When trying to determine the validity and viability of certain behaviors, we need to think about that behavior and how it effects others, not simply ourselves. In our large societies we can think that our small actions don't impact things much, even if they are incorrect, detrimental or harmful to others of the community at large.
But even if that's the case, we still have an effect on the community at large. If we are doing something wrong, it's still wrong even if no one is noticing it or recognizing it's wrong.
How do you think and figure out if something can rightfully be done, or should be done? How do you know if something is correct or incorrect; is right or wrong; is detrimental or benevolent; is producing harm or is not; is ok or not?
Often, we can test ourselves or society at large to see if many things are correct, right, and ok to do; or if they are incorrect, wrong, and not ok to do.
If something is ok for one person to do, then it should also be ok for a group of people or everyone to do. And conversely, if something is ok for everyone to do, then it should be ok for any individual to do. If it's wrong for one to do, then it's wrong for a group or all to do.
Applying this principle allows us to unveil the confused behavioral models in society that we accept and justify as "right". Is what is happening in society (or a community at large) ok, correct, right, principled or moral?
Look at the Many, Applying it to the One
Here is an example about theft and taxation at the collective-societal level of everyone. Let's look at it from an individual basis, rather than as a group, collective, or society.
Can you give someone something? Yes.
Can someone come up to you and take (steal) your money from you?
Can someone come up to you and threaten you with a gun if you don't give them your money?
Can someone come up to you and threaten to put you in a cage if you don't give them your money?
Can someone coerce you into giving them your money under threat of a gun and putting you in a cage?
No. All of that is stealing. It's wrong to do.
No one has the right to steal your stuff, and threaten you to let them if you don't, and then lock you in cage if you don't. That's madness to think anyone has that right to do to another. Only voluntary exchanges are right by default.
If it's not ok for someone to do that to you, then it's not ok for a group of people operating under a centralized authoritarian banner called "government" to do that to you. This is how the principles works from the many-to-one angle.
You can always see if it's ok for a group or everyone to do something by seeing if it's ok for one person to do it. Everything starts from the individual. Individuals are what a collective or group is made of.
If everyone or group is doing something, check to see if it's ok for one person to do. Reduce the complexity of many to see how the behavior applies to one. One-to-many, many-to-one. The same applies in the reverse direction.
Look at the One, Applying it to the Many
To see if what one person is doing is ok, look at how the situation would affect the whole, collective, societal community at large if everyone was doing it. Sometimes it can be hard to see if something is detrimental, harmful, incorrect or wrong when it's not noticeable how it's affecting other wrongly -- be they individuals or a community.
If there is a problem when everyone does it, then it's a problem when even one person does it, even if it's barely having a negative effect. What's wrong is wrong even if one person does it.
Ramping up the scale to apply the behavior of one individual to the behavior of all individuals (everyone) will show if the behavior is valid, viable and beneficial for a society or community to permit.
A basic example I can think of, is of a community that has a community garden setup. Each person put in time, energy and work, and gets to extract the value of their labor they put in. But what if some start taking more than the time, energy and work they put in?
What started out as a voluntary agreement to take their fair share based on time, energy and work put in, has changed where some people are violating that voluntary agreement and are taking what isn't theirs to take. If everyone does this, then the community garden falls apart. This is how the principle works from a one-to-many angle.
Does the Model Always Work?
This principle or model of one-to-many, and many-to-one seems to work. It probably has it's limitations of applicability, and doesn't apply to certain behaviors that don't violate voluntary interactions or agreements and don't produce harm for others. I am not sure if that's where it stops though.
The community example was voluntary involvement, just as the previous example of giving someone something vs. them taking it (stealing).
If you have a scenario where this fails, please share it :) But bear in mind the qualifications I mentioned, that it applies to violations of voluntary agreements. I'm sure you can come up with any scenario where this doesn't work if you ignore that ;) But even without explicit voluntary agreements, I still think this model applies in other areas of life to help us think about what we are doing. If I do this, is it ok? What if I and everyone else does it, is it still ok? What are the consequences if everyone does it?
Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.
If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.
My goal is to share knowledge, truth and moral understanding in order to help change the world for the better. If you appreciate and value what I do, please consider supporting me as a Steem Witness by voting for me at the bottom of the Witness page; or just click on the upvote button if I am in the top 50.
