We seek your improvements and collaboration to establish an overarching, connected culture: a civic people--a no-real-harm society--wherein cultures, ethnic group, or other no-harm association may flourish. We recognize that there will always be people who, for reasons only they understand or not, oppose a civic people--insist on being disconnected. Some of them will behave harmfully, so the need for laws will persist into the foreseeable future. We think relinquishing past notions that opinion can determine civic morality is a key to this proposal. We imagine a future with the prevailing attitude, "flourish and provide safety and security for other persons to flourish."
Until there is civic collaboration, I won't know effective word choices, and collaboration does not have to start with my statements anyway. Lastly, after all consideration, a civic people is not forced to reach a consensus or conclusions about the literal preamble. Consent is not required beyond no-harm.
In a physical example of physics-based ethics, people do not attempt to place their vehicle in another vehicle's space-time, in other words, where a vehicle is already parked. Space-time is the four dimensional height, width, depth and time.
Such axioms respecting humanly discovered benefits work together to establish physics-based ethics. Thus, a people use physics-based ethics rather than opinion-based ethics to determine civic morality. Opinion-based ethics cannot offer the bedrock a people can commit to based on their own experiences plus observations of their neighbors' successes and failures. Personal hopes cannot be imposed on civic morality.
Once a civic issue is explicitly stated in terms of physics and the benefits of conformity to physics are understood, the ethics is established, and deviation from the ethics, is a matter of personal choice. However, the deviant is expected to bear the cost of the apparently unethical behavior: Private practices are private. If the deviation causes no civic harm or any harm remains unknown, there is no consequence to the deviant. However, if civic harm becomes known, the deviant may suffer the law, as now.
By discovering civic morality as physics-based ethics, innovators understand the bedrock on which to responsibly explore new frontiers of morality, unburdened by obsolete opinion.
Physics-based ethics has its roots in the ideas of Francis Bacon, d. 1626, but relieves empiricism's tension that imagination cannot facilitate understanding: the god hypothesis is not excluded. Also, Albert Einstein claimed that science and ethics come from the same source, but we recognize that science is only a study and physics is the subject of the study. So far, we think the idea of slowly, cautiously moving from opinion-based ethics to physics-based ethics is promising.
Physics exists as it is, but humankind is not near discovery of all that emerged or will emerge from physics. When understood physics is not available, there remains the need for laws to provide safety and security to assure pursuit of personal privacy based on reason, often settled by majority opinion within the physics system, such as five votes to four. However, there is no place for religion in these determinations.
Also, please use the comment box below to ask a question or express a concern.