The ethics of control.

So, who gets to decide what’s best?

Well, let’s first think about what would happen if no one did. What if we all looked out for ourselves? No society, no rules, just isolation.

The first thing that comes to mind is that there would be no time. Surely we would need to go back to hunter-gatherer living, as no society means no farming, no exchanging of goods, no food. The foraging life looks lovely through rose-tinted glasses. But do that full time and you’d be doing it constantly just to survive.

Okay, let’s entertain the idea that we could sustain some smallholding-type farming. We all tend to our own crops by foraging seeds, but unless you’re by a water source, you’re relying solely on the weather. One failed crop, and you don’t survive.

Now, cast your mind to those who shy away from the world. There are people who live an isolated life now, they don’t live hand to mouth. But like it or not, they rely on society too. They may grow all their food and raise their own meat and harvest their own electricity and water. But I can also guarantee that none of those people made the solar panels they use to harvest that electricity, or the wires to move it, or the lightbulbs. What about plumbing, did they make the pipes? Unlikely. They’ve probably used a shop at some point. It’s unlikely they would be able to create everything they need entirely on their own. And the skills they’ve learnt? Those came from someone else too.

Most post-apocalyptic stories are set in these kinds of places, where society has collapsed and it’s every man for himself.

The problem is, people gravitate towards an easy life. Morals or no morals, if I’m on the brink of death, I will almost certainly steal to save myself. With no one looking out for you, you’re certainly at risk of losing everything. Isolation results in a dog-eat-dog world.

The reality is, we need society.

So then, what happens when society has no rules? You rely on everyone having a set of morals which they abide by. This is deontology, the idea that some things are always wrong. But then come the anomalies, the people who don’t have that same set of morals. Who gets to decide what to do with them? You can decide, as a democracy, to cast those people out. But then what? Will life tick over nicely?

Theoretically, if everyone lives by a basic set of morals, then life would be fine. But that assumes that everyone has the same advantages. What if someone is disabled, has the same morals but is unable to look after themselves? Would those morals carry people to look after them? In my experience, everyone feels like they’ve got things going on, excuses as to why they can’t help.

Then there’s quality of life. Deontological morals only go so far. After that, morals are shaped by a number of things, religion, environment, genetics. Which of these morals should become rules that we all must follow?

A democracy would say that the majority vote wins. That feels fairest, until you’re in the minority. Does that mean that minorities don’t matter?

I’ll leave you with this.
If you could reduce the control on your life, would you, if it also reduced the control on dangerous people’s lives?