Source: Facebook

AGGRESSION VS HARM VS COST

Sequence:

1 – I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint.

2 – I will not aggress against you.

3 – I will not cause you harm.

4 – I will not cause you to bear a cost.

5 – I will bear costs of reciprocal insurance.

6 – I will bear kin selection costs.

Aggression leaves open unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action.

Harm leaves open the problem of relative costs – and therefore is not an objective and sufficient means of measurement.

Costs are universally applicable independent of scale, not relative, and prohibit criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action of all kinds.

—–

The fact that so many people are fooled into the fallacy of aggression as sufficient criteria for the formation of a voluntarily organized polity, is evidence of the frailty of rationalism.

The purpose of rationalism is justification. The purpose of scientific methods is to prevent justification.

http://justification.th/Aggression vs Harm vs Cost

I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint.

I will not aggress against you.

I will not cause you harm.

I will not cause you to bear a cost.

I will bear costs of reciprocal insurance.

I will bear kin selection costs.

Aggression leaves open unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action.

Harm leaves open the problem of relative costs – and therefore is not an objective and sufficient means of measurement.

Costs are universally applicable independent of scale, not relative, and prohibit criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action of all kinds.

—–

The fact that so many people are fooled into the fallacy of aggression as sufficient criteria for the formation of a voluntarily organised polity, is evidence of the frailty of rationalism.

The purpose of rationalism is justification. The purpose of scientific methods is to prevent justification.