[Zyx]

Life.

The search feature is currently down, but the record has it such that Cheesecake_Marmalade and I had a small debate that I needed to postpone in order to solve. Admittedly, I wasn't looking for the solution in the entire interim, even forgetting about it as my measly life advanced, but this morning I came to the solution.

If you have not already, read my blog post, a dialog that I intend to recopy here, for the sake of this discussion and its permanency. If you'd prefer to not read, do not worry, as there will be a synopsis at the end.

Socrates finishes his discussion on morality with Glaucon when Cibreca begins to step forward.


Cibreca: A moment, Socrates?
Socrates: Yes, what do you want Cibreca?
Cibreca: You’ve mentioned much on morality, so I was hoping to discuss this more clear matter of “Military Capital.” Though, you seem out of breath, should we speak another time?
Socrate: Yes, I am exhausted, maybe your daughter, Serenity, will have to suffice.
Cibreca: Serenity, will you take Socrates place and discuss this matter with me?
Serenity: Yes, father.
Cibreca: Were you listening attentively?
Serenity: Yes.
Cibreca: Would you be pleased with a reminder of the important components of the past discussion?
Serenity: Yes.
Cibreca: Well, remember the matter with the divisions of the brain and the divisions of society? The former being reason, passion and desire; the latter being classes: guardians, leaders of the society; auxiliaries, agents defending the society; and workers, those influenced towards luxuries beyond their trade.
Serenity: Yes, I understand it well and agree with it. The mind is divided into three parts, and societies are divided into three classes, the ones above mentioned.
Cibreca: Didn’t we agree that the first in both categories, reason and guardian, were to be above the last four?
Serenity: Yes, and that, that were a moral arrangement.
Cibreca: This is indeed correct, but there is more to it, didn’t we establish that a system wherein the last, namely desire or workers, were in charge, such an arrangement would be immoral?
Serenity: Yes, but I’m unclear how workers being in charge would be immoral, are you suggesting that in their charge, luxuries would be the aim of society, such that a designed ethical framework would be lacking.
Cibreca: Yes, that is nearly the case, albeit lacking 'military capital.' Will you entertain the idea?
Serenity: Of course I will, please continue.
Cibreca: Well, you agree that this paradigm of mind and society working in three categories is correct, so I do not need to prove both cases, just one, right?
Serenity: Of course, Socrates established the two equivalent, so proving one does prove the other.
Cibreca: Yes, so let’s work on society, if that is alright with you.
Serenity: I’ve no problem, please continue.
Cibreca: Well, wouldn’t you agree that of the three categories, the auxiliaries, defenders after all, were most militarisitic?
Serenity: I do not know what you mean.
Cibreca: For instance, the auxiliaries, because they comprise those 'defending' society, they are most equipped for antagonistic tasks, correct?
Serenity: Well, yes, for although Guardians are trained to be fighters, the auxiliaries would be those most populating the trenches of warfare. Therefore, one could even consider the auxiliaries the agents of warfare, the military.
Cibreca: And, with regard to warfare, aren’t there, for the most part, two sorts of tactics: attacking and defending?
Serenity: Put simply, yes, though Socrates mostly covered the latter.
Cibreca: Indeed, but, wouldn’t you say that 'defending' is really just a 'counter attack' so truly auxiliaries only attack, thus Socrates’ focus on 'defense' was diversionary.
Serenity: I suppose so, defending is an 'attack' in many ways, and even the simplest defense, a moat for instance, 'attacks' in a sense.
Cibreca: So, given the three parts, aren’t there two ways in which an auxiliary can operate: beneath guardians or beneath workers?
Serenity: Yes, this is so.
Cibreca: So, we understand that an auxiliary under guardians is moral and an auxiliary under workers is immoral, right?
Serenity: Yes, you are repeating yourself.
Cibreca: Well, my dear, wouldn’t this mean that attacking under a guardian were moral, but attacking under a worker were immoral?
Serenity: Yes, if all of the prior statements are true.
Cibreca: So then, here is where “Military Capital” comes into play.
Serenity: How so?
Cibreca: Well, wouldn't you agree that society is not truly divided into classes, at least not in the way Socrates divided them.
Serenity: I suppose so, neither you nor I have heard of Guardians or Auxiliaries before Socrates mentioned them.
Cibreca: But wouldn't you agree that societies have militaries and defenders and perform antagonistic actions?
Serenity: Naturally, otherwise Socrates' statements would have no base.
Cibreca: Therefore, shouldn't we assign them a name, say, "military capital," assuming that the word settles perfectly in place of the auxiliary?
Serenity: There isn't a better word, and it does seem reasonably well suited.
Cibreca: Well, we define the actions of this auxiliary to be "Military Capital" and, knowing the Guardians to be without property, just moral guidance, we'd consider all other capital, "Non-Military Capital," to be in the domain of the workers. Is that fair?
Serenity: Very. As I understand "Capital" and this framework, I'd suppose such a distinction were well-minded.
Cibreca: So, it follows that the actions of the auxiliary, In Socrates' class system, are “Military Capital,” and “Non-Military Capital,” being the desire of the workers, again in his class system, the luxuries if you will, are what decides whether or not the actions of military capital were immoral.
Serenity: Yes, this is so. The workers want non-military capital, as the Guardians have no need for such. Therefore, the non-military capital is in the domain of the workers.
Cibreca: And wouldn't it be right to state that some 'workers' wanting non-military capital would use military capital to get the latter?
Serenity: That'd be reasonable to say, and a reasonable definition for immoral behavior, for it'd be a clear exercise of workers controlling the auxiliary, something definitively immoral.
Cibreca: So then, isn't it the moral behavior, of the Guardians, for instance, to use military capital against "workers," at least those who'd use military capital for non-military capital?
Serenity: Quite so. The Guardians actions would not only be an assertion of Guardian control above workers, something moral, but it'd be a seizing of something immoral, worker control over auxiliaries.
Cibreca: Then therefore we've solved Ethics in the context of an actual society or individual, yes?
Serenity: Indeed, how'd you summarize it?
Cibreca: Maybe, "Morality is the use of military capital against immorality, the use of military capital in want of non-military capital."
Serenity: Yes, that is wonderful father, and Socrates smiles.

Essentially, "morality" is proven to be an action against an immorality; the latter being something to the effect of 'attacking' for the sake of one's desires for externalities.

It is a chapter in a book that I am writing, and though small, it's powerful stuff.

Cheesecake_Marmalade challenged me to prove the equality of 'life,' as far as humans is concerned, and he used 'rights' language to show how it was unsupportable and so forth.

Well, it seems that I was distracted on the word 'rights,' although now one can use it. Above is the definition of 'morality' and it is encouraged that we all be 'moral' if not amoral (which would be the non-attacking exchange of externalities), so one simply needs to make out what a moral recipient is. According to the above, and a reasonable definition, a moral recipient would be one who can rationally control one's desires, as that is one who can be moral.

So that's that. In Cheesecake_Marmalade's (forgive me, my memory is dull) insistence of how life has no value, it is shown here that life is equal no less. For when one acts immorally to another, it's only right that another acts morally to them--meaning that if a person shouldn't be put under immoralities and if immorality is discouraged, "life" is equal.

QED.

Notice, though, that the prescription isn't necessarily 'all life,' as theoretically one can attack another if another is immoral and that's the best means of ending their immorality, but as to the discussion with Cheesecake_Marmalade, we were discussing how an African were equal in value to a European or whatever other continent. The assumption is that they both are equally moral. The above trumps his idea of group ascription and life's value being subjective to the individual.