• I. Introduction
• II. Defining the Core Ethical Principles
• III. The Four Pillars of Consent
• IV. Ethical Neutrality
• V. The Trolley Problem
• VI. Power Dynamics
• VII. Edge Cases
• VIII. Conclusion

§I. Introduction

Ethics has been a topic of discussion by philosophers for millennia, and has taken on several schools of thought. From Socratic virtue ethics to Kantian deontological ethics, and everything in between, philosophers have been grappling with answering the question of how people can live their best lives. This thesis is no different in trying to answer that fundamental question; however, the theory proposed here takes a different approach.

The crux of the Theory of Natural Ethics is the consent of the individual. While it is certainly not claimed herein that the question of ethics is solved, the goal of the Occam’s razor approach taken here is to discover a means by which the overwhelming majority of ethical questions can be answered. This, of course, has been the goal of every philosopher since Thales of Miletus.

§II. Defining the Core Ethical Principles

Before this theory can be explored, it is imperative that the foundational word be defined. It is commonly accepted today that ethics and morals are synonymous with one another. In fact, the study of ethics is more commonly known as moral philosophy; however, it is this author’s intent to challenge the status quo and distinctly separate these two ideas. Morals shall be defined as personal beliefs held by an individual or culture, thus making them subjective from individual to individual. Ethics, on the other hand, are objectively and universally true regardless of personal belief or feeling. This distinction is incredibly important, as this theory posits that scenarios exist where objective ethical answers exist despite the inability of any living being to be able to ascertain that answer. In such edge cases, it can be argued that the best course of action would be to act in a manner in accordance with one’s moral beliefs; however, this runs the risk of being objectively unethical under this framework.

Nothing prescribed herein should suggest that any or all unethical acts necessarily need to be responded to with negative consequences from other individuals, or even society at-large. Likewise, nothing prescribed herein should suggest that any or all ethical acts necessarily need to be responded to with positive consequences from the same. It simply establishes such a framework in which actions are objectively ethical, unethical, or ethically neutral.

From objective observation and analysis of interactions, it is clear that respecting individual autonomy and obtaining legitimate consent is essential for achieving synergy and harmony. This is not a matter of personal opinion or cultural norm, but rather a natural consequence of behavior. When individuals provide consent, it creates a harmonious and synergetic outcome that respects the autonomy of all parties involved, thus promoting mutual benefit. In contrast, violating consent disrupts this harmony, and creates objectively negative and undesirable outcomes for at least the individual whose consent was violated. Therefore, it is an ethical principle that respecting individual autonomy and obtaining legitimate consent is necessary for achieving the desirable outcomes for which all individuals strive.

This ethical principle is universally applicable, regardless of personal opinions, cultural norms, or individual preferences. It is not a moral prescription based on subjective values, but rather an objective principle derived from the natural consequences of interactions. Some may argue that this principle is overly simplistic, or that it fails to account for the complexity of real-world situations. However, it is precisely the simplicity and clarity of this principle that makes it a robust foundation for ethical decision-making. By prioritizing individual autonomy and consent, complex situations can be navigated in a way that respects the dignity and agency of all individuals involved. Moreover, this principle is not a recipe for moral absolutism, but rather a guiding framework for evaluating the ethical implications of one’s actions, and ensuring that the autonomy and consent of others is respected.

§III. The Four Pillars of Consent

The root of every ethical question is whether or not consent is obtained from another party or parties when the action committed by the actor directly impacts the very life, liberty, or property of the others. Put simply, without consent, sex is rape, charity is theft, and labor is slavery. If the actor’s actions only directly impacts the actor’s own life, liberty, or property, then such actions are ethically neutral, as it is impossible for someone to act on themselves without their own consent. It is this basic principle that is the foundation for the entire ethical theory. While this certainly sounds simple (and it fundamentally is), when taken to its logical conclusion, it uncovers some very unpopular truths.

Only the individual can truly know if they consent to any actions committed by an actor. Since no living being is known to possess the supernatural gift of omnipotence, the only possible means by which any individual who requires consent from another to arrive at a knowledge of it is by communication. Therefore, it is pertinent to establish definite criteria under which the validity of consent can be evaluated.

1. First and foremost, consent must be voluntary. This means that individuals must be free from coercion or manipulation when making decisions. Consent made under duress is invalid because it undermines the individual’s autonomy and ability to make free choices. For example, an individual giving their valuables at the demand of an armed robber is making that choice out of self-preservation. Handing over their valuables in such a situation is not truly consensual.
2. Consent must likewise be explicitly stated. In the opinion of the author, any notion of implied consent ought to be dismissed with prejudice, especially due to the simple fact that explicit dissent destroys any notion of implied consent. If any position is to be implied, it ought to only be the side of dissent. Regardless of the author’s opinion, however, because only the individual can know whether or not they truly consent or dissent to anything they do not communicate explicitly, the only means by which a receiver of consent can know without a doubt is if that consent is explicitly communicated. Without receiving explicit consent, an actor runs the risk of acting unethically, regardless of their intent.
3. Consent also must be fully informed to be considered valid. This requires transparency and honesty from all parties, and any withholding of relevant information or deliberate deception is a form of coercion, rendering the consent invalid. For instance, in business transactions, all parties must have a clear understanding of the terms and conditions, including any fine print. Without fully informed consent, individuals may unknowingly enter into agreements or situations that they would not have agreed to had they been aware of all the facts. Once the information is provided, however, the responsibility of understanding those terms falls on the consenting party. If the consenting party agrees to the terms without reading or understanding them, their consent is still considered informed because the ethical responsibility to provide all of the information was fulfilled beforehand.
4. Finally, consent is revocable, and as such, dissent must be respected without question. Consent is not a one-time event, but rather an ongoing process. Individuals have the right to withdraw their consent at any time, and their decision to do so must be respected without hesitation or coercion. This means that even if an individual has previously given consent, they are free to change their mind and revoke that consent at any time. For example, a customer may initially consent to a contract, but later decide that they wish to cancel the contract. While the customer may still be liable for any penalties or fees associated with cancelling the contract, assuming these were laid out in the initial agreement, the business must respect their decision to cancel and not attempt to coerce them into continuing the contract. Within this framework, any party to a contract has the right to cancel the contract, and the other stakeholders must respect this right, even if it means accepting the consequences of cancellation that were agreed upon beforehand. This ensures that all parties have the freedom to make choices about their involvement in the contract, and that no party is forced to continue against their will.

Many might raise the question about collective consent, but such a notion is invalid on its face. Individual consent is paramount, and to believe that an individual’s dissent is invalid due to “the greater good” is to put that individual in a state of slavery to the majority. Failure to respect the wishes of a single dissenting voice in a group of innumerable other individuals violates the individual’s rights, and is therefore objectively unethical. That is not to say that their dissent should be construed to prevent the consenting individuals from participating in whatever action to which they agreed, but it is to say that the even the whole body of consenting individuals shall not have any ethical grounds on which to force the dissenting individual to participate in the same.

§IV. Ethical Neutrality

Any act where consent of others is not relevant is considered ethically neutral. These are acts that do not directly impact anyone else. For example, painting one’s house bright pink despite the objections to neighbors would be ethically neutral since only the property owner has authority over their house. Not even Homeowners Associations can ethically claim authority over what one does with their own property, and thus such acts are neither ethical nor unethical, and are hence ethically neutral.

This would also include acts of self-harm, such as excessive drinking, drug use, or even suicide. In these instances, since the individual owns themself, their consent is all that matters. Suicide should be given special attention in this regard. While it is incredibly tragic, and while loved ones are severely affected by such tragedy, they do not have any real authority over the body and choices made by someone who commits suicide. In cases of intoxication, it should be noted that harming another individual is just as objectively unethical regardless of the level of one’s sobriety, therefore this has no bearing on the act of ingesting the intoxicants in and of itself.

Other areas of ethical neutrality are those instances where an individual is compelled to make a decision that would violate consent, but the ethical responsibility lies elsewhere. An example of this would be using deadly force against an aggressor to defend oneself or another. One does not get consent from their aggressor to kill them, but doing so is ethically neutral since the ethical responsibility falls at the feet of the aggressor. The aggressor’s actions to violate the consent of the victim are unethical, but the victim’s use of deadly force to defend themself is ethically neutral.

§V. The Trolley Problem

Now that all of the foundational aspects of natural ethics have been laid out, they can be applied in various scenarios and thought experiments, beginning with the classic trolley problem. The problem has essentially posited the question as to whether a trolley operator on an out-of-control trolley should continue forward, where five individuals are stuck on the track, or pull a lever to divert to another track where only one individual is stuck. Inaction will result in the deaths of five, and action will result in the death of one. Variables are almost always entered to change aspects about the individuals involved in order to debate the ethicality of each choice.

Since the root of all ethical questions under the Theory of Natural Ethics is individual consent, how is this squared on the trolley problem? The answer is that the trolley operator, no matter what they choose, and no matter who the people on the tracks are, is in an ethically neutral situation for themself. The ethical responsibility lies at the feet of whomever put the six individuals on the tracks without their consent in the first place. The trolley operator was likewise put in the situation without their consent, and therefore it is impossible to hold them ethically responsible regardless of their choice. If there was no person or group that put the six people on the tracks, and they are stuck there by pure happenstance, nothing changes despite there not being a place for ethical blame. It would, in such a case, be considered an accident, and by the very nature of such things, the ethical responsibility cannot be placed at the feet of the trolley operator. Likewise, if everyone involved was there consensually, then it continues to remain ethically neutral since consent was given.

§VI. Power Dynamics

Power can only be ethical and legitimate if both the superior and subordinate individuals give consent to the relationship, and either has the option to freely sever ties at any time. This makes any notion of a social contract, as well as any form of government objectively unethical. As expounded on in the essay “Government is Unethical,” every form of government requires coercion to exist. The act of levying taxes and implementing laws to which everyone is subject, even if they explicitly dissent, violates the core tenets of the Theory of Natural Ethics.

It is because of this that the only ethical “system” under which humans can live is not a system at all, but is in fact anarchy. Anarchy is the natural state of human beings, as well as every other species on the planet. Despite the images of Mad Max and Molotov cocktails that are frequently associated with the concept of anarchy, scholarship on the subject shows such associations are unfounded. While this author identifies philosophically with the Rothbardian school of anarcho-capitalist thought, the particular form of anarchy a society adopts ultimately does not matter as long as every member of that society is free to voluntarily associate or disassociate without coercion. In short, if an anarcho-communist society (a philosophy at odds with the ideal anarcho-capitalist society preferred by the author) of 2000 individuals exists with everyone consenting to the structure as defined under this theory, then such a society is perfectly ethical. To again repeat the core principle of this theory, consent is key.

Despite the blatant statement that social contracts are void and governments are inherently unethical, ethical power dynamics do exist. For example, voluntarily exchanging one’s labor for a wage establishes a voluntary hierarchy, and because the ability for either party to sever ties with the other exists, such a power dynamic is perfectly ethical. If an employer changes a policy to one an employee does not like, they are free to sever that relationship, and no harm will come to them. Conversely, coercive hierarchies created by governments bind every individual under that hierarchy at birth without their consent. As individuals go through life, failure to abide by the laws to which they did not explicitly consent will result in violence being initiated against them.

The free market is another example of an ethical power dynamic, where the force of the market is entirely based on individual consent. In a free market, individuals voluntarily exchange goods and services with one another. Because each individual has the freedom to choose whether or not to participate in a particular exchange, the power dynamics at play are entirely consensual. The market’s “force” is simply the aggregate of voluntarily made individual choices on whether or not to exchange with any particular business, product, or service. This means that businesses and entrepreneurs must continually adapt and innovate to meet the changing needs and desires of their customers, lest they lose their patronage. In this way, the free market is a fundamentally ethical system, where power is distributed based on the voluntary consent of individuals rather than the coercive authority of governments.

§VII. Edge Cases

The Theory of Natural Ethics is built on the foundation of consent, but what happens in situations where consent is required, but cannot be given? Medical emergencies, comas, and other exceptional circumstances raise difficult questions about how to apply the theory. In these cases, it may seem that the theory breaks down, as the individual in question is unable to provide consent.

However, even in these edge cases, the theory remains intact. The objective ethical question of whether or not the individual would consent to a particular action remains valid, even if we as humans are unable to know the answer. In other words, if the person were able to consent, they would either voice their consent or dissent, and this objective fact exists regardless of our ability to discern it. The problem is not that the theory fails, but rather that humans lack omnipotence, which prevents us from knowing the objective answer.

In such cases, individuals can only default to relying on their own moral compass to guide their actions. Morals, as we have established, are subjective and personal, and they may vary greatly from person to person. While the theory provides an objective framework for evaluating ethics, it is up to each individual to apply their own moral principles in situations where consent cannot be given. This means that different people may come to different conclusions about what is the right thing to do in a given situation. Despite the potential risk of making an objectively unethical decision, there exists no mandate that every unethical act requires societal punishment. If the motivations were from a genuine desire to do good, one can conclude that it is far more likely that such decisions will go unpunished, even if humans were able to identify the objective ethical answer after the fact.

§VIII. Conclusion

The Theory of Natural Ethics provides a framework for evaluating the ethical implications of actions based on the concept of consent. By prioritizing individual consent as the root of all ethical questions, individual autonomy and voluntary interaction are championed and prioritized in a way to promote societal synergy and harmony. If this theory were to serve as a guide to ethical decision-making, individuals would necessarily become more mindful of the impact their actions would have on others. People prioritizing the act of obtaining explicit consent and respecting the autonomy of others would likewise lead to more harmonious and mutually beneficial interactions.

Coercive systems and institutions, including the very governments people commonly accept as “necessary evils” would be abolished, and alternative structures that prioritize voluntary association and individual liberty would necessarily emerge. In such societies, the provision of so-called “public” goods and services would be handled through voluntary means, such as voluntary cooperatives or private firms adhering to free-market principles and pressures. The absence of coercive institutions would also lead to a greater emphasis on personal responsibility and self-governance, resulting in a world that is more respectful of individual autonomy.

Finally, with consent is respected as the fundamental principle of ethics, as established by this framework, it would necessarily lead to a world where coercion, exploitation, and harm would be minimized. This would consequently lead to a more harmonious and peaceful society free from oppression and coercion. Ultimately, a world where consent is respected would be one where human flourishing and well-being are maximized, and where individuals are able to reach their full potential. In short, the outcome of this ethical framework would be objectively positive.

I will never hide my posts behind a paywall. Please consider donating.

CashApp - $AncapAir

₿TC ⚡️ - AncapAir@walletofsatoshi.com

#Bitcoin #BTC - bc1q3m2gh3cfmp7hc99eak7qqgxnt9stxfletfe8v6

#BitcoinCash #BCH - bitcoincash:qqkzueur29yl8prkd4vfz3ejnzk6e587zsrkqlmdsu

#Ethereum #ETH - 0xd7C435F772949052CB717162bE1C71989F6917d5

#Monero #XMR - 44oxsY9FkLr3ZAXZfTZXZSXnLFM2eDqrn3annU1DJ53sfNWQZw4e5vf9k6khoJWof7PWTjfV31NnG54KXNmrc9SmULGVfhf