Proof to the Law of Morality

Listen Siblings, I come in peace,

“Morality is the use of ‘Military Capital’ against immorality, the use of ‘Military Capital’ in want of ‘Civil Capital.’” 

— Onitaset Kumat

The 100th article for the ABS Newsletter contains the above passage; the article is aptly named: Philosopher King Speaks on Morality The Root of All Ethics.  This is the 200th post: the proof of the above law.  I published the proof below when I was twenty-one.  Read it and see in it wisdom.  It can not be denied that African people are the wisest people.  It can not be denied that I share wisdom with our people.  It should not be denied that you should take action.  Write the ABS about building an African Blood Siblings Community Center.  Subscribe, share, love.

The Proof to the Law of Morality
By Philosopher-King Onitaset Kumat

Em Hotep Sibling,

Resolved: Morality is the use of military capital against immorality, military capital used in want of civil capital.

Behold my sibling, the premise of these letters. Here undone is tragedy. Here eradicated is poverty. Here spread is goodness. Here revealed is truth. Finally, intellectualism is revised.

[ . . .]
The logical proof will follow accordingly. A decision can be moral. There is a natural three-way division of how one can decide. These three parts are parallel with three parts of a complete society. A society can have its parts in a moral order. This moral order generalized corresponds to the resolution starting this letter. Therefore the resolution is natural, general and moral. With the logical proof so spread, I merely need to prove each of the statements above to prove the resolution as natural, general and moral.

A decision can be moral. The concept of justice is timeless. In order for a person to be considered just, that person needs to be judged. A person’s character can solely be judged by that person’s decisions. In order for that person to be judged just, that person’s decisions need to be moral, so a decision can be moral.

There is a natural three-way division of how one can decide. Decisions are done through persuasions. Of at least humans, one must admit that the mind can be persuaded through logic. Beside from logic, the mind can be persuaded through circumstance. Of circumstances, there are externalities, like anger or boredom, and internalities, like hunger or thirst which on occasion can oppose one another. That the latter two are fundamentally opposite to one another and fully constitute circumstance and circumstance is distinct to logic and completes what persuades the mind, for decisions, the division of three is natural and complete.

These three parts are parallel with three parts of a complete society. A complete society will need a variety of agents: agents for internal affairs, like workers, agents for external affairs, like soldiers, and agents for ordering affairs, like rulers. These correspond to the mind’s persuasions through internalities, externalities and logic, respectively.

A society can have its parts in a moral order. Three statements should establish this: that which is most cognizant should rule most, agents of external affairs solely attack and solely agents of internal affairs deal with internalities. The first statement relates with comparisons and innovation. Simply understood, those who know most can compare and innovate most. Through innovation and comparisons, the best rule can more likely be invented. Hence those most cognizant should rule most. The second statement analyzes the nature of defenses. The agent of external affairs will be responsible for the defending and attacking for the society. However, if attacks are completely defined as aggressive acts against an enemy, one needs a parallel definition for a defense. We know that a defense is an act against an enemy, so the word to analyze is ‘aggressive.’ The word ‘aggressive’ opposes the word ‘passive’ but a ‘passive’ act against an enemy can not be intentional, therefore a ‘defense’ which is intentional can not be a passive act against an enemy. This exhausts all alterations on attacks, and considering real defenses, it’s evident that a defense is merely a less aggressive attack but an attack no less. Therefore the agents of external affair as attackers and defenders solely attack. Finally solely agents of internal affairs deal with internalities. This is observed because neither ordering affairs nor external affairs deal with internal affairs. From these three, the moral order follows: The agents of internal affairs are as local as their trades and desires permit, the agents of external affairs are without personal agency, and the agents of ordering affairs must be most cognizant; by this the moral order is such that the agents of ordering affairs rule over the agents of internal affairs through the agents of external affairs.

This moral order generalized corresponds to the resolution. Solely the agents of internal affairs deal with life’s joys for this is what internal affairs entail. Therefore, the immoral order is when the agents of internal affairs utilize the agents of external affairs against the agents of internal affairs. That said, the moral order is when the agents of ordering affairs use the agents of external affairs against those agents of internal affairs utilizing agents of external affairs against other agents of internal affairs. This is the resolution: Morality is the use of military capital against immorality, the use of military capital in want of civil capital. Therefore the resolution is natural, general and moral.