----------------

Moral Defense
The Individual and Society
----------------
In brief, moral defense includes the individual and society...
  but it first begins and ends with each individual within what we only next can call "society." If this collection of individuals next has a moral contract, then politically-instituted individuals purposefully within interest groups socially can and must act and react in the standardized "custodial defense" of all individuals equally within that contract. If not, then each individual morally may do so only in his or her personal defense as a standardized "self-defense" or assume a custodial role for defending others non-institutionally.
  A standard of equally-proportioned response forms in all cases where the moral individual reacts, and this could include a standard of moral civil disobedience within the geopolitical borders of an immoral social contract. If it does, she or he could react to act against the ultimate interest group of interest groups which is the immoral nation-state or against the politically-instituted groups within it themselves. This would involve standards for what we call "freedom of speech" and "assembly," activities which together we often call "picketing."
  He or she also could react proportionately against the individual persons who'd violate her or his or another's primary rights as individuals. If those rights are preeminent—are of a person's right to her or his own space, then a physically-proportioned response is possible or not. This forms either way because the right of all individuals to accept another's personally-physical rule parallels that institutionally to accept that of the immoral interest groups which possibly sponsor him or her within the aggressive act. That is, each individual's publicly-private re-actions of self and custodial defense fully are optional to the individual either way. 
  The perpetrator's standardized "initiating act" morally isn't so optional. He or she publicly is political and immoral, the act "unethical" as standardized for him or her whether institutions support them or not. Formatively, this also applies even if the standardized "terrorist" and/or his/her standardized "sponsors" don't know better—even if standardizably they are "formatively ignorant" of what commonly does form for us all.
  Yet that standardized "amorality" itself forms to be a rational fact among us generally. It also dissuades this author from risking his own life and relative freedom actively even through a moral self-defense, however much an instituted abundance of initiating acts could justify it. It does because he cannot find the individuals within these immoral institutions "fully culpable" for their acts. Therefore, it also persuades him to help launch and maintain this site in order to help others become "formatively aware-" and, he hopes, ultimately "dedicated" to instituting the moral alternative.
  Within our kind's first morally-exemplary nation-state- should we ever form one- the social contract would institute custodial defense domestically and internationally. Its constitution and purposefully-instituted individuals constitutionally under the rule of moral law and not men would dedicate accordingly. Both would converge to apprize others not only of our common formation but of their nation-state's following moral standards for acting and reacting in their citizens' moral interests. 
  Politically, they'd do so by permitting as many individuals in advance to know the moral "rules of the game" as rationally possible. They'd do so both interpersonally and through the media which itself would include a moral interest group within the purposeful public sector. It's then that they custodially could hold others fully culpable for their initiating acts and disproportionate responses in reaction. 
  It's then that these moral interest groups custodially could- and must- act and react in custodial defense even for one of their  enfranchised citizens if that one rationally can't act in and on his or her own behalf before their moral judiciary. There and then the custodial defenders would standardize to be "logical plaintiffs" just as surely as if the one defended were unenfranchised. It's finally then that the police, domestically, and military, internationally, also would perform essential public services which by purpose include individuals who as instituted morally must react themselves.
  That is, the standards equally do apply to all. Therefore, these purposeful custodians must respond proportionately in prosecuting their custodial purposes, quite as much so as any enfranchisable individual must. There and then, only personal self-defense and the immediate and un-institutionalized form of custodial defense exigently would apply to them within the prosecution. This has especial significance for what we've conditioned to conceive to be "war."


     Home    Contents    Communication    Top    

Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest
Last modified on September 18, 1999