Explaining Doolittle by an intolerant, impatient, late age academic 😉
[Begin monologue — impatient, crusty late-age academic voice, loaded with expectation that the audience should already understand]
Alright, listen. I’m only going to say this once, because frankly, I’m tired of repeating myself to rooms full of people who think “complexity” is an excuse for ignorance.
Curt Doolittle’s Natural Law? It’s not that complicated—unless, of course, you’re still trapped in the 19th century’s theological sentimentalism, or the 20th century’s pseudoscientific relativism. In which case, God help you.
Now:
Natural Law, as Doolittle reformulates it, is the attempt to produce a computable, operational, and universally decidable framework for all human interaction—from physics to metaphysics, from atoms to arguments, from cooperation to conflict. It is what happens when you strip away every lie, every pretense, and every excuse for theft, deceit, and evasion, and you measure what’s left. You follow?
Natural Law, as Doolittle reformulates it, is the attempt to produce a computable, operational, and universally decidable framework for all human interaction—from physics to metaphysics, from atoms to arguments, from cooperation to conflict. It is what happens when you strip away every lie, every pretense, and every excuse for theft, deceit, and evasion, and you measure what’s left. You follow?
He begins with one brute fact: All behavior reduces to acquisition. Not love. Not liberty. Not harmony. Acquisition. And because acquisition in a social context leads to either cooperation, boycott, or predation, the question becomes: how do we maximize cooperation and minimize parasitism?
Answer: Reciprocity.
That’s it. That’s the golden rule, but rendered computable—no mysticism, no moralizing, no Kantian flights of fancy. If you impose costs on others without their consent and without compensation, you’ve committed a crime against cooperation. If you avoid imposing costs, you’re neutral. If you compensate for your impositions or return benefit, you’re reciprocal. We measure it like we measure force or currency.
That’s it. That’s the golden rule, but rendered computable—no mysticism, no moralizing, no Kantian flights of fancy. If you impose costs on others without their consent and without compensation, you’ve committed a crime against cooperation. If you avoid imposing costs, you’re neutral. If you compensate for your impositions or return benefit, you’re reciprocal. We measure it like we measure force or currency.
You see, the core is demonstrated interests—not feelings, not intuitions, not ideals. If you expend resources to acquire, preserve, or defend something, it’s a demonstrated interest. It can be tested. It can be warranted. And therefore, it can form the basis of property—yes, all property. Including time, attention, reputation, status, genetic capital, institutional trust—all of it.
Now, because we’re dealing with humans—biological creatures with bounded cognition, group biases, and asymmetric incentives—you must structure interaction around rules of decidability: can we decide, operationally, without requiring intuition, whether an act is reciprocal or not?
And so:
-
Truth is what is testifiable by others.
-
Law is what is decidable by others.
-
Morality is what is reciprocal across all interests.
-
Norms are merely proscriptions that sustain that reciprocity.
It’s not a theory. It’s not a model. It’s not a goddamn ideology. It’s a system of measurement—a way to measure costs, benefits, and responsibility across time, people, and domains. Just like we did with weights and measures, money and markets, we now do with cooperation and morality.
He finishes the job Aristotle started and Jefferson botched. It’s the first scientific law of human behavior. And it’s the only one that holds across every civilization that didn’t collapse under the weight of its own lies.
So stop asking whether it’s “right.”
Start asking whether it’s individually warrantable, universally decidable, and civilizationally survivable.
Start asking whether it’s individually warrantable, universally decidable, and civilizationally survivable.
If it isn’t, it goes in the bin with Marx, Rawls, Freud, and every other salesman of moral hazard.
Next question.
Source date (UTC): 2025-07-03 14:47:57 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1940784585366966480
Leave a Reply