Values differ among the many individuals inhabit the Earth, resulting in different objectives, different perceptions of prosperity. Humans take actions throughout their life, intending to prosper, regardless of the differences. Social interaction occurs, and one person’s actions can affect others. This “effect on others” becomes the basis for “good and bad”, defining how people treat other people.
All people evaluate alternative actions, determining their efficacy, which action will best obtain their objective. For many people, there is another consideration, determining whether actions are excluded because of the action’s essence, overriding their efficacy. A moral human includes this second consideration; an amoral human includes only the first consideration.
This second consideration, an ethical determination, requires each action be put to a non-efficacy test: is it a good, permissible action, or a bad, excluded action? This is the determination of what is “right or wrong”. A particular basis is an ethical behavioral code, or creed. Such exclusion is a voluntary position. Moral people have a creed, perhaps not well-defined outside their self, but never less effective. An action contrary to a particular ethical code is deemed unethical.
Morals and ethics, good and bad, and tyranny are intertwined.
A right is a subjective, moral premise defining and sanctioning a man’s range of activity in a social environment. A claim of a range of social activity is sanctioned when it is honored by others in society.
Natural rights, or birthrights, are a basis for a moral position, the idea that all humans are recognized to be sovereign over their life and property. An individual may live his life any way he wants, so long as his conduct is peaceful and non-fraudulent.
Further, it is morally wrong and unethical to initiate force against another person. It is evil to act or condone an act that violates an individual’s sovereignty. The non-aggression principle is absolute, based on a commitment to peace, treating peaceful people with respect for their birthrights.
Recognition of natural rights bestows a religious sense of morality. If natural rights are good, then the violation of natural rights is bad. Simple.
Integrity of Speech
Another moral basis is a human’s speech and actions relative to speech. If doing as you say and telling the truth is good, then lying and deceptive speech is bad. Simple.
In contrast, the predator or tyrant, an individual who is not constrained by any behavioral code, instead evaluating choices solely based on their efficacy, is amoral. He recognizes no good and bad, or any natural rights of others. The tyrant engages in lying and deceptive speech as he sees fit. Psychologists refer to these people as psychopaths, feeling no remorse.
Minions, who work for tyrants, are in the same boat. Many minions distinguish good and bad, but their actions are not constrained by the bad. Psychologists refer to these people as sociopaths, feeling some remorse. However, most minions fail to think critically about their employment, blindly receiving a paycheck and living their life.
Tyranny suppresses the virtues of independence, self-reliance, initiative, responsibility, tolerance, and suspicion of power & authority.
Tyrants and minions are amoral and unethical. They are a social problem. Their prosperity is not just, and a world without tyranny must be considered. Ethical people must separate themselves from unethical people.
Mere shunning unethical people may not be the answer. Those that prosper via political means will never stop their tyrannical actions unless their situation changes dramatically. Perhaps the penalty must be greater.