Home > Foundations of politics

Foundations of politics

My political ponderings led me to two conclusions: society exists because it is more efficient to cooperate than living largely independently from each other, and so as long as two people agree that it is more efficient to work together, regardless of any other differences, cooperation will result if both parties are honest in their agreement with this principle. Thus I envisioned a secular society in which people labored under the most efficient laws and agreements by day, and by night debated their various religious and epistemological views. For, there is a very wide array of philosophic positions which will still conclude it is more efficient to cooperate, and so I see the purpose of political theory to maximize cooperation from any given differences.

However, as I developed this theory, digging for simpler and simpler premises of which seemed more and more people must agree, and though it seemed that soon I would have such universal a principle that all political decisions could be deduced for any given situation, I eventually came to two fundamental intentions opposed to each other and yet unresolvable by appeal to simple efficiency. This difference was upon whether “one should consider consequences that only manifest after one’s expected death, or not†. I found no practical, pragmatic or self evident principle which could resolve the matter.

And so my attempt to form a ubiquitous secular theory failed. My political theory was reduced to simply stating that if one agrees that one should not only consider consequences that only manifest after one’s death but attempt to render these consequences hospitable for those to come, the following principles follow.

Certainly it is not all lost. A great many would agree with this principle. But with earnest? Or because it is easier to think that one does, as certainly as it is easier not to think of what the actual affects of what one does are? I wondered and I pondered.

It was unsatisfactory to leave my political theory hanging; there is no reason to presume there is simply no agreement possible upon this matter, no actual answer. Furthermore, why exactly do I agree with this principle? Certainly _I_ have a satisfactory reason, and if not I should certainly see if one exists.

And so began my plunge into the ever contentious contemplations of metaphysics and theology, the very area I had been trying to avoid. And so I set off on an ontological expedition to inquire into what foundations there where to resolve whether one should consider consequences that only manifest after one’s death, or not. Surely but one of these propositions are true, and certainly I must expect that the truth be provable. Where would it leave humanity if this issue was unresolvable?

Alas, decisions can only be made, consensus can only be reached, by contemplating the mysteries of the universe, by considering the state of being.


copyright 2006 - 2020 Eerik Wissenz