The Error that is Man

[Rodion Romanovich]

That would be anarchy, but anarchy on a place where recources aren't equilly distributed because some parts of the world have more natural resources, what do you think will happen? Can't erase our instincs, even in te best system people will go for two days at the expense of somebody else's tomorow. Look at the bright side, we have come a long way. The world has never been such a gentle place as it is now.

No, not anarchy. Today's society system is one example of how you can build an ethical system. Laws and morals are ways of identifying, at an as early stage as possible, someone who is enough danger to order and the common good, that it is best to take joint action against this person, by a legal sentence. Everything ranging from anarchy to totalitarianism fits into the definition of "ethical system". It's the additional requirements that are important for narrowing down the definition. In reality, if we consciously try to make the best thing possible, we will most likely end up with something similar to today's society, but applying its nicest tricks more consistently, and on the top of that trying to simulate, stimuli-wise, something more similar to pre-civilization society. Although similar in many ways on the surface, it would be dramatically different in all fields that matter.

The list in my post above is not the entire list of requirements necessary for a good ethics system. There are more things. In general, we must simply try to, in as many situations as possible that are similar to the "prisoner's dilemma", as hard as possible prevent people from pushing things towards the witness/witness situation. Three additional good basic principles (again: an incomplete list) should be followed are:
- never let injustice, suffering or other causes of disproportionate revenge-actions, or conflict scenarios, accumulate/grow over time
- if someone in a prisoner's dilemma-like situation where witness/witness is unacceptable chooses "witness" (this is quite similar to the definition of crime btw), especially if he is the first one to choose this option, then that person must be dealt with by joint actions, for example police or law. In cases where witness/witness is acceptable, encourage all to choose witness.
- gaining of sufficient power to protect oneself from joint actions in response to ones crimes, should be considered a crime in itself
- there must be standardized ways of dealing with retaliation/revenge
- there must be compensation for the lack of clarity of our senses, such as when we misunderstand an accident as an offense, etc. Similarly, we can however not tolerate that someone who is constantly clumsy - perhaps out of arrogance and nonchalance, constantly causes damage by accident just because he doesn't really care about not doing so. Someone causing damage by accident must also pay some price for it, for example giving him the duty to repair the damages, but without any additional punishment or judgement, as with an unprovoked attack.
- the importance of consistently showing less acceptance for those who start the fight than for those who respond in it, is necessary to avoid accumulation of injustice. It is often those who consistently get no support when unrighteously, unprovokedly attacked, who go mad and respond with disproportionate revenge. Still, a lot of blame must be given to those who start it, since it is much easier for them to avoid doing their unprovoked attack, than it is for a repressed person to remain calm. The bully who works on reverse psychology to break down his victim for years when grownups look away, is a greater threat than the bully victim who happens to hit the bully back when the grownups look. Merely judging actions is one of the great curses of the moral systems created by human beings since the advent of civilization.