The distinguishing of the existence of one entity has inherent in it the existence of another, from which the distinguished entity can be made distinct. Also implicit in that distinction is the existence of a relationship between the entities. This essay intends to look at the relationships that can exist between entities, particularly those between human beings and will inquire into what futures might ensue, as my view is that all the actions that are carried out, either independently or in created systems, by any entity, in the present, create a future.
FREEDOM, CONDUCT, AND WHAT DETERMINES IT
Putting our attention on the human being, there is a freedom to act, with which all human beings are endowed. To illustrate this point, if a human being, without foreknowledge of what might or might not be a substance that is poisonous to the human system, is in a forest, and has within his or her reach, a number of berries, two kinds of mushrooms and a blade of grass, and the human being wants to eat, she or he could eat one or more, without any limit, of the available options. In addition, there is the option of not eating at all that is available to the person. What the last point, of not eating, illustrates is that though we are endowed with the freedom to act, we cannot act out all the available options, within an option set.
Considering that the human being and other entities cannot act out all options available to them, within an option set, then we could say that the actions that are carried out, are governed by a selection process. If it is the case that there is a selection process that determines the actions carried out, the question then is what is it that governs the selection process? In other words, what makes an entity choose to act in a particular way, and not another? My view is that what governs the selection process, is a value that we have created, and want to protect, the protection of which creates a future that whoever is carrying out the selection wants to attain. Going back to the example of the person in the forest, who has the option of eating either berries, mushrooms or a blade of grass, if the person has foreknowledge that one of the mushrooms is of a kind that is poisonous to the human system, and will cause death on its consumption by a human being, if the future the person is choosing is to die, then the person will eat the mushroom, and if the future the person is choosing is to live, then the person will not eat that particular mushroom, instead choosing to eat one of the other options, provided that they are not poisonous to the person. In the first case, the value that is being protected is death, and the future that is attained, through the consumption of the poisonous mushroom, is being dead. Conversely, in the second case, the value protected is life, and the future that will be attained is the person being alive.
It could thus be said that there is freedom, with which human beings are endowed, and that the way they choose to act, in other words, conduct themselves, is based on a value that is intended to be protected, which then yields a future. Another way of putting it is that the futures that we want to create determine the actions we carry out in the present.
CODES OF CONDUCT
Assuming the above to be the case, the question arises, which is can human beings control the way they conduct themselves? And maybe importantly, what futures could we then create, if we can control our conduct? Though these questions can be asked, when there is the existence of one entity, significance is given to them when more than one entity exists, in which case there is an implication of the establishment of a relationship between the two or more entities.
Considering the simple case of a two-entity relationship that is the relationship that could exist between two entities, and let us take these two entities to be two human beings, with the case for the relationship between more than two human beings being derived from this simple case, then the answer, in my view, to question of whether or not their conduct can be controlled is yes. If that is the case, and the restrictions, as to how they conduct themselves are enumerated, the system that is thus created could be said to be a set of rules or laws, which dictate their conduct with regard to each other. If there is the establishment of such a system, two questions come to mind, and they are who establishes the set of rules? And how can the system of rules be implemented and maintained? My view is that the answers to these questions determine the kinds of futures that can be created, for the relationship.
CODES AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE FUTURE
Looking at the question of who establishes the set of rules, in our two-entity relationship, there are two possible answers, which yield two sets of possible futures for the relationship, and they are either one of the entities does this, independent of the other, or both of them participate in the establishment of the set of rules.
The case where both entities participate in the creation of the laws, to which they will be subject to, could be regarded, as one in which there is equality. I should state here that the participation I am speaking about is where both entities are accorded the same privileges, in terms of the voicing of their opinions, which are then used to draw up the laws, as any other case would imply a bias, and as such could not be said to be one in which both entities are participating equally. Such an equal system would require an agreement between both parties, for any law to be put in place, and because the process of creating the laws involved the two parties, there would not be any opposition, by either party, to the laws created, as both were involved in its creation.
In the second case where only one of the parties creates the laws, there is automatically an inequality, with respect to how the laws are created, and in this case, there is going to be either acceptance or rejection of the laws, by the party that did not participate in the drawing up of them. If there is acceptance, then there will be no opposition to the laws. On the other hand, if there is non-acceptance, then there ensues a struggle to oppose what was created. In this case, if the system is implemented, the state between the two parties could be said to be one of imposition or a dictatorship. It could thus be said that when there is a system of laws, which subjects a person who is not in agreement with them, we have an imposition on the person. For the system to be implemented, there would have to be a factor that is in the possession of the person who has created the laws, which the other person that did not participate in their creation, does not possess. It is normally this factor that would allow for the implementation of the system, in the face of opposition from the person who was not involved in the creation of the laws, and without which there would be an equal system. In such an unequal system, there develops a struggle, which is one of equality, between the person who has the factor, and the other person who does not, if the person with the factor does not want to relinquish it. The struggle is one, in which the person that is imposed on aims to neutralize the advantage that the factor presents, by either eliminating the factor or acquiring it if that is possible. Either way, the struggle for this person is to seek equality. For the person with the factor, the aim would be to retain the factor, and with it the “advantage” that it provides, thus ensuring the maintenance of inequality. We could therefore say that a relationship where there in inequality, with respect to how the laws, that govern the relationship, are established, and where there is non-acceptance of this inequality, leads to a state of struggle.
We could then say that if the process of establishing the laws that the participants of a relationship are subject to, involves those that are affected by the laws, then there is an equal system, in which there will be no struggle, and conversely, if the process does not involve all that will be subject, we will have an imposition, which will tend to be met with a struggle designed to oppose the imposition.
With regards to the question of how a system can be maintained, which could be said to be how the laws that were created are applied, and how, if there is a requirement for it, they can be altered, I would say that the analysis that regarded the setting up of the laws apply here too, with the creation of either an equal system, where the application of the law is the same for both parties, in which case there will tend to be no struggle and the case where there is an unequal application of the laws, in which case there will ensue a struggle.
If we define a peaceful state, as one where there is no struggle, then we could say that if the basis of a relationship is inequality, then there will tend to be a non-peaceful coexistence or future. On the other hand, if the basis of the relationship is equality, then there will tend to be peaceful coexistence or future.
CONCLUSION
The restrictions of the freedom that people have, has inherent in it the protection of a value, which then creates a future. If the relationship between two entities is guided by a set of laws, then the method that is used to create the laws and how they created laws are then implemented could lead to futures that are either peaceful or non-peaceful for the entities, based on whether there is either equality or inequality respectively.
