Perhaps it is too obvious to mention, yet I will anyway. The primary problem with human society and cause of conflicts is (besides original sin) getting outside of your line to harm others informally (the analogy is from military shooting ranges and lanes). The mass, concatenated social effect of informally harming others for whatever reason has collateral damage to society, economics and environment.
There is a secondary harmful practice; competition socially that drives some to wreak informal harm upon others they view as potential competitors. When people can’t stay in their lane they sometimes harm others for no reason- as the harmed were not even rivals and instead were pursuing some other objective.
A civilization should allow people to pursue their own objectives for work, enterprise and life. Competition for quality efforts in formal settings that have regulating governance allow the best to sort themselves out. No one though should be interfered without outside of lawful parameters; that sometimes occurs in order to let those of inferior capacity rise to the top surpassing others.
People don’t all have the same objectives and values and that is a strength for democracy rather than weakness. Democracy does often shoot itself in the foot by harming citizens voluntarily with extra-legal means of social sabotage.
When a society and establishment has arisen through promotion of the most vicous, treacherous or racketeering and when being in a social position through whatever means is the goal, the concatenated effect is to reduce a society to decay. The ability for people to pursue enlightened self-interest without interference does enable the best to lead or prosper.
Mass social conduct that is socially harmful; from abortion or homosexuality to environmental degradation are political matters and should as well be resolved through legal means. Kant's categorical imperative remains applicable.
Following is a version increased with AI input...
A Simple Criterion of Society Wrenching Itself
Perhaps it is too obvious to mention, yet I will anyway. The primary problem with human society and cause of conflicts is (besides original sin) getting outside of your line to harm others informally (the analogy is from military shooting ranges and lanes). The mass, concatenated social effect of informally harming others for whatever reason has collateral damage to society, economics and environment.
There is a secondary harmful practice; competition socially that drives some to wreak informal harm upon others they view as potential competitors. When people can’t stay in their lane they sometimes harm others for no reason- as the harmed were not even rivals and instead were pursuing some other objective.
A civilization should allow people to pursue their own objectives for work, enterprise and life. Competition for quality efforts in formal settings that have regulating governance allow the best to sort themselves out. No one though should be interfered without outside of lawful parameters; that sometimes occurs in order to let those of inferior capacity rise to the top surpassing others.
People don’t all have the same objectives and values and that is a strength for democracy rather than weakness. Democracy does often shoot itself in the foot by harming citizens voluntarily with extra-legal means of social sabotage.
When a society and establishment has arisen through promotion of the most vicious, treacherous or racketeering and when being in a social position through whatever means is the goal, the concatenated effect is to reduce a society to decay. The ability for people to pursue enlightened self-interest without interference does enable the best to lead or prosper.
Mass social conduct that is socially harmful; from abortion or homosexuality to environmental degradation are political matters and should as well be resolved through legal means. Kant's categorical imperative remains applicable.
Part II: Political Hegemony and Institutional Overreach
To observe how society Strays from its "range lanes," one need only look at the modern political landscape, where both major parties have increasingly substituted extra-legal leverage for rule-based competition.
The Modern Political Spectrum
The Concentration of Wealth (The Republican Vulnerability): The primary focus often remains on the concentrated pursuit of capital. When unchecked by formal governance, economic power transforms into a mechanism that alters the structural rules of engagement. Instead of keeping the shooting lanes clear for all enterprise, extreme financial concentration allows powerful actors to informally interfere with competitors, pricing average citizens out of the fair pursuit of their own objectives.
The Rejection of Democratic Process (The Democratic Vulnerability): Conversely, when certain ideological factions fail to secure consistent majorities through standard electoral channels, there is a push to bypass democratic mechanisms entirely. Rather than persuading the public within lawful parameters, the strategy shifts to cultural re-engineering, administrative mandates, and extra-legal pressure.
This dynamic manifests in the push toward single-party dominance—a trend visible since the Obama administration's full-court press on cultural transformations like marriage equality—and the recurring appetite for structural institutional manipulation, such as expanding or packing the Supreme Court following the historic FDR model.
The Reality of Extra-Legal Sabotage
This institutional overreach is not merely theoretical; its impact on ordinary citizens is concrete. When major platforms and administrative bodies act as ideological gatekeepers, individuals suffer severe, non-judicial penalties.
Consider a real-world case: a writer peer-reviewed into the top 5% of contributors on a major platform like Helium.com, earning $200 a month—a critical sum during times of economic hardship—who is suddenly banned without due process simply for using language or expressing views that run counter to prevailing partisan sensibilities.
This is the precise definition of informal harm: using administrative or extra-legal power to sabotage someone who was not a rival, but merely pursuing their own work and livelihood. When platforms and institutions weaponize their positions to enforce ideological compliance, they abandon the neutral "firing lane" model and trigger the exact social decay that degrades trust across a democracy.
Part III: Utilitarianism, Codification, and the Constitutional Firewall
A common defense of discretionary administrative action is Utilitarianism: the idea that officials, platforms, or institutions are acting for "the greatest good for the greatest number." However, allowing unconstrained authorities to execute their own discretionary vision of the "greatest good" destroys predictability and invites systemic tyranny.
Why Utilitarianism Requires Hard Law
For utilitarian principles to function without causing administrative chaos, they must be formalized and ossified into statutory law. If every bureaucrat, police officer, or platform moderator acts as an independent judge of what constitutes aggregate societal benefit, the result is arbitrary rule and constant off-lane interference.
This dynamic is structured within the architecture of constitutional governance:
U.S. CONSTITUTION
│
┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE BILL OF RIGHTS
(Utilitarian Engine) (Deontological Boundary)
• Grants legislative power to pass • Establishes strict limits on
laws for the collective good. government overreach.
• Allows taxation, infrastructure, • Prevents utility calculations
and broad public policy. from overriding core rights.
The General Welfare Clause acts as a rule-utilitarian engine, allowing society to build infrastructure, establish public safety measures, and regulate commerce for aggregate well-being. However, the Bill of Rights functions as a deontological firewall. It declares that individual rights—such as speech, due process, and equal protection—cannot be sacrificed, even if an administrative body calculates that doing so serves the majority's immediate happiness.
Part IV: The Threat of Pure Consequentialism and Specious Goals
The deeper danger of uncodified, discretionary utilitarianism is its susceptibility to manipulation. Pure consequentialism can be used to justify almost any specious or tyrannical goal, provided the actor frames the ultimate outcome as sufficiently important.
The Long-Termist Dilemma and Existential Risk
Consider the ultimate test of consequentialist logic: planetary environmental preservation. If the electorate consistently elects incompetent governments that fail to prevent total ecospheric collapse, an act-utilitarian could construct the following radical argument:
The suffering or non-existence of trillions of future human beings far outweighs the immediate suffering of the present living population.
Therefore, if current democratic institutions lead to ecospheric collapse, any action—including violent revolution, forcing a collapse of the present political order, or risking immediate population collapse—is mathematically "justified" if it safeguards the long-term survival of the species.
This mathematical logic illustrates the fatal flaw of pure consequentialism. When the projected "greater good" is inflated to an infinite scale, any present-day atrocity, sabotage, or violation of basic human rights can be rationalized.
| Philosophical Framework | Application to Existential / Social Crises | Impact on Civilisation |
| Act Utilitarianism (Discretionary) | Allows actors to break rules, overthrow institutions, or inflict immediate harm if their personal calculation projects a net future benefit. | Social Chaos: Encourages off-lane sabotage, arbitrary power grabs, and totalitarian overreach under the guise of noble ends. |
| Rule Utilitarianism (Codified) | Insists that universal adherence to stable, predictable, and transparent laws yields higher utility than allowing unguided intervention. | Civilizational Stability: Protects individual "lanes," maintains institutional trust, and prevents catastrophic miscalculations. |
Your observation hits directly on the most vulnerable flank of utilitarianism: the problem of radical aggregation across time. When welfare is calculated purely by summing up total utility, a simple mathematical reality emerges—the potentially vast number of future generations will always numerically dwarf the present living population.
This mathematical imbalance creates serious tension when applied to existential risks like ecospheric collapse.
1. Act Utilitarianism and Extreme Measures
Under a strict Act Utilitarian framework (evaluating actions purely by their immediate net consequence), if an agent calculates that the present electoral system guarantees ecological collapse—resulting in the suffering or non-existence of trillions of future humans—then taking drastic action (revolution, systemic disruption, or forcing population reduction) could theoretically be argued as the option that yields "the greatest net good."
However, this argument unravels quickly due to three major flaws inherent in consequentialist decision-making:
The Epistemic Problem (Uncertainty of Calculation)
Consequentialism relies on predictable outcomes. In reality, violent revolution or intentional societal collapse carries immense, uncontrollable secondary consequences:
Destabilizing modern industrial civilization risks immediate global famine, supply chain destruction, and nuclear or military escalation.
Such chaos could ruin the very technical infrastructure, scientific capacity, and coordination mechanisms required to stabilize the ecosphere, making ecological recovery far less likely than under a stable, albeit flawed, government.
The Tyranny of the "Infinite Utility" Multiplier
If future utility is weighted equally with present utility (a core tenet of long-termism in modern utilitarian thought), any action—no matter how destructive or oppressive in the present—can be mathematically "justified" if an actor assigns even a tiny probability of it preventing a future total extinction event. This makes uncodified consequentialism vulnerable to extreme manipulation.
2. Rule Utilitarianism and Democratic Stability
This risk is precisely why classical utilitarians like John Stuart Mill shifted toward Rule Utilitarianism.
Rule utilitarians recognize that allowing individuals, groups, or factions to break fundamental rules—such as overthrowing constitutional government, violating basic human rights, or imposing mass harm based on their personal mathematical projections—inevitably leads to severe overall utility loss across society.
| Framework | Perspective on Extralegal Action for Climate Crisis |
| Act Utilitarianism | Might attempt to justify extreme, destabilizing actions if the projected long-term calculation favors future survival over present suffering. |
| Rule Utilitarianism | Rejects revolution or systemic destruction because general adherence to peaceful, institutional, and rule-based governance produces higher long-term utility than the chaotic alternative. |
3. The Vulnerability to Specious Justifications
Your concern that consequentialism can be used to justify many specious goals is supported by historical precedents.
When political or ideological movements abandon explicit, non-negotiable legal rules (deontological boundaries) in favor of pure consequentialist ends, the outcome is frequently catastrophic:
Justifying Authoritarian Overreach: Autocratic regimes historically used consequentialist arguments—promising an ideal future society, economic stabilization, or national preservation—to rationalize mass repression, political purges, and the suspension of rights.
The "Firing Lane" Violation: Returning to the core analogy from your essay, treating consequentialist math as a license to cross established rules leads directly to off-lane sabotage and social decay. Once a group decides its goal is important enough to ignore standard legal mechanisms, every competing faction adopts the same logic, triggering institutional collapse.
While ecological preservation presents a critical challenge to modern governance, relying on uncodified consequentialist calculations to bypass democratic processes introduces extreme volatility, making long-term ecological and societal stability significantly harder to achieve.
Conclusion: Returning to Kant's Categorical Imperative
When consequentialism is detached from fixed legal boundaries, it inevitably degenerates into a weapon for ideological zealots and autocratic establishments.
This brings us squarely back to Kant’s categorical imperative: individuals must act only according to maxims that could be universalized as a general law for all rational beings, treating humanity always as an end in itself, never merely as a means to an end.
When a society permits an establishment to rise through viciousness, administrative racketeering, or arbitrary interference, the concatenated effect is inescapable decay. Civilization relies on the guarantee that citizens can pursue enlightened self-interest without informal interference. Whether addressing political rivalries, platform governance, economic enterprise, or global ecospheric management, the answer is never to abandon lawful parameters for immediate ends. It is to enforce clear boundaries, hold authorities to explicit statutory standards, and ensure every individual remains firmly within their own firing lane.
Track 6: Practical DIY & Trade Skills
