0:00

This paper seeks to explain what characteristics a society based in reason would have. To do this it’s essential to recognize those who have come before, and who have inspired, as well as influenced, my beliefs. To those familiar with the works of these philosophers there are clear parallels between their beliefs and my own, and it's necessary to understand that we are all products of our environment. I say this because sometimes people can get lost in a narrative, too enthralled in a singular set of beliefs to notice errors. This only serves as a hindrance. When consuming information and formulating one's own opinions, always remember that to agree with something or someone in the majority is not the same as agreeing in totality. All the people who are mentioned here have their own beliefs, just as I do, and we can learn from the views of others whilst also assessing them critically. As example Thomas Hobbes, who is best known for his work The Leviathan, and as one of the earlier proponents of Social Contract Theory. He pushed the idea onward by diving into human nature and why social contracts come about. As previously mentioned, those who are familiar with his works will be able to see how many of my ideas are modifications of Thomas Hobbes’s. My idea of a Central Authority which governs over a society is comparable to his Leviathan or Sovereign. I also share Hobbes' view on humans and social interaction, that being the idea of Egoism, or the notion that humans are motivated by self interest, an idea that will be expounded upon later. An area of contention I have with Thomas Hobbes is his support of an Absolute Monarchy. As a staunch defender of democracy I do believe time has proved him wrong there. Even so we find agreement in how the social contract works and the need for an authority to govern. The point is there is a litany of areas where I agree with Thomads Hobbes, and times when I disagree with him. To get a better understanding as to where I am coming from, understanding Thomas Hobbes is crucial. However I take inspiration from all forms of philosophy, the works of the past help guide us, and even those I disagree with in large part usually allow me to assess my own flaws. The Stoics for example, who I in large part disagree with, offer, in my opinion, great insight into the emotions that we feel, and I take inspiration from them and the Platonic Chariot. Another philosopher of note, who I agree with more than the Stoics, is John Rawls. His notion of the Veil of Ignorance, is how I strive to view the formation of this paper. It's a concept that will undoubtedly be discussed in greater detail later, but the basic theory is that we should approach our beliefs on society as though we weren't who we are. This has had significant influence on my definition of reason and morality. As I write this paper I strive to remove all biases I have, although near impossible to do in entirety. This is the only way a society can be laid out in a reasonable manner. These are the sources of influence that I can put a finger on, but there are likely a plethora of sources I simply cannot name, or who have effected me more than I know. I now intend to give a brief explanation of each chapter within this paper. It will in no way cover the entirety of the topic discussed, rather it will give a quick synopsis of what is to come. Each chapter is phrased as a question which I will seek to answer within it. To restate, the overall question which is trying to be answered is “How do we as logical beings form a society as closely tied to reason as possible?” The questions themselves are in my opinion of great importance. I would recommend thinking of each one and what your take is and then hearing my own. Chapter One: What is Morality and Where does it come from? As the opening chapter I felt it paramount that the source of morality be discussed. That is why this chapter will be less about the social aspect of morality, and more about morality as a concept. I intend to delve into the history of morality, and the different frameworks that have been proposed through the years. Additionally I will give an explanation of different beliefs on the nature of morality, like objectivism and subjectivism, and most importantly I will give my explanation as to what makes any given action moral or immoral and how I have reached that understanding.Chapter Two: Who Maintains Society and Upholds the Standards of Morality? This chapter takes a step back to look at the broader picture of morality and social interactions. It takes a look at the Central Authority or Government, and its role as a guiding force in society. It will delve into why I believe a society requires that central authority and touch upon the idea of human nature. Furthermore I look at how a Central Authority comes about and what exactly that term means. The chapter also introduces the Freedom Paradox as I call it, which is the topic of the following two chapters.Chapter Three: To what do we Gain from the Society? This chapter delves into the benefits that we receive from participating in a society. The chapter focuses on many Unionist ideals about society and its importance. Notably arguing for why society is one of humanity's greatest creations, and the need for social cohesion. The chapter seeks to explain why all material possessions, and emotional connections we have are dependent on a society and the central authority that leads it. It advances the idea that rights and claims come from the society, and by extension the Central Authority. So being in a society offers protection from the natural consequences of its absence, and allows us to be relatively assured of our safety.Chapter Four: To What do we Owe the Society? This chapter follows very closely the previous one and is perhaps even more important. Many people are able to agree on the benefits of society and advocate for its continued existence. The argument comes from what exactly we owe society, and how important its role in our lives is. The chapter delves into the price of society and how in order for it to function properly we all must put into the collective pot. It delves into my theory on the Distrabution of Labor, and the term deviant, which is important for understanding the paper in its totality, and calls back to chapter two and the maintaining of a society.Chapter Five: Can we reject or Deviate from the Society? This is a chapter closely connected specifically to its predecessor in the sense that it picks up right where I left off. It discusses more the notion of a deviant and the flaws in that thought process. Additionally it looks at why I rebuke such people and see them as a threat to the maintenance of a society. It connects to chapter three aswell in the sense that the society is inherently beneficial. Additionally it looks at people who reap the benefits without incurring the costs. Explaining why I feel any reasonable and knowledgeable person would not wish to leave a society based in reason and so either the society is wrong or the individual is short sighted. In the end a society needs the support of its participants and cannot function without that, and so they should have power within the society aswell as the ability to leave it, but this is an option that should never be taken by a reasonable person and the cost should not be a light one.Chapter Six: Where does the Mandate of Authority originate from? This chapter does a closer look at the idea of the central authority discussed in chapter two. It goes a step further than just explaining what the Central Authority is and what it does. Instead diving into why it exists and how it gets the ability to arbitrate a society. The chapters goal is to make clear the goals a reasonable central authority should have. It has previously been discussed what participants owe to the society, well what does the society, and thus the central authority, owe to them. If there isn't an adherence to the goals established in this chapter then it is my firm conviction that the society is doomed to fail. Because when the goal of a central authority is to propagate its own continuation and grow its own power it can only survive in the finite amount of time those in power are alive or in power.Chapter Seven: What Control Do Participants Have in the Society? In the previous chapter the mandate for a government's authority was discussed. With the existence of a central authority, and with said authority having a mandate to command society, it now must be asked what input do participants have in the actions of the authority. This is a question of how often do participants have to consent to the actions of the authority. As well as what the best way to receive and account for said consent is. Should every action undertaken have to be validated by the majority of participants, and if the authority disagrees with the majority, must it always submit to said majority? This is a question of democracy. If such a principle can be thought of on a spectrum, with one point being the absence of democracy, and the other an absolute or direct democracy, where should a society fall? Aswell as what form of democracy should a society have, in both input and output.Chapter Eight: What is the Status of Unequal Participants? Of all chapters in this paper, number eight is one of the most difficult to write. Not because it is an especially difficult concept, or because it is hard to put into words, but because it recognizes an unideal aspect of our reality. Although there are many intricacies of inequality it is an undeniable part of the human existence, and society in general. This chapter will explore how what I call inherent inequalities, such as disability, affect the society, and how those people should be treated. Aswell as what I call developed inequalities, like poverty, and how a society can work to avoid these whilst also recognizing them as a natural byproduct. That is to say when there is a finite amount of resources, should people have the ability to obtain said resources probability suggests there will be disparities in who gets what. Chapter Nine: How if at all is the Marketplace of Ideas to be Governed? If one is not familiar with the concept of an Open Marketplace of Ideas then I would highly recommend acquiring knowledge on the concept. It is a complex principle but one that is integral to not just morality but human interaction as a whole. The chapter will focus on giving an adequate definition of the term and exploring why in order to acquire more knowledge and make accurate decisions we must allow for the expression of others, so long as it is not in a violent or forceful manner. This ties back into the Freedom Paradox, but in the sense of free thought. The chapter will explore the idea of tolerance and intolerance, aswell as free speech and the notion of making certain topics off limits. As a firm believer in an Open Marketplace of ideas, where concepts are freely discussed, I advocate for a more optimistic view on people than my usual more pessimistic self. I believe wholeheartedly that people can be made to see reason and the only way to do so is to essentially throw as many ideas at the wall and see what sticks. Chapter Ten: Why are Passions of the Body and Mind a Hindrance to Reason? This chapter will delve into the concept of passions, and the decision-making process that goes into committing actions. It will examine how we assess certain situations, and how in particular environments we can make decisions that are unreasonable. The chapter focuses heavily on individuals and their actions and reactions, specifically how they impart the society and other participants. Humans have developed distinctive emotional, physical, and mental responses to given situations as a means to make quick decisions. This is integral to the survival of the human species in cases of life or death. However it presents and creates its own problems in the modern society, and I intend to elaborate on what passions are, and how we can keep them in check. Chapter Eleven: What Obligations Do We Have to Other Participants? In any society there needs to be a certain level of cohesion between participants. After all the collective body requires collective participation to properly function. This means that outside of clearly defined laws there are social standards and obligations that we have to each other. This includes the advancement of others wellbeing, both mentally and physically, and supporting those around us. It is not enough to just be in a society, contributing the bare minimum and only looking out for oneself. We have a duty and obligation to support each other. This chapter focuses on areas of less defined social contract theory, and why it is crucial to not just practice respect for society, but respect for others and oneself.Chapter Twelve: What are the Alternatives to a Society of Reason? This paper serves as a proposition for what I believe a Society of Reason would look like. Within it I lay out the framework and explain obligations, however this is not the only framework under which a society can exist. This chapter will examine some of the alternatives to this proposed society, dissecting flaws in them, and working to prove them as an inadequate alternative to the society put forward here. The goal is to reiterate my views on the importance of society and governance, and display that what has been suggested within this paper is the best course of action for a society to take.That concludes the summary of chapters that will be discussed within this paper. I will additionally provide closing remarks on the society, as well as provide a glossary of terms. This will include the definitions that are provided at the beginning of each chapter, as well as words I think could cause some confusion. As previously mentioned, although the medium which this introduction is consumed in is a podcast, the end product that this paper will result in is written text. The goal is to take each chapter that has been written and reformat it, edit it, and add to it, turning the original video series into a long form philosophy paper. Thus, each of these podcast episodes are essentially an update on how each chapter of the paper is going. This is how I intend to format and phrase this series as a whole, a paper, made of chapters, and self contained. That is why I won’t be mentioning the podcast much, simply because when it comes time to edit this down into a formal paper the podcast won’t be mentioned, and I want to remain consistent with the vision I have for Society of Reason. Hopefully this introduction helped to give elaboration as to what exactly that vision is. Plans may change over time, and it’s hard to predict the fixture since at the point of writing this the paper doesn’t actually exist. Even so, whatever the end product may be, it should remain broadly consistent with the groundwork laid out here. This has been the Introduction to Society of Reason. Andrew Gould, signing off.