the other. If you have recently read LofP for the
first time, you may say this is obviously the case. Further reflection,
however, may suggest otherwise. Rawls has us imagine an original position
representing constitutional democracies. He has us imagine another original
position representing decent non-democracies. With respect to the Law of
Peoples, the results from their respective original positions are identical.
Herewith let us now suggest, given such results, that one can imagine the same
results if both sets of parties had been deliberating in a single original
position under a common veil of ignorance. (Of course, whether Rawls has
correctly transcribed the results in each case is yet another matter!)
Given all that has been said so far, we
can see that the four-stage sequence used in TofJ is not the sequence of theory
construction that Rawls would find appropriate for his LofP. The LofP sequence
is simple and direct by comparison: 1. In the original position, decide on the
principles or rules of the Law of Peoples. 2. Have all well-ordered peoples
endorse and follow said Law of Peoples.
§5. A Revisionist Rawls, and an Alternative
Position
Rawls accomplished much, but one wonders
if his last years had not been in illness or if he had lived longer, he might
have worked more miracles or at least tied up a few loose ends. Certainly, as
he himself demonstrated, he was open to alternative original positions and
methodological approaches. Next below we will try, briefly, to piece together
his various revisions of his own work to give us a “Revisionist Rawls.” This
will then be used as a springboard or point of departure toward developing our
own alternative position.
After consulting with the Rawlsian
scholar, Samuel Freeman, the following new and original scheme is presented as
the five (not two) principles of a revised Rawlsian “justice as fairness”
original position, listed in lexical priority:
0.
Metabasic rights. [Rawls credits R. G. Peffer (1990) for this principle.]
1.
Basic liberties.
2.
Equal opportunity.
3.
Just assistance (A. just savings; and, B. duty of assistance).
4.
Difference principle or permissible inequalities.
Principle 1 here corresponds to the
principle one of §4 above. Principles 2 and 4 here correspond to the single
principle two of §4 above. Principles 0 and 1 are incorporated at the
Constitutional Convention and principles 2, 3, and 4 are incorporated at the
Legislative Stage. We have reconstructed two Rawlsian principles into one as
principle 3; according to Rawls, principle 3 is different from the others in
that there are circumstances under which it would in whole or in part (there
are two parts: principle A; principle B) terminate or, rather, be temporarily
suspended; but in any case, it is lexically prior to principle 4. The
principles A and B of principle 3 have no lexical priority relation to each
other so far as our reading of Rawls can determine. The principle A corresponds
to the just savings principle mentioned in various parts of TofJ, including
§44; however Rawls does not like his 1971 version of §44; he may or may not
have been satisfied with his 1999 version of §44. The principle B corresponds
to the duty of assistance mentioned in various parts of LofP, including §15. With
respect to principle 4 as listed immediately above, Rawls is particularly
identified with the difference principle; but Rawls admitted that some seem to
prefer an alternative principle of permissible
inequalities.
Rawls endorses principle zero (called
above “0. Metabasic rights”) as lexically prior to all others (Rawls, 2001: 44, n.7). Only principle zero and principle one are
incorporated as soon as possible into his theory construction sequence (i.e.,
immediately at the Constitutional Convention stage). Principle zero, Rawls
says, requires “that basic needs be met, at least insofar as their being met is
a necessary condition for citizens to understand and to be able fruitfully to
exercise [principle one:] their basic rights and liberties.”
Rawls’s great inspiration, Immanuel Kant,
formulated a cosmopolitan conception, the “
We have used the word “tension” – but
in either Kant or Rawls, is there really any conflict or tension between the
cosmopolitan and non-cosmopolitan conceptions as formulated? Does it not make
more sense to simultaneously pursue the commonwealth of ends and
the law of peoples instead of viewing them as antagonistic? Or
alternatively, might the law of peoples be a necessary pre-developmental stage
if we are eventually to arrive at a (justice as fairness) cosmopolitan world?
(To be sure, at least in the case of Rawls, we might have to get Rawls to
modify his language here and there, and possibly a few details, to iron out the
apparent tension.)
At times it does indeed seem obvious that
Rawls would like us to aspire to attempt to formulate the original position of
a cosmopolitan and omni-temporal (“eternal”) political conception. The idea
seems to be that given said original position, we will be able to see more
clearly the political structure which is most appropriate for any societal
context in any stage of history. This paper so aspires – even should our
results turn out, at best, to be only partially successful.
On the last page of the last section of
both the 1971 and 1999 versions of TofJ, we find Rawls speaking of the
“eternal” original position; here are his words: “Without conflating all persons into one but
recognizing them as distinct and separate, it [the “eternal” original position] enables us to be impartial, even between persons who
are not contemporaries but who belong to many generations. Thus to see our
place in society from the perspective of this position is to see it sub specie aeternitatis: it is to regard
the human situation not only from all social but also from all temporal points
of view. The perspective of eternity ... is a certain form of thought and
feeling that rational persons can adopt within the world.” (Rawls, 1971: 587)
To attempt to set up such an
omni-temporal original position, we may find it wise to attempt to see history as
dynamic and as potentially developmental. When we read Rawls, we may find his
own more limited formulations as (philosophically) eloquent descriptions of
static objects in “reflective equilibrium.” Amartya Sen criticizes his teacher
for this “culmination outcomes” approach which fails to fully appreciate the
historical dynamics of development and freedom; see, e.g., (Sen, 1999: 27-39,
112-118). Arguably, the air of Rawls’s high philosophical mountain is too thin
for the needed vitality of historical dynamism. Or, to put it another way,
Rawls’s original positions are stuck in time, in Hume’s world of moderate
scarcity. On occasion Rawls seems genuinely afraid of wealth (whether within a
world of moderate scarcity or beyond it) as a detriment to proper political
structures and virtuous human relations.
In addition, Rawls’s conception of
“fairness” leaves out, in an important way, the injustices of nature. So, as we
seek to formulate our new original position, we will need to broaden our
perspective to include both the
physical and the social world.
Indeed, our political conception must widen beyond society to include
environment. It will need to encompass not only new social structures (social
technologies and inventions) but also new physical structures (physical
technologies and inventions). Like it or
not, our advanced technologies make us a force of nature. Technology, at
least potentially, allows us to literally remake our physical-social
environment. So now that we are outside the Rawlsian box, we have a broader and
more realistic perspective from which to attempt to develop our dynamic “force
of nature” original position or political conception.
§6. Historical Dynamics and the “Force of
Nature” Position
There are numerous alternative approaches
to the “periodization” of human history. As we consider the dynamics of
humanity’s past, present, and future, we will want to try to make our
periodization both accurate and relevant for the task at hand. Our belief is
that the periodization formulated below is NOT controversial; in any case, it
was inspired by Kenneth E. Boulding (Boulding, 1964).
PERIOD
I: Before 3500BCE
Preglobal
Consciousness (Preglobalizational Developments)
Era
of Precivilization (Nomadic Tribes; Agricultural Communities)
Hunting
and Farming
“Make-do”
Technology (languages, sticks, etc.)
PERIOD
II: 3500BCE–2000CE
Global
Consciousness (Globalizational Developments)
Era
of Civilization (Cities; Empires)
Trade
and War
“Inventive”
Technology (writings, guns, etc.)
PERIOD
III: After 2000CE
Postglobal
Consciousness (Postglobalizational Developments)
Era
of Transcivilization (Intentional Communities)
(Peace
and Freedom? This question is addressed in §7 below.)
“Force-of-nature”
Technology (computers, nanomeds, etc.)
For the moment, let us assume that
advanced (physical-social) proactive “force of nature” technologies have the
capacity to provide an environment of stable peace and evolving freedom which
will also allow all persons and peoples therein to live beyond moderate
scarcity in great wealth. (Later, in §7
below, we will show that this assumption
turns out to be non-controversial.)
If this is the case, then a great moral-political imperative for our time is
not so much whether we can more justly rearrange the chairs on the deck of the
ship, but how quickly or slowly we will build new ships (intentional
communities) not possible with previous technology.
Thus the new issue for our new time is
not so much the old moral-political issue of moderate scarcity (Rawls’s
principles 2, 3, and 4 – i.e., #2 equal opportunity, #3 just assistance, and #4
permissible inequalities). Rawls made a philosophically heroic effort to solve
a hugely difficult long-standing moral-political problem. Fortunately, given our
unprecedented level of technology, the actual philosophical moral-political
task in our day (at the practical level) is easier than Rawls imagined. By
focusing on the moral-political principles zero and one, we can guide our
physical-social technology to evolutionarily realize the two principles at
deeper and deeper levels over time while making the other principles
effectively obsolete. For the sake of clarity, here are the two principles zero
and one (based on §5 and §4 above):
0.
The Principle of Metabasic Rights
Each
person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal
metabasic rights, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of rights for
all: These rights include the
rights required to meet basic needs, at least insofar as their being met is a
necessary condition for citizens to understand and to be able fruitfully to
exercise their basic liberties (see the principle
of basic liberties).
1.
The Principle of Basic Liberties
Each
person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal
basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties
for all: These liberties
include freedom of thought and liberty of conscience; political liberties (for
example, the right to vote and to participate in politics) and freedom of
association, as well as the rights and liberties specified by the liberty and
integrity (physical and psychological) of the person; and, the rights and
liberties covered by the rule of law.
§7. Technology Today to Implement Principles
Zero and One
This section is adapted from previous
work; see, e.g., (Tandy, 2011). The purpose of this section is to defend the
claim that advanced (physical-social) proactive “force of nature” technologies
have the capacity to provide an environment of stable peace and evolving
freedom which will also allow all persons and peoples therein to live beyond
moderate scarcity in great wealth. We
will find that this claim turns out to be non-controversial. As we shall
see, Postglobalizational Developments
or Consciousness III encourages us to use our new “Force-of-nature” Technology to establish a peaceful
and free environment of intentional communities.
First however we comment on related
matters that are also related to the two moral-political principles: To wit, we
have a right to live in an environment of stable peace and evolving freedom.
The autonomous rights of that individual person (call her “Lou”) imply your
individual rights too. (Otherwise, an assertion of rights is an assertion about
power, not about rights.) Thomas Buford (Buford, 1984: 187) points out that:
“For Lou to have a moral right to do x,
someone else is morally obligated to act or refrain from acting regarding x if Lou wants that person to do so.” On
the one hand, “where there is an obligation there is not necessarily a right.”
On the other hand: “Wherever there is a right to something there is a
corresponding duty or obligation to [attempt to] honor that right.” Thus the
interactive perspective of individual moral rights, properly understood, views
persons as social beings instead of as egoistical atoms. Buford elaborates
(Buford, 1984: 189-190):
●
“First, the practice of rights
presupposes that all participants accept and follow rules that are social in
character.”
● “Second, the practice of rights enmeshes one in a
social structure. ... Such autonomy, when it is present, always exists within
some social structure.”
● “Third, the practice of rights necessarily involves
acceptance of authority and subordination to that authority. ... [We are]
obligated to do the best that we know [as in the rule: “one should not kill
other people”] and submit to its authority.”
●
The “practice of rights occurs only
within a society [of mutual obligations].”
● “If I have the right to speak freely in a town
meeting, you are obligated to allow me that freedom. But you would not want to
congratulate yourself on your generosity in allowing me to speak. ... [Rights]
are accorded you by right, not by my generosity.”
●
Accordingly: “Respect for the rights of
others does not involve loyalty or friendship.” Yet: “In love and friendship we
often [so to speak] give up rights and subordinate and sacrifice ourselves. We
do such things willingly.”
Based on Rawls and on Buford, we may now
articulate some of our findings with respect to individual (moral) rights and
intentional (voluntary) communities: Authentically choosing one’s individual rights to life and liberty
carries analogous implications for one’s relation
to others. The individual rights we identify with life and living mean we have mutual-obligations
not to kill each other – our societal environment ought to be one of stable peace devoid of violence, killing, and
war. The individual rights we identify with living and liberty mean we have mutual-obligations
to insure freedom of thought, of
expression, of association, and to pursue happiness. Thus, our mutual-obligation
society of individual rights includes the right to live in peaceful and free
communities.
To what extent may one give up such
individual rights? It seems that there are two ways which one may (so to speak)
give up one’s individual rights and do so reasonably: (1) One way may be seen
as related to the concept of “Intentional Communities” (in this section below
we will speak of a “Society of Intentional
Communities”). That is to say, with respect to certain group relationships,
one may freely choose to give up rights and subordinate and sacrifice oneself;
in this case one may later choose to (so to speak) take back or restore one’s
rights again. (2) A second way may be seen as related to the concept of
“Society” (in this section below we will speak of a “Society of Intentional Communities”). That is to say, a second way
to reasonably (so to speak) give up an individual right is by seeing that one
was mistaken in viewing it as a right; at first one may think that one has the
right to egotistically steal and kill as one chooses, only to later apprehend
(say, per Rawls) that the “might makes right” view is mistaken.
Thus it seems that individual (moral)
rights and intentional (voluntary) communities are mutually implicated and
supportive in our quest for a just or good society (Buford, 1984: 191). By
forming intentional communities, “we distinguish ourselves from the rest of
society in order to achieve those objectives we personally believe best. We set
about to realize our dreams. Within the groups we form by right we can
experience the love, warmth, sympathy, and fellow feeling we want.” “What kind
of social relations best support the living of the good life? They are those in
which the rights of individuals are protected. Since rights can exist only in
the context of a society, that society must allow for the formation of families
and groups [intentional communities] to promote the realization of objectives
the individuals believe best.”
If we have individual rights to a
peaceful and free society of intentional communities, then we have a
mutual-obligation to create and sustain such a world society. Heretofore our
history has not given us a peaceful and free world of intentional communities.
As history has shown, attempting to produce desirable ends by undesirable means
is not the way to learn about rights and obligations or to create and sustain a
world peaceful and free. Below we will present desirable (Consciousness III)
means to achieve desirable (Consciousness III) ends. We will want, while
staying afloat, to devolve our dangerous dinghies and build better boats, sound
ships that sail peaceful and free.
Presently we will proceed to show that
Consciousness III “force of nature” technologies have the capacity to provide a
Consciousness III environment of stable peace and evolving freedom. In the
process, we show this claim to be non-controversial.
We will begin first by discussing a feasible physical (green habitat)
technology; then we will discuss a feasible social (treaty organization)
technology, finding that the two technologies combined result in a peaceful,
free, prosperous environment of green habitat communities.
It has been said that if your prediction
of far-future technological capacities does not sound like science fiction, then your prediction is wrong. Accordingly, please momentarily assume
that the following vision (which may sound like science fiction) is indeed
realistic. You can then later critically examine the notes and references to independently
decide for yourself.
The astounding capacity of future
technology can be glimpsed at by taking a non-controversial look at the future of extraterrestrial
O’Neill Habitats and of molecular Drexler Technology (and their eventual
melding together).[1], [2] We say non-controversial
because the controversy in each case is over when, not if. Thus for present
purposes we can overcome this dispute by simply talking non-controversially about these kinds of capacities in the far
future (bypassing timeline predictions of near or far). Abundant
extraterrestrial resources will be used to construct greener-than-earth,
self-sufficient, self-replicating O’Neill Habitats (not to be confused with
space stations!) in orbit around planets and suns. Accordingly, barring
catastrophe, it seems highly likely that in the long run almost all of our
multitudinous offspring will be permanently living and working somewhere in the
universe other than on planet Earth. Indeed,
molecular Drexler Technology is NOT required for construction and development
of extraterrestrial O’Neill Habitats (“SEG communities”) – it just makes the
task easier.
Historically one of the reasons that
Terrestrial civilizations of old engaged in wars against each other was to gain
more territory, and the power and glory that came with empire. (Human-caused
global warming, human-made weapons of mass death and destruction, and a
human-crowded global village did not yet exist.) As life grew denser on planet
earth, the environment on which each organism depended increasingly consisted
of other living things. But the development of advanced O’Neill Habitats (Sustainable Extraterrestrial Greener-than-earth
communities, or SEGs) in orbit around a planet or a sun will mean multiple,
self-reproducing biospheres; "unlimited free land” (freely available
territory); and, the realistic possibility of intentional (i.e., voluntary)
communities for all persons. Instead of remaining in the community or culture
of one's birth, one will be realistically free to experiment living in one kind
of community or another. New kinds of cultures and communities will be enabled
by the new extraterrestrial technology.
According to (Carter and Dale, 1974: 12): “Most of the progressive and
dynamic civilizations of mankind started on new land – on land that had not
been the center of a former civilization.” The following metaphorical insights
have been widely quoted by SEG experts: "The Earth was our cradle, but we
will not live in the cradle forever." "Space habitats [SEGs] are the
children of Mother Earth." According to Carl Sagan, our long-term survival
is a matter of “spaceflight or extinction”; all civilizations become either
space-faring or extinct. According to the “mass extinction” article in The
Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.): “The extinctions,
however, did not
conform to the
usual evolutionary rules regarding who
survives; the only
factor that appears
to have improved
a family of organisms’
chance of survival
was widespread geographic colonization.”[3]
Now below we will discuss a feasible
social (treaty organization) technology. We will find that the two technologies
(green habitat and treaty organization) combined result in a peaceful, free,
prosperous environment of green habitat communities. The Treaty Organization is
to serve two functions: (1) as gateway between planet earth and peaceful space
– this includes enforceably banning
weapons and weapons-making from extraterrestrial space; and, (2) as midwife to
an evolving Extraterrestrial Society.
(Gateway Between Planet Earth and
Peaceful Space)
The Treaty Organization (TO) would serve
as gateway between planet earth and peaceful space – this includes enforceably banning weapons and
weapons-making from extraterrestrial space.
As explained above, eventually there
will be many Extraterrestrials, few Terrestrials. We can understand the
practical or special interests that might prevent us from banning weapons and
their manufacture from today's Earth. Indeed,
someday there might be analogous practical or special interests in
extraterrestrial space unless we engage in foresight today to proactively and
enforceably ban weapons and their manufacture from extraterrestrial space.
On the one hand, our political
interests today may constrain us in our present time and place. But, on the
other hand, our political interests today may free us with respect to future
times and places (e.g., our extraterrestrial future). What this means is that today we have a realistic prospect of
proactively establishing the legal structure and enforcement powers needed for
a world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space.
If we wait until later, we may not be
so free to "do the right thing" and establish stable peace in
extraterrestrial space. Extraterrestrial space is immense; it is all of the
universe except for a single small planet. Eventually it might even become
feasible to extend stable peace to planet Earth and thus the entire universe.
It is our belief that the suggested
Extraterrestrial Space Treaty Organization (TO) will make a fine gift to our
offspring and, by the way, help present Earthlings as well. But if we want a
good world at stable peace (whether that world be Terrestrial Civilization or
Extraterrestrial Transcivilization), it would seem we must be willing to
unblinkingly face up to the following questions: Is stable peace possible if
each person or each people is passionately convinced that their worldview is
basically good and correct – and that other worldviews are evil or bad or
incorrect? If we could enforceably prevent each and every person from killing
any person over a conflict (say, a conflict of worldviews), would we do so? If
so, how would we resolve our conflicts fairly or justly?
One advantage we have in facing up to
these difficult questions is that we can use our imaginations to futuristically
view ourselves as Extraterrestrials living in intentional communities (SEGs or
O’Neill Habitats). We can further assume that a political structure there and
then exists that we describe as a good world at stable peace. These
Extraterrestrials of the future have liberties and technologies that
Terrestrials do not have today. Yet humans today have the ability and perhaps
the practical political will – via the TO proposal – to help insure humanity’s non-extinction and promote human flourishing in a free and prosperous
world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space (almost all of the universe).
If today's Terrestrials are to produce
such an extraterrestrial Treaty Organization (including effective enforcement
provisions), how many Peoples or States are required? More specifically, how
many persons or peoples would accept or endorse a Space Treaty that effectively
and enforceably bans weapons and their manufacture from extraterrestrial space?
In this context (a good and practical legacy to our offspring), we should think
we should be diligent enough to rally enough supporters. For example, TO might
be signed originally by, say, twenty Peoples or States (including most of the
"major" ones). But the Treaty
would be strongly effectively enforced by TO’s Agency for a Better Cosmos (ABC)
– NOT by Peoples/States – against ALL and EVERYONE, whether or not they sign
the Treaty. Once in force, we
would expect many others to sign on – since the Treaty applies to them even if
they do not sign it. Sooner or later the Treaty really would have to be
strongly effectively enforced by the ABC against all and everyone, because
eventually persons and communities will permanently settle in extraterrestrial
space. (Such a Treaty also offers hope and inspiration to those of us of the
present.)
Okay, you may say, this is a reasonable
enough start, but what other liberties, responsibilities, and political
structures would be appropriate for the Extraterrestrial World? So far, what we
presumably have is a partial prototype for an Extraterrestrial World at stable
peace. But what about conflicts and the plurality of deeply held religious and
philosophic worldviews?
(Midwife to an Evolving Extraterrestrial Society)
The Treaty Organization (TO) would
serve as midwife to an evolving Extraterrestrial Society.
What seems to us both practical and
fair in this context is to think in terms of an Extraterrestrial Society of
Intentional Communities. The previous analyses are suggestive. Each Intentional
Community would have to work within the framework of peace established
immediately above and as articulated in more detail below as “PFIT”; given such
an Extraterrestrial Society framework of requirements, consider now the
following with respect to Intentional Communities:
Each person is free to found new
(intentional) communities. Each Community would determine its own membership
requirements. Each Community would have its
own culture of liberties and responsibilities; a member would generally be
free to leave the community. A mechanism or set of mechanisms would be
established to insure that each member is fully and properly informed of their
liberty to leave the (intentional) community. (We suppose some communities
might still allow their members the possibility of experiencing serious
physical pain – but they would also allow a member to voluntarily leave their
community. Too, we suppose banning animal cruelty and serious animal pain would
be desirable and feasible. At least at first, this might mean with respect to
animals that only domestic or farm animals would be allowed permanent residence
in extraterrestrial space?)
Note that some ("hermit")
communities would consist of only one person. On old Terra, it was often
difficult or impossible to leave one's community – sometimes expulsion
effectively meant the individual's death. The sustainable prosperous context of
the Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional Communities is radically different.
If in the unlikely event this turns out not to be the case, then TO may not
work exactly as envisioned by us. But whatever the case may be, the TO would
have to be realistically flexible and convincingly knowledgeable of all
relevant technology including on the cutting-edge and perhaps too the merely
imaginable.
So at the level of the Society (of Communities) we have: (1) Peace: Weapons, weapons-making, and
violence (including animal cruelty and serious animal pain) are strongly
effectively enforceably banned (and so-called “research” would not be permitted
as a way to get around the ban); and, (2) Freedom:
Every individual person is fully aware of and fully informed of their general
liberty to leave their community. This too is strongly effectively enforced.
The Society and the Communities necessarily work closely together for the
purpose of practical coordination to help prevent potential conflicts; in
particular, the Society and the Communities necessarily work closely together
to fully insure the liberties and responsibilities associated with both Peace and Freedom. Also note that since there is "unlimited free land,”
this fact will additionally help prevent some old terra-style conflicts and
resolve or manage others (this would include some old-style civil conflicts).
At the level of Communities (in the Society) we have: (1) Intentionality (voluntariness): Within the good-faith transparent
enforcement of Society's basic principles of peace and freedom, each Community
has wide latitude for experimentation. Although there is a general liberty of
members to leave the (intentional) Community, this does not necessarily relieve
such persons from certain good-faith responsibilities to the Community; and,
(2) Transparency (accountability):
Each Community must strongly, effectively, and transparently help enforce the
Society's basic principles of peace and freedom.
We believe the political theory or
moral-political approach we have invented above with respect to TO is unique
and original. The “PFIT” (Peaceful, Free, Intentional, Transparent) framework
here presented differs from the Law of Peoples
conception of John Rawls in that TO is meant to be structured so as to
necessarily ultimately generate an Extraterrestrial Law of Persons. Yet TO takes seriously the distinction Rawls makes
between a "political conception"
and "comprehensive doctrines."
A political conception or model
addresses persons only with respect to, or at the level of, citizenship.
However, comprehensive doctrines or
worldviews, whether religious or secular, address the full range, or deep
levels, of one’s personhood and relationships. In our "Society of
Communities" theory, Society
corresponds to a political conception or model, and Communities represent numerous comprehensive doctrines or worldviews.
“Is stable peace possible if each
person or each people is passionately convinced that their worldview is
basically good and correct – and that other worldviews are evil or bad or
incorrect?” If you can sincerely and in
good faith agree to our TO political conception (our approach above), the
answer to this question appears to be YES, such stable peace is possible. If
you can at most only agree to our TO approach as a temporary compromise, then
the answer may be NO.
That is to say: Persons of Comprehensive
Doctrine X may be
passionately convinced that their worldview is basically good and correct – and
that other worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect. Likewise, persons of Comprehensive Doctrine Y may be
passionately convinced that their worldview is basically good and correct – and
that other worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect. YET if X persons, Y persons, and other persons
(holding numerous differing comprehensive
doctrines) can sincerely and in good faith agree to our TO political conception (our approach
above), then stable peace is possible. Otherwise, they may consider agreeing to
TO only as a temporary strategic compromise (thus ultimately open to future use
of force and violence).
Accordingly, a major part of our TO or
PFIT political conception is that the
Treaty must be strongly effectively enforced by TO’s Agency for a Better Cosmos
(ABC) – NOT by Peoples/States – against ALL and EVERYONE, whether or not they
sign the Treaty. "If we could enforceably prevent each and every
person from killing any person over a conflict (say, a conflict of worldviews)
would we do so? If so, how would we resolve our conflicts?" If you can
sincerely and in good faith (instead of merely as a temporary compromise) agree
to our TO approach above, then stable peace in extraterrestrial space seems
both possible and desirable. This approach, so we believe, realistically outlines
a structure of stable peace for world Society and local Communities in
extraterrestrial space – pointing toward conflict management in the new
framework and encouraging subsequent projects to invent needed specifics.
According to TO, the architectures of
extraterrestrial settlements will have to be PFIT (Peaceful, Free, Intentional,
Transparent). Indeed, the architectures of all extraterrestrial structures will
have to be congruent with PFIT. TO, via TO’s ABC (Agency for a Better Cosmos),
will proactively enforce the PFIT requirements. TO and ABC will have to be on
the cutting edge of such changing technologies if they are to successfully
fulfill their missions. PFIT preplanning
and PFIT retrofitting of PFIT
extraterrestrial settlements and structures will be an ongoing task.
§8. An Evolutionary Implementation of the
Principles
In §7 above we looked at physical (green
habitat) technology and at social (treaty organization) technology. We defended the claim that, combined, these two advanced proactive
“force of nature” technologies have the capacity to provide an environment of
stable peace and evolving freedom which will also allow all persons and peoples
therein to live beyond moderate scarcity in great wealth. We found that the claim turns out to be non-controversial. Indeed,
these technologies – referred to above as Technology Today – were within our
Research and Development capabilities even prior to the present century (see
note one).
Also worthy of consideration is
Technology Tomorrow, meaning that the moral-political principles zero and one
require us to also attempt to pursue incipient or embryonic projects not now
fully within our grasp (not yet within our Research and Development
capabilities) – see, e.g.: (Tandy, 2007); (Tandy, 2009); (Tandy, 2010). However
we shall not pursue such Technology Tomorrow matters within the present paper.
The development of freedom (including technologies that promote our evolving
rights and obligations) is presumably a never-ending task, but the present
paper must come to an end.
We can view the relation of today to
tomorrow as a process of emergence; what we do and fail to do today makes a
difference. Within Technology Today and Technology Tomorrow we can also view
each project as a dynamic evolutionary process influenced for good and ill by
our decisions. The TO or PFIT project as specified above is meant to be
structured so as to necessarily
ultimately generate an extraterrestrial law of persons. That next
stage (an extraterrestrial law of persons)
remains for future construction. It will emerge by implementing the extraterrestrial
PFIT, which is a treaty of terrestrial peoples
(states).
The implementation of PFIT (Peaceful,
Free, Intentional, Transparent) physical-social technology is a step in the
evolutionary ladder, and there are steps within PFIT too, since it cannot
magically appear full-grown overnight. But at some point it seems we will have
to confront the great question of a cosmopolitan
No doubt we shall have to make up the
evolving-emerging details as we move along. Providing a broad outline or
proactive agenda is important and necessary; however, micromanaging the future
in advance (as, historically, some tyrants have tried) is undesirable and even
dangerous. But one reasonable question to consider now, with the initiation of
PFIT, is “How much will it cost and who will pay for it?” There are indeed
alternative answers or solutions possible here, as professional diplomats and
treaty-makers will tell us – even as we also ask: “Can we afford not to do it?” Or, to put it another
way: Does not some version of principle three (“just assistance”) come into
play here? Principle three is the duty, under certain conditions, of justly
assisting (A) future generations; and, (B) burdened societies. We may want to
say that the Terrestrial System (Earth) has a duty to assist future generations
(via PFIT) in order to assist itself (via PFIT) by preventing and overcoming
its terrestrial burdens. This is a very special kind of reciprocity!
Our generation is privileged with the
unique responsibility of taking the first PFIT step. Once the first PFIT step
has been taken, then the additional hundreds or thousands of steps over many
decades or centuries may proceed quickly or slowly. The first step is to pen
and sign the PFIT treaty, thus enforceably banning weapons and weapons-making
from extraterrestrial space. The first
step is perhaps the most important one, and it requires no financial fees or
Tobin taxes.
§9.
Closing Remarks
Almost now is the opportune time for
almost universal peace. Enforceably banning weapons and weapons-making from all
of the universe (except for a single small planet) is politically feasible,
morally desirable, and practically within our signature-signing hands. But if
we wait too long, we may not be so free to “do the right thing.”
When wise persons learn the Way, they practice it with zest.
When
mediocre persons learn of the Way,
they are indifferent.
When
foolish persons learn of the Way,
they laugh mockingly.
If they did
not laugh, it would not be worthy of being the Way.
–
Daodejing,
41
Acknowledgements
We thank the philosophy department of
Correspondence
Charles Tandy
Associate Professor of Humanities, and
Senior Faculty Research Fellow in Bioethics
E-mail: tandy@ria.edu
Www: segits.com
References
Beitz,
Charles R. 1999, Political Theory and International Relations:
With a New Afterword by the Author,
Boulding,
Kenneth E. 1964, The Meaning of the Twentieth Century: The Great Transition,
Buford,
Thomas O. 1984, Personal Philosophy: The Art of Living.
Carter,
Jimmy. 2005, Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral
Crisis,
Carter, V. and Dale, T. 1974, Topsoil and Civilization.
Daniels, N. [Editor].
1975, Reading Rawls: Critical
Studies on John Rawls' A Theory of Justice,
Drexler,
K. Eric. 1987, Engines of Creation,
Feather, Judith Light and Aznar, Miguel F. 2010, Nanoscience
Education, Workforce Training, and K-12 Resources, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Ford, B. J. 2009, “Culturing Meat For The Future: Anti-Death Versus
Anti-Life,” In Tandy, C. [Editor] (2009), Death
And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine
Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109),
Freeman, Samuel [Editor].
2003, The
Freeman, Samuel. 2007, Rawls,
Garreau,
Joel. 2011, and earlier: See <www.garreau.com>.
Gore, Al. 2006, An
Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can
Do About It,
Hall, J. Storrs. 2005, Nanofuture: What's Next for
Nanotechnology,
Heppenheimer, T. A. 1977, Colonies
in Space,
Hornyak, Gabor L. et al.
2008, Introduction to Nanoscience,
Kowal, C. T. 1988, Asteroids,
Their Nature and Utilization,
Lewis,
J. S. 1997, Mining the Sky,
Martin, R. and Reidy, D.
[Editors]. 2006, Rawls's Law
of Peoples: A Realistic
Utopia?,
Millennium
Project: The Millennium Development Goals. 2011, and earlier: See
<http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.shtml>.
Millennium
Project: The State of the Future. 2011, and earlier: See
<http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/2011SOF.html>.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2001, “The Enduring Significance of John Rawls,” Chronicle of Higher Education July
20, 2001. (The Chronicle Review section; limited access availability at <http://chronicle.com/article/The-Enduring-Significance-of/7360>).
O’Neill,
Gerard K. 2000, The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space (3rd
edition),
Peffer,
R. G. 1990, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice,
Pogge, Thomas. 1989, Realizing Rawls,
Pogge, Thomas. 2006, “Do Rawls’s Two Theories of
Justice Fit Together?” In Martin, R. and Reidy, D. [Editors], 2006, Rawls's Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia?,
Pogge, Thomas. 2007, John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice,
Ratner, Mark A. and
Ratner, Daniel. 2002, Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big
Idea,
Rawls, John. 1971, A Theory of Justice [TofJ],
Rawls, John. 1999, The Law of Peoples [LofP],
Rawls, John. 2001, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, E. Kelly [Editor],
Richardson, Henry S. 2011, and
earlier: “John
Rawls,” Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy <http://www.iep.utm.edu/rawls/>.
Rosin, C. 2011, and earlier: The Institute for
Cooperation in Space (website): See
Seg-communities.
2011, and earlier: See
<www.ria.edu/seg-communities>.
Sen,
Amartya. 1999, Development as Freedom,
Space
Quotes to Ponder. 2011, and earlier: See <www.spacequotes.com>.
Spaceflight
or Extinction. 2011, and earlier: See
<www.spaext.com>.
Spaceset. 2011, and earlier:
[Bibliography] See <http://spaceset.org/p.bib.mm>.
Stein,
G. Harry. 1979, The Third Industrial Revolution,
Tandy,
Charles. 2007, "Types
of Time Machines and Practical Time Travel," Journal of Futures Studies, Volume
11, Number 3 (February 2007). (ISSN 10276084). (Pages 79-90).
Tandy, Charles. 2009,
"Entropy and Immortality," Journal of Futures Studies, Volume
14, Number 1 (August 2009). (ISSN 10276084). (Pages 39-50).
Tandy, Charles. 2010, 21st Century Clues:
Essays in Ethics, Ontology, and Time Travel,
Tandy,
Charles. 2011, “Extraterrestrial Turning Point: From Man-unkind to
Meridian-kind?” Applied Ethics Review (April 2011, Vol. 50, pp. 27-72). (ISSN
1028-2483).
Ulmschneider, P. 2006, Intelligent Life in the Universe, Principles and
Requirements Behind Its Emergence
(2nd edition),
Ulmschneider, P. 2009, “O’Neill-Type Space Habitats and
the Industrial Conquest of Space,” In Tandy, C.
[Editor] (2009). Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7: Nine Hundred Years After St. Anselm (1033-1109),
Williams, Linda and Adams, Wade. 2006, Nanotechnology Demystified,
Wroughton,
Lesley and Flynn, Daniel. 2011, “Bill Gates backs Tobin tax, G20
unconvinced” (This is a Reuters.com article, dated
About the author
Dr. Charles Tandy received his Ph.D. in
Philosophy of Education from the
[1] “Extraterrestrial O’Neill Habitats” (or “SEG
communities”) – See, for example: (A) P. Ulmschneider, “O’Neill-Type Space
Habitats and the Industrial Conquest of Space,” Chapter 16 in Charles Tandy
(editor), Death And Anti-Death, Volume 7 (
[2] “Molecular Drexler Technology” – Molecular
nanotechnology’s founder and founding book is K. Eric Drexler, Engines
of Creation (New York: Anchor Press, 1987). This book is available free
on the internet. Also see, for example: (A) Judith
Light Feather
and Miguel
F. Aznar, Nanoscience
Education, Workforce Training, and K-12 Resources. (
[3] For such quotations as in this paragraph, see the
websites Spaceflight or Extinction <http://www.spaext.com> and Space
Quotes to Ponder <http://www.spacequotes.com>.