Thoughts on a Wednesday night is just free flow raw ranting. Not as well researched as other articles and often times made just to preserve the thought.

A Rough Theory on Conflicts based on shift of Principles Hierarchy.

Background

Lately I’ve been watching a lot of Jordan Peterson videos. Once particular video, peaked my interest. It was an exchange between Ben Shapiro and Peterson reflecting on the tumultuous times that we live in. Basically the main concept or premise– is that we live in uncertain times, where the world is seeking for its identity. This concept of “identity” are a set of values and philosophies, society and people are to agree that is mutually respected. In the weighing of values and standards these are supposed to be the agreed established rights and duties that are expected in the interaction between government and its constituents, people and other people, people and their communities, people and the environment, vice versa etc.

In my quick pondering on the video Peterson and Shapiro, in my understanding, both agree that the governing rules, norms or standards are dictated arising from a set of fundamental values. These fundamental set of values are regarded as the premise of which every other right, norm, law or duty arise from. Law is just an extension of these fundamental rights.

These rights are interweaved in the fabric of our humanity, that it is essentially directly correlated with our biological and physiological function. An interesting point agreed and raised by Peterson and Shapiro is — that these rights are very basic that it essentially delves into the realm of theology.

In order to appease the conflicting claims, which is a source of disagreement between different sectors of the world it is important to revisit what are these fundamental rights and retrace its evolutionary progression and extension to the standards we have today. This is in order to delineate conflicting rights and provide a better understanding on why we do certain things, and why we should act or not in a certain way. The reason why we have to do this is because conflicts exist due to disagreements on the hierarchy of values. In legislation for example, what we most often times see is a weighing of values to be protected.

Discussion

To extend in this discussion and my input on the matter. A unhinged, compact and non-divisive state has a set of agreed fundamental values. These fundamental values are expressed in one form as a constitution. One form because there may be other forms in which the state and its people may express its consent.

A constitution is essentially a social contract between the governing body and those who allow themselves to govern, delineating the essential boundaries, rights and duties of interested parties which is to be developed and protected.

It balances the powers of the entity in what it can do to protect its constituents on one hand and on the other scale, the freedoms of the people agreed– which are inherent and outside the control of those who wish to be govern. For it is these very freedoms which the people have agreed to amass themselves in order to protect.

However, history itself is not so very kind, external forces affect this sensitive crib of social relations and a segment of society may view the contract as outdated or unfulfilling in the current status quo, what I would surmise is a shift in the values hierarchy, hence a change in principles. This could be due to changes in the environments, Input and contact from other segments or societies, scarcity of resource or its abundance, disease, the development to a higher standard of living or the reversion of living standards.

A wealthy man, fed thrice a day may not think much on the food he eats in the next hour or so. But the poor trifled with hunger puts more thought to placate his starvation. One might remember the question on what about the starving artist? It depends, if the artist devotes his entirety to his work without a real existential crisis of the shortage of food and is able to secure food at any time he may choose, then he is no different from the wealthy man who devotes and is able to do so to higher principles of thought other than those to satiate his immediate hunger. However, if the shortage of food is one that directly affects the biological functions of the individual and by so is beyond his capacity to satiate, then the starving artist, in the last moments of his life succumbs to his inescapable biological needs. At this point his existence, intertwines with his devotion to his art. And in order to continue his very devotion, he has to exist, in order to exist he must satiate his hunger. In the second analysis the starving artist incapable of satiating his hunger beyond his control, In the last moments of his life is no different from a poor man who thinks only to satisfy his biological need.

I believe that the reason why some conflicts in the world exist today is because of these changes in the values hierarchy. Of course, the change in the hierarchy may become useless over time because the reason associated with the principles shift, ceases to exist. They do not anymore apply or exist because they may be only temporary, such as a prolonged drought or calamity. On the other hand when people attached with these principles migrate, such principles may not anymore apply because of the new environment they are confronted with.

But that is not to say the effects of these principles cease to exist, some of these principles become the basis for traditions and distinct culture; and religion, even government. Often times, practiced blindly and obscurely, sometimes these traditions have lost the original reasoning in their existence, some probably involved a practical value but became meaningless in the course of time. Migration, Environment, Human evolution play important roles. And some of these practices may not be as accurate throughout its continuous repetition in history.

Conclusion

To appease the conflicts, we need to identify on what we consider as universally and fundamentally important values. Those that transcend environment. Those that are not merely based on temporary circumstance but are more or less permanent in nature. But then again, we go back to square one, what are these universal and fundamental values; the source of disagreement sprouting so many conflicts ?

Are they biologically or physiologically based? I thought of this because I think that in order to find these common universal values we need to find what is fundamentally common in everyone. And in order to practice an established standard or norm, to provide input in the pool of thought in humanity , it is important that we exist. Hence I believe the first value to be protected is the value of our biological existence. Otherwise, what is there to protect? A biologically dead individual is no different from the pavement you walk on. However we give much respect to the cadaver of the dead because, it is a vessel of a person in which our memories are attached to and our emotions linger.

The value of biological existence, I believe, is a decent starting point. To summarily illustrate, a person is prohibited from killing another person because it would cease the biological existence of another individual. Laws would be catered to protect this value. Exceptions would then be carved out, such as self-defense because it is a preservation of your own biological existence. As to why your life matters more than the aggressor’s I would like to think about it in another article.

Even in the case of self-defense, a set of standards are placed because a great premium is placed in the biological existence of the supposed aggressor. Biological existence is what separates us from the sand on the beaches or the rocks in the mountains. I use the term biological existence instead of the value of existence, because I want to focus solely on the biological part of one’s existence, separate from an individual’s existence in relation to what one might perceive is the purpose of his existence and what he is intended to do.

The value of biological existence is so universal that it is reflected in all societies.

As we go along the lines protecting this value, we then encounter rudimentary questions such as when does biological existence start and when does it end. This is often times the stumbling block in policies concerning abortion. When does life begin? is a question so simple, yet so profound and important because it sets the stage for the entitlement of the protection of other areas of a person. Intellectual Property laws, Labor laws, Gender Identity laws are just mere extensions of protection granted to a person provided on the very premise that he or she exists in the first place or will indubitably biologically exist.