Anti-Nepotism

A 17th century Enlightenment philosopher named Thomas Hobbes sought out to define the relationship between the sovereign and the citizens of the state. Hobbes begins by investigating the state of nature, which is a state of society prior to the emergence of a sovereign. In such a state, individuals seek only to maximize their self-interest. Hobbes believed that this was a pathway to an inevitable state of war and destruction. Without a sovereign present to mediate between individuals, they could do as the please. Individuals could therefore commit acts of mere savagery in attempt to maximize resources and follow self-interests. The fundamental self-interest present in individuals is self-preservation. A state of nature becomes a circumstance of mere survival, where survival and propagation become of upmost priority. We may say that we have a natural right to follow our self-interests, however, this opens the pathway to an inevitable doom. Consider Person A, who has a self-interest to posses resources, however no sovereign is present to protect his rights. His rights may not be respect by fellow individuals whom may steal the resources he believes belong to him. Without the sovereign present, moral authority belongs at the level of the individual, leaving each individual to classify what they believe is morally right and wrong. Therefore, it is only with the emergence of a sovereign that society may progress from a state of chaos and instability to a state of order and security. The Hobbesian approach isn’t the only way of reasoning for the formation of a sovereign, in the next few paragraphs the necessity for a higher moral authority will be discussed. 

For centuries now, there has hung a large glooming problem overhead. The problem is one that deals with moral authority, and in specific, who is designated the responsibility of establishing a moral criteria? Such a question brings along with it a burden of immense responsibility. With a prospective solution comes implications on the role of the sovereign and the citizens of the state, along with the legitimacy of legal punishment through the command of the sovereign. Consequently unveiling the raison d’être of a sovereign and a morally binding social contract. 

Philosophers and other great minds have taken an attempt at answering this problem, moving towards either a more subjective and individualistic solution, or a more objective and universal criteria. Immanuel Kant, a 19th century Enlightenment philosopher, argues for universal moral consistency, disregarding an agents environment and possible outcomes. Opting for a rational, objective system, many Enlightenment philosophers such as Kant, set out to see actions as entirely binding in of themselves and not sought out in effort to reach other ends. Telling the truth, therefore, is an end in of itself and not sought to make others happy. Leading to controversial conclusions such as the moral reprehensibility of deceiving potential murders about the location of their potential victims. On the other side of the coin, we have moral individualism, which introduces a large amount of subjectivity into the moral criteria. Extending into branches such as egoism, which preaches a self-interest based consequentialism. Egoist philosophers assert that all agents ought to act from their own self-interest. Hence, a moral compass essentially becomes a product of an individuals environment and his own interests. 

In aim of elucidating the muddy water in the most effective manner, answering the question will consist of a rather simplistic approach. Rather than solving for an exact solution, if such a solution were even to exist, arguments will be laid out to support the formation of an objective moral criteria. A moral criteria of universal implications, specifically implemented and legally coerced upon all individuals of the state by a higher authority than themselves. In doing such, we may come to know the raison d’être of the higher authority referred to as the sovereign and the ramifications of escaping justice. 

Firstly, we begin our discourse by analyzing the implications of a purely subjective and individualistic moral criteria. When the responsibility of deriving a moral compass is designated towards to the individual, he himself becomes the highest authority of moral guidance. This concept is comedically displayed in a 13th century Sufi tale about the Seljuq satirist, Mulla Nasr ud-Din Hojja, who was one day was appointed judge of the state. He was approached by two individuals, each attesting to their own side of a heated argument. The plaintiff went first, propounding a strong argument for his case. Leaving Nasr ud-Din no other choice to reply, “Yes, you are right.” The defendant arose next and powerfully asserted his argument. Leaving Nasr ud-Din with no other choice but to reply, “Yes, you are right also”. In sheer amazement, the court registrar stood and proclaimed, “My lord, I cannot fathom how both the plaintiff and the defendant can be right.” Nasr ud-Din, in a state of despair, replies, “Court registrar, you are right also.”

This tale attempts to display the consequences of morality being in the eye of the beholder. Showcasing that progress cannot be made when such a stance is taken and the absurdity of living without objective morality. When objective morality is denied, the influence of the sovereign is greatly reduced. Without moral objectivity, the sovereign forfeits the ability to punish individuals on ethical grounds. Any attempt from the sovereign to punish citizens of the state, on mere moral grounds, is an attempt to claim moral authority, which is unsupported and unfounded in moral subjectivism. 

Without punishment, individuals are free to do as they please, whether that means harming or murdering others. Without a higher source of moral guidance, murderers are able to roam the street and unashamedly strike fear in the hearts of fellow citizens. Rapists, likewise, are free to impose their will and escape without punishment from a superior authority. Additionally, utilizing moral subjectivism, it can be proven that citizens of the state are not obliged to sacrifice their self-interest for others or society as a whole. It follows that since an individual seeks only to follow self-interest he has no moral responsibility to the state or his fellow citizens. A society where individuals have no moral responsibility to fellow individuals or to the sovereign, is an unpredictable, unstable society, bound to lead to inevitable destructive internal conflicts. 

The only way to escape such fate is to establish a sovereign, who assumes moral authority over all individuals of the state. The establishment of the sovereign therefore benefits individuals by securing their rights, and benefits society as a whole by punishing those who transgress moral boundaries. The sovereign therein can be seen as a total amenity to the overall state of society. The sovereign exercises its total authority by utilizing mental and/or physical punishment to compel individuals to follow the set moral standards. The sovereign formulates a set of legislations that aim to benefit society and the individuals that compose it. These legislations set the moral standard for individuals to live by, and the terms of punishment that they are involuntarily subject to.

Therefore, it can be seen that through the means of legislation, the sovereign is able to benefit the individual, as well as society. The individuals of the state should seek to ratify and uphold the legislations of the sovereign, to the highest degree. Ensuring that the legislations of the sovereign are never disregarded nor neglected. Only through these legislations can an individual’s rights be guaranteed. Thus, any attempt to comprise or disregard the legislations administered by the sovereign, is an attempt to injure the condition of the individual and society. 

In analyzing these legislations, their aims comes into view. That is, the aim of these legislations is to achieve true justice. Thus, our conclusive statement can be rephrased as such, “The sovereign establishes justice to benefit the individual by saving him from his prior state of chaos and insecurity.”

Moving forward, we will analyze the implications of committing actions deemed morally reprehensible by the sovereign, and avoiding punishment. To begin this discussion we introduce a classical Socratic dialogue written by Plato, namely, The Gorgias. Here Socrates asserts that to avoid punishment for committing a wrongful action is to injure oneself. Therefore, to prevent a friend or family member from being met with a just punishment for committing a wrongful action, is to injure them. The practice of nepotism, hence, becomes undesirable and unfavourable. This proposition can be supported using various supplementary evidence/premises.  

Firstly, if agent A is to strike agent B with a rock, then agent B must have been struck with a rock. Likewise, if the sovereign punishes the individual justly, the individual has then been punished justly. Secondly, when a moral agent commits a wrongful action, he is either punished or is left unpunished. When the latter occurs, justice has failed and the sovereign has not benefited the individual. Therefore, exhaustively, it can be firmly asserted that when an individual commits a wrongful action, he is only benefited when justice excels and he is punished by the sovereign. Lastly, using the conditional logic in 1.1 and the premises above, a proposition can be formulated. An individual is only benefited when justice excels and he is punished by the sovereign, therefore, if an individual has been punished by the sovereign, he has been benefited by the sovereign. 

                                                                                    “Only if A then B; If B then A”   [1.1]

Now equipped with the necessary knowledge to answer the core question at hand we can move forward. We have seen that through the means of justice, the sovereign benefits the individual and society. Additionally, avoiding punishment after committing wrongful actions causes injury to oneself. An individual aims to maximise benefits and reduce injury for the ones he loves, such as family and friends. Therefore, one should ensure that their loved ones are met with their respective dosage of justice, even if it entails mental or physical punishment from the sovereign. Nepotism therefore cannot bring about benefit, but rather harm. Although, many would object to this point, including philosophers such as Confucius, whom clearly encouraged nepotism[REF]. It can be argued that punishment causes suffering and therefore to lead loved ones to suffering is evil. However, digging beneath the surface quickly vanquishes this objection. Noting that the sovereign applies a just punishment to the individual, and the individual equates punishment to suffering, it can be said that the individual has then suffered justly. Previously it was shown that through the means of legislation, justice aims to benefit the individual, therefore to suffer justly is to suffer in aim of achieving greater benefit. This is similar to the wrestler, who suffers mentally and physically in aim of improving and exceeding his current skill level. To suffer justly is then to suffer mentally and/or physically in aim of improving and benefiting oneself.

These legislations provide  Explain why laws and justice are beneficial to the individual and to society

A return to the animal kingdom is a loss of moral ?crotieria? 

Leaving behind a society with a high level of subjectivity, contradiction and possible societal chaos. 

Conclusively, moral subjectivism leads to a 

However, many attempt to reconcile inherent flaws in moral subjectivity by attributing to it the golden rule. That a moral agent is to regard his behaviour as he would regard that of the other. Backed by many religious texts worldwide, this golden rule can be simply stated as wishing for others, what you wish for yourself. The golden rule has therein “personalized” the moral criteria, whilst asserting a egoless and duty intensive responsibility on the individual. The golden rule, however, still does not escape controversy. 

** Talk more about the chaos this ca n bring && bring in nasrudin story **

 Ironically, philosophers arguing for more universal and less subjective solutions, often disagree with one another, while philosophers opting for an individualistic stance tend to universally agree on their core thoughts. Closely analyzing philosophical thought throughout history, we see bits and pieces of this argument. Take for instance, modernity and postmodernity, modernity opting for the objective and universal solution, whilst postmodernity tends towards the individualistic solution.