Practical Personal Principles

 How can someone apply personal principles in a practical way, when they contradict societal norms and rules?

Virtually everyone has differing principles, at least when it comes down to a small degree, or specific details within the countless potential scenarios of complex modern day life and society. So this would indicate that the majority of people would have some specifics to their principles which would be in opposition to the rules and regulations of their country and township, as well as the common preferred behavior by the culture and society they live in. So what is the best method for an individual to cohabitate any contradictory principles with the society they abide in?

It seems like there are 3 main potentials for this conflict (besides leaving society entirely);
1) someone can abandon their principles and follow all the rules and common acceptances.

2) Follow their principles by hiding the actions of their principles which contradict society.

3) Follow principles upfront and accept consequences 

1) seems like the easiest route for someone that wants to easily avoid conflict, but they would be leaving behind any individuality and meaning for what they believe in. If someone is willing to follow anything that authorities and others in their society happen to say is the actions that everyone should take, then life seems it would be fairly meaningless. When the rules and norms of any location someone happens to be, are circumstantial and could be anything, then the only significance left in life, seems it would be living life like a robot or animal. Humans are technically animals, but that which distinguishes us from animals, is our capability of awareness, comprehension, and consciousness. If someone is not using their conscious ability to comprehend for themselves what is best and important in life, it seems they are disregarding that distinction from animals. Giving up independence and individuality is a dangerous game to give someone else all authority and control, whom could likely only have selfish intents (as happens all the time throughout history and today with people with too much power).

2) seems like a reasonable method for someone to continue to follow their principles, giving meaning in life, and avoid conflict, but would be hiding their principles from the potential for others to benefit from learning from their principles. By hiding actions of principles, someone is not revealing to others what their principles are, and what value there is that the individual believes. This reduces the potential for collaborating ideas and beliefs and information, reducing the potential for others to understand, realize, and adopt valuable principles. 

3) is also a reasonable way to continue to follow principles and add meaning to someones life, but also allows much more potential for others to be aware and learn from those principles through observance and understanding. The downside is consequences of being straightforward with principles which contradict rules or regular society acceptances. Consequences to opposing laws can be significant and potentially reduce the individuals potential to share their beliefs, if they for example end up in jail or bankrupt from fines. Consequences from societal norms could be a lack of acceptance, but that reduction of acceptance would only be from people that disagree or ignore the individuals principles. Perhaps this is not such an overall bad thing, as they would still be accepted and be more aware of those who do agree with them. 

Perhaps a balance between 2 + 3 could gain the best results overall. Always following principles to have meaning in life, but hiding actions in situations where there will be significant consequences that reduce quality of life and reduce potential to share beliefs and principles for others to benefit from. But in many situations where consequences will be minimal, or have a silver lining (such as removing ppl from their life that dont believe in the same principles, while narrowing down and coming closer to those that do), someone could be forward and outspoken with their principles and reasons why. So overall, if someone doesnt want to reduce meaning in life, by abandoning their values, and wants to allow the option for others to benefit from becoming aware of the meaning, then perhaps creating a balance based on circumstances, between being straight forward and hiding beliefs is a decent method for applying Practical Personal Principles.

Principle Principle

What is included in being considered to be someone's principles, and what exceptions could there be?

A basic summary of “principles” could be; a set of beliefs about methods of living and interacting with others, which someone follows. By this understanding of the concept of principles, most people have them, as long as they follow generic methods which they believe in. This concept can apply to a very wide range of structures for someone to base their decisions and actions on throughout life. Some people could potentially have very few or even no principles, if they either don't know what they believe, or dont care, but generally most people do. 

The typical interpretation of the concept of principles is more commonly; a belief in actions based on morals, but technically, principles could be regardless of morals, or even in opposition. I further distinguished aspects of morals in a post from 4+ yrs ago; Moral Mess, basically outlining morals as based on instinctual reinforcement, and can be difficult to accurately determine applicability in many situations. 

So regardless of moral beliefs, the fundamental requirements for someone to have principles, are they believe in it, and follow it. Both of these requirements don't necessarily have to be 100% of scenarios, but in order to fit the concept of principles, should be overall the majority of the time. The person should generally and mostly believe that acting or reacting in a certain way is better from their perspective. There could be a few instances where the individual changes their perspective from believing the principle is best, as long as they mostly believe it. For eg, someone might have the principle that getting revenge is bad, but for a few hrs might change that perspective if they watch a movie where someone getting revenge seems beneficial. But if they change their perspective back again, after thinking it through, that revenge causes more harm and potential continued retaliation, then they still hold the overall principle. 

The same occasional exception applies to the requirement of following the belief, since there could be a few circumstances where they still believe it is best, but falter from following the principle. As long as they mostly do and mostly try to follow it, it should still be considered a general principle. For example someone might believe the principle that violence is bad, but might falter from following the rule on an occasion where they are very angry and someone pushes them intentionally. They could still have the principle, just fail to follow it, in a moment where emotions are controlling their mind more than conscious decisions. 

Besides occasionally changing perspective of belief, or failing to follow a principle, there can also be many detailed circumstances that might apply differently for any overall principle. There could be exceptions included in their belief to a certain principle, based on certain factors involved. This would basically be getting into specific details of their belief and principle, but would not really be faltering from following or believing in the principle. For eg, someone could have the overall principle of not lying, but might believe there are certain circumstances, such as if lying would save someone's life, where they believe there should be an exception to the overall rule. Many detailed circumstances might not even be known by the individual for whether or not they believe there should be an exception to the rule, since there is virtually an infinite potential of combinations of factors in this complex modern world. 

Thought experiments of hypothetical scenarios can be helpful for someone to distinguish their principles to more accurate degrees, for a wider variety of potential detailed circumstances. Considering hypothetical scenarios allows someone to consciously decide what they believe is best, based on many scenarios. This can be helpful since if a similar situation comes up in real life, they would be much more likely to make the decision or reaction which is more beneficial according to their personal conscious thoughts. Many scenarios can have a lot of pressure to react or decide, which can cause someone to quickly react based on instinct or subconscious, which is much less effective than conscious thought, at distinguishing beneficial outcomes of the more complex scenarios of modern day life and society.  

Overall, the concept of principles is commonly interpreted as being based on morality, but could also have other bases. Someone could rarely change their mind on a belief of a principle, or fail to follow it (despite believing it), as long as they mostly believe and follow. There may be many detailed circumstances in this complex world, of a generic principle, where an individual could make an exception, but overall following a set of beliefs, is the Principle Principle.

Harm many or Harmony of harm

What is harm? How direct of effects from an action, count as harm?

A basic explanation of harm could be; the cause of a reduction of function, health or well being of something or someone. This could potentially apply to an inanimate object, animal, or person. The significance of harm toward varying things could be subjective, but a lot of people’s perspective (including mine), would likely be that harming an object is least important, harming a living thing without a brain (such as a tree) would be considered the 2nd level of importance, an animal would be the 3rd most significant, and harm towards a human would be the most significant. AI might fit on this scale somewhere, but I’ll leave that out of this context. My perspective is that harm toward a human is most important to avoid, since humans have consciousness which causes a more in depth mindfulness of emotions, and more awareness, comprehension and understanding of their experiences. 

Distinguishing what actions of an individual counts as harm towards something else is a more difficult concept. For attempting to understand this concept, I’ll use a common denominator of harm toward a person, since it seems most significant. 

Direct intentional harm toward someone seems like the most obvious type of harm. Direct unintentional harm towards someone could be considered not as significant as an action causing harm, since the action could be less so to blame (but intention is complex). In a post from about 3.5 yrs ago; Immoral Quantity Question, I went into further detail on how intentions affect the morality of someone's actions. Unintentional harm may be considered not as immoral, but is still harm, and could be regarded as important to learn and avoid. 

The next step of distance for an action causing harm would be indirect harm, where the direct actions of someone cause an effect, and that effect causes another effect of harm. An example could be if someone leaves a campfire burning when they go home, 1 hour later the wind picks up and a bunch of dead leaves blow into the fire. The embers of the burning leaves blow across the ground to ignite a forest fire which ends up spreading and burning someone's house down and injuring them. The action of abandoning the burning fire did not cause direct harm to someone, but the effect of the remaining fire caused the fire to spread once an additional variable of wind was added. This example still seems fairly straight forward that the action counts as harm, since without that action, the other would not have been harmed.

If multiple actions are needed to cause harm indirectly and unintentionally, it becomes somewhat less distinct if each action should be considered an act of harm. For example, as millions of people do every day, driving a car or using electricity causes pollution, which unintentionally and indirectly harms others, through a reduction of health. When it takes many actions to contribute toward an indirect harm which is very difficult to measure or prove, distinguishing this as a harmful action is much more vague. 

Perhaps another difficult action to distinguish as harm, is an action of inaction to aid someone, when it could reduce harm. This could likely be considered to not be an action of harm, since the action of not doing something does not cause the harm. But the trick is, a significant amount of harm, and perhaps much more harm could result from inaction. For example, if you see someone crossing the street, and see a car heading straight for them, which they dont notice, a simple action of yelling “watch out!” could stop the harm, where inaction would cause them to be harmed by the car. An example of indirect inaction causing harm, could be simply not donating money to a charity that reduces harm. The problem with considering inaction as harm, is there are countless inactions any 1 person is taking at all times.

In all, an action counting as harm can be obvious when its direct or if its the sole cause of indirect, but the more steps of cause and effect to result in the harm, or less measurable, or the more actions it takes in total to contribute, creates a fogginess of appointing an action as harm. If harm is the important thing to avoid, it seems inaction could potentially cause as much, or more harm, as action. Besides what action or inaction causes harm, distinguishing blamability, responsibility and morality seem to be another very difficult related element. Perhaps the potential to reduce actions and inactions that harm many, is the harmony of harm.

Trusting Trust

What is trust? What affects it? How can you trust your capability to trust? 

At its basics, trust can be considered; reliability to perform an expected action. This can apply to people, as well as animals and objects. If you believe you can rely on something or someone to perform an action, you trust it or them.

Objects might be arguably the easiest thing to trust, since they don't have a brain or mind to make unexpected decisions or actions. Trusting an object just depends on your knowledge and experience of the object. You can trust a bridge to hold you up, based on knowledge that an engineer built it with safety standards, or based on your experience of testing it out and using it repeatedly. There could be fluke occurrences where the bridge eventually fails from decay, but that might be after 10K uses, making it trustable 99.999% of the time. Trust basically comes down to your estimate of a high probability that something will perform as expected.

Besides humans, animals also have the ability to trust or distrust objects, other animals, and humans. Since animals have a mind, they have a high variety of reactions through the complexity of their neural network, so their reactions toward something else can be trusting or expecting an action. An animal can trust a tree to not harm it, either because of the animals instinct to have no fear of the sensory input of a tree, or because of their subconscious having so many safe experiences with trees. An animal can distrust another animal, like a deer would distrust a wolf because of instinct, or it can trust another animal based on experience, such as the wolf trusting another wolf in its pack to help catch that deer. An animal can trust a human, such as my dog trusts me to feed it, or of course most animals distrust humans, since we typically kill them throughout history.

Humans have a different variation of trust towards other things, which typically includes the same psychological reasons an animal trusts or distrusts, but also has a more complex layer caused by conscious thought. We still have the instincts to trust certain things (such as a baby trusts its mother), and subconscious influence to trust what we’ve experienced and had positive reinforcement for, but then we also have the ability to comprehend cause and effect, which includes learning knowledge. This comprehension allows us to trust or distrust something the 1st time we experience it, based on knowledge. 

For example, I trusted the bungee ropes and platform enough to jump from a platform 200 feet high, for the 1st time, because of knowledge of safety standards in my country, and knowledge that many people have done it before me. Virtually no animal would willingly make that jump. Or you might not trust going over to a cute baby bear, because you have the comprehension of cause and effect that the mother bear might be right nearby and will react to tear you apart. 

A person trusting another person is likely the most complex and varying form of trust, since not only do you yourself have such a varying neurological potential for decisions and awareness of knowledge, but you are also aware that the other person has such a wide variety of potential decisions and actions based on psychology. Perhaps the most significant component to trust becoming difficult from person to person, is the awareness of mind of others, and that they can very easily lie and deceive. Animals may be able to deceive in some cases, but humans have a much higher capability to deceive and lie using our conscious thought. Trust may be easy and common as a child growing up, but once the child learns, experiences, and comprehends more about others ability (as well as their own) to deceive and selfishly betray, trust becomes much more difficult to have. 

With trustability of another person to perform an expected action becoming far more difficult to assess, trusting still comes down to knowledge and experience of the other person, but usually takes more time and more evidence. Not only do you need enough experience with the person being reliable in a certain way, but also a significant advantage is to comprehend the other person's overall tendencies and typical decisions. 

This trust can be on a small scale and not require much depth or variety of actions to be trusted, such as trusting an employee to work hard, or on a large scale, such as choosing a life partner, roommate, or long term friend. When it comes to large scale, estimating and evaluating the others’ typical decisions would often be relevant to their overall values and principles. Understanding why that person chooses to do certain things and how they treat others is a significant advantageous tool we can use as conscious beings. By far 1 of the best and underestimated methods for this is communication. Asking questions, and verifying details to understand why the other person has taken (and does take) actions and made (and makes) decisions. To verify overarching  reliability of expectation, verify authenticity. And the simplest way to gain the overarching trust of another, is to be authentic.

Overall, objects can be easy to trust with knowledge, animals can be fairly trustable through knowledge and experience, and humans take more work to be able to trust their complex conscious minds to have consistent outcomes and tendencies. Perhaps once you understand trust to a more accurate degree, and learn effective methods to discern trust, you can trust yourself to be effective at Trusting Trust. 

Covid Response Rationality

Was the response of restrictions and mandates rational, in order to reduce risk of harm from Covid?

Normally I tend to cover more generalized concepts which can apply to a variety of aspects of life, but this specific topic seems pressingly relevant, so that it’s more distinguishably comprehensible. In my recent post I analyzed the more generalized concept related to this; Risk Free- Reduction, as a prelude. My basic conclusion was that, generally, for freedom of all to be reduced in order to reduce risk towards others who are able to protect themselves, it seems reasonable that the risk should be to a significant degree, and well proven. When applying that concept to Covid restrictions (or any restrictions), determining what is significant risk, and what is well proven, can be subjective (as I further philosophized in a post from about 2 yrs ago; Proven Fact), but as is common, a Best Guess (another post from about 2 yrs ago) is necessary for virtually everything we do in life. 

The best estimates for these factors related to Covid restrictions, would likely vary depending on the state which society is in. At the beginning of the outbreak of Covid, there was not a large quantity of proof of risk of harm for data on that specific disease, but with that lack of data, estimates of harm can rationally be based on the most similar factors which we did have data on. The most similar factors to Covid at the time, would likely be previous outbreaks of similar viruses. The data on those, seemed to be fairly sufficient proof to suggest a significantly high degree of risk of harm towards others. At that time, the risk seemed high enough to reasonably reduce freedom of all by implementing restrictions. 

As time went on, we gained data on the specific factor of Covid 19, so we could base more accurate estimates on that data, rather than similar factors. After implementing restrictions of freedom for the understandable risk, it became obvious that the virus was inevitably going to continue to spread, and that the implemented restrictions were not effective to stop the virus, but perhaps to slow it down. This is where it seems rational that reductions of freedom become questionable, considering any risk of harm towards others, was based on those others choosing to take the risk themselves, at least in societies of the world where there are sufficient basic resources. Virtually anyone had the freedom to protect themselves based on the data we had, since most people could isolate either on their own, or stay within a certain group of people, and or use significant protective equipment. All these options could reduce risk to nearly zero. 

Since we gained specific data on factors causing individuals to be at much higher risk, there was sufficient proof for individuals to estimate their own risk, based on affecting factors (preconditioned vulnerabilities to the virus). Vulnerable individuals had the option to protect themselves, and community resources (such as tax money) could have gone toward supporting them and helping to protect them. Since this was an obvious viable option, the restriction of freedom on everyone, no longer seemed reasonable to reduce risk of harm towards others. It was evident that restrictions on everyone were not effective for protection, so the reduction of freedom on all was worse than pointless, but only increasing harm to mental health and reduced resources on more people. 

We could have allowed freedom of choice, to allow those who decide the risk of Covid is significantly low for them based on preconditions (age and health) to continue resource production. With additional resources (compared to restricting everyone), more aid could be put toward more effectively protecting those who choose to protect themselves. Besides funding for those who are vulnerable and unable to work due to risk, methods of distributing resources to them without risk of spreading the virus could have been further developed and implemented (such as provided sanitized delivery of goods, and more effective mask protection). This would have no doubt allowed for greater protection of those who are vulnerable, as well as allowed freedom for all and stopped the harm done from restrictions forced on all. 

So it seems it could have been arguably reasonable to reduce freedom for all near the beginning stages of Covid, when there was little data and potentially high risk. But soon after it became evident that the virus could not be eradicated, much more effective measures could have likely been taken to simultaneously better protect the vulnerable to Covid, as well as the rest of society from the significant amount of short and long -term harm caused by restrictions of freedom. Perhaps the continued force of harm on society perpetuated by the government, was followed out of fear which often comes with a lack of distinguishing relevant causes and effects of changing variables. Hopefully this, among many things, has been learned throughout.

What’s Left after a Virus Variable?

What seems to be the result so far for society and politics after 2 years of controversial policy regarding the new variable that was introduced to the world?

For the last 2 years there has been policy implemented which has seemed to test political ideology. With a new variable spreading across the world in the form of a virus, the question and practice was pushed to make policies regarding safety of this new variable. This seemed to test liberal ideology of at least civil liberties and free enterprise. With a new variable including unknown effects of potential harm, it likely seemed reasonable to restrict some civil liberties in order to reduce a potentially significant risk of harm (short and long -term). But as time went on, it quickly seemed evident that restricting liberties was not effective. So why did restricting liberties and free-market continue? 

Perhaps the reason has to do with the more-so “Left” idealism. Regarding Left-wing as; concern for disadvantaged groups of people, it seems logical that throughout society learning more about the effects of the virus proving to be more risky towards certain demographics, this likely became the focused concern. As may often happen with other occurrences of excessive focus on 1 aspect of compassion for a group of people, all other short and long -term negative effects involved, tend to be unconsidered. In this case, perhaps all focus was narrowed down to “protecting” those who are vulnerable to the virus. This is understandable as the most direct and attention-grabbing negative effects of the new virus were deaths of the vulnerable. 

The problem comes from the lack of consideration for negative effects caused by policies put into place with the intention of protection, even as more data and evidence became available. The generalized negative effect by the policies could be regarded as reduction of civil liberties. A common argument for people with left-wing ideology, might be that it's worth the restrictions, in order to protect the vulnerable. But it seems likely that the over-focusing causes disregarding of relevant contradicting details. Beyond the generalized concept of individual liberties being restricted (including short and long -term), details that seem to be ignored or immediately dismissed actually contradict the intention of protection. Contradicting concepts that are disregarded, could be; 

1) Alternative methods of protection for individuals

2) Negative effects of mainstream protection methods. 

1) More specific examples of alternative methods of protection against harm from the virus could include; immunity from previous infection, vitamin D, overall physical health (exercise and eating healthy), and medicine other than vaccines. By disregarding these alternative methods of protection, it contradicts the intention of protection, since many more people could be protected using these methods, and they could be incorporated even with the mainstream protection method to much better protect those who are vulnerable. 

2) Negative effects of mainstream protection methods could include; degradation of mental and physical health from forced isolation and market reduction, as well as negative side effects from mainstream medical procedures. By disregarding these effects, it quite obviously contradicts the intention of protection, since many are harmed from these effects, rather than protected. 

When alternative methods and negative effects of practiced methods are ignored because of over-focus on 1 aspect, the results are likely to be much less effective than they could be, or even counter-productive to the intention. Perhaps shallow idealism that has a narrow perspective of few factors and generalizes concepts, disregarding counter details, should be regarded with significant caution. After this new virus variable, perhaps what’s Left, is at least that 1 lesson to be learned.

Mandate Critical Thinking

As happens with many pressures that come along in life, for a lot of people there seems to be a lack of critical thinking regarding Covid mandates and restrictions. Through taking the steps of critical thinking, someone can rationally analyze the various causes and effects which are relevant to a concept. When it comes to mandates and restrictions, logic can be applied to understand better whether or not they are necessary and helpful in the way that they are being pushed by the government.

1 of the first basic questions to consider could be; are they for the protection of others, or the individual? If mandates and restrictions are for the protection of the individual, is it worth taking away free choice of an individual to force protection on them? Consider other examples of restrictions in life that would follow this principle. If you agree with forced protection, then would you also agree that exercise should be mandated? And if the government really values protection of individual citizens, why has exercise been restricted by closing parks, conservation area’s and beaches in the summer, and gyms and all public exercise in the winter?

Would you also agree to your free choice being restricted by banning any greasy and sugary foods, for your protection? All of these measures would not only prevent severeness of Covid, but also quite significantly prevent many other illnesses, including the top causes of death.

Or, are mandates and restrictions perhaps for the protection of others? If so, who are the others that need protection and can’t protect themselves? Everyone has had a chance to take a vaccine, in 1st world countries at least, so if the vaccines effectively prevent harm, why do those people still need protection? Or, if someone has a precondition and is unable to take the vaccine and is also vulnerable to Covid, they are still able to stay isolated and use precautions (such as more effective masks). If you believe everyone else should still restrict themselves so that vulnerable people don't need to restrict themselves, should we do that forever and should that also always have been the practice before covid? Considering there were always people vulnerable to many other viruses and diseases. Or if you want to think more globally and consider risks of less fortunate countries that may not have had as much opportunity for vaccines, should we be hoarding and using up vaccines on healthy people here, when that vaccine could have gone to someone at higher risk? 

If vaccines should be mandated, how do they protect others? It has been quite evident that vaccinated people still transmit Covid, and in real world scenarios, someone vaccinated, very well may be more likely to spread it, since they often have less virus symptoms, and are therefore less likely to notice & self isolate. 

Or perhaps it could be considered instead, that the ones that need protection are people in the hospital if hospitals are overwhelmed. If we don’t “flatten the curve” and slow the spread. But if so, then again, should we also have mandated exercise & banned unhealthy food? This would have reduced people going to the hospital for covid (the same as vaccines do), but also prevented people from going to the hospital for many other health reasons, and therefore kept hospitals from being overwhelmed. 

Or if you still happen to think all these methods of forced protection on an individual are helpful, why would natural immunity not be an exemption from vaccine mandates? Considering immunity after infection has been proven to be more effective than vaccines, couldn’t it be considered a virtue point to intentionally catch covid then isolate, in order to “protect others”, in the same way people have been using vaccination as bragging rights for virtue points? 

Perhaps the most significant question of all might be, if protection of others is the real intent, then why is protection from harm, so very disregarded for every other person in society? There are countless ways society is being harmed by these restrictions and mandates. When it comes to vaccine mandates (as well as censoring alternatives), the risk of harm of side effects caused by the vaccine + boosters for the rest of the individuals life, not only applies to every healthy adult being mandated, but also every teenager and child being subjected to vaccines by either parents or propaganda. 

As for lockdowns and restrictions, perhaps consideration should be directed towards the long term economic harm from businesses being forced to shut down or reduce customers. But more urgently, the short term harm could be acknowledged of job and business loss causing people to lose their livelihood. The mental health harm caused by forced social and activity restrictions would be vastly widespread and difficult to distinguish, but could be most impactful on children that are in a developmental stage of life. The physical harm caused by restricted exercise and forced reduction of oxygen by masks, may be similarly difficult to determine, but not irrelevant to take into account. 

In the end, it seems the question is; Is it worth the degree of risk and harm to society of these effects, to attempt to protect those who can protect themselves? As it seems there are these many intricately connected effects relative to restrictions and mandates, it is understandable that the subject is complex to evaluate effectively, but steps of critical thinking aid in making it quite plausible to have a reasonable and effective perspective. 

Perhaps instead of mandating all this harm, maybe we should mandate freedom of choice?

Risk Free- Reduction

What degree of risk towards others should be acceptable to allow freedom?

Is it a risk to have a reduction of freedom, or are there risk-free reductions of freedom?

With freedom, comes responsibility. With many actions of freedom, comes risk towards others. There is of course also risk towards oneself, but that is another subtopic, which I considered in previous posts; Free- Be. and Reduction by Regulation. Freedom of action to awarefully harm others may be another subtopic, but for this I’ll focus on unintentional harm of others.

Risking unintentional harm towards others, may seem at first like it should never be allowed, but many things are actually allowed which put others at risk, and which you might do every day. If you drive any vehicle, you are putting others at risk. Even if you drive safely, you are still putting others at risk, since a fluke accident could occur, such as mechanical malfunction, or health issue or an animal could cause you to lose control of the vehicle and crash into someone else. But the risk is to a sufficiently minimal degree, that society has decided it is an acceptable risk of harming others, for the benefit of freedom which it allows. Driving in conditions which have sufficient evidence to suggest the risk is too high to justify the freedom, are not considered acceptable, such as impaired driving. So it is the degree of risk which seems to be key for determining what freedoms should be acceptable.

Most risks towards others are only a risk towards those who don't choose to protect themselves. For eg most people could choose to significantly protect themselves from the risk of being harmed by another vehicle, by choosing to go near roads as little as possible, and use excessive protective gear at times necessary to go near roads. This ability for individuals to protect themselves seems reasonable to take into account for determining whether or not an action of freedom should be permitted. The freedom to drive in safe conditions seems reasonable to allow, considering the minimal risk towards others and ability for others to protect themselves. 

So what degree of risk towards others is sufficient to restrict a freedom of action for everyone? It seems practical that the degree of risk should be reasonably high and have significant evidence, in order to restrict an action. Other examples of restrictions of freedom of actions which put others at a degree of risk which was determined to be too high in many societies, would be; weapon ownership/ recreational usage, waste management, and building codes for public buildings/ infrastructure. Most of these seem to have reasonable evidence of risk towards others, for the degree of restriction of freedom. 

Examples of freedom of actions which put others at minimal risk, and are permitted, could be virtually endless depending on how direct of risk and how minimal of risk is considered. Egs of direct but minimal risk could be; simply walking inside any building where others are, risks collapsing the floor and harming others inside, touching a wall risks collapsing the ceiling, and going in public risks spreading disease to others (now, and even before a certain more recent virus). These risks towards others have been considered minimal enough that restricting the freedom of everyone, outweighs the risk towards others (who can protect themselves anyway).

Less direct risks towards others are more difficult to notice, determine, and prove, but could include almost any action anyone takes throughout the day. For eg, purchasing food at the store could risk someone starving to death from unavailability of that item. Even if there’s many in stock, perhaps more won't be shipped in (if for eg the leader of that society irrationally reduces freedom for personal choice of risk of medical procedure, which causes workers (such as truck drivers) to lose their jobs). The risk of harm towards others is minimal, of buying any product, so it is a reasonable freedom. Using any electricity, any gas motor, or even any product made from wood or plants, puts others at indirect risk of harm from climate change. Buying any unhealthy fast food also puts others at indirect risk of heart disease or cancer (top 2 causes of death I believe), since the products are more easily available and advertised to others as a result of your purchase. These indirect risks towards others could be quite significant, but are very difficult to determine or prove.

In all, it seems many actions we take, put others at some degree of risk. But when the risk is minimal, most actions seem to be reasonable to be considered acceptable freedoms. If risks of an action are unproven, and others have their own choice to protect themselves, does it make sense to Risk Freedom Reduction?

Authority of Freedom

Who has authority to reduce someone's freedom?

This may be largely dependent on the perspective of morals which is taken. In a post; Mutual Morality, I tried to outline plausible general prospects for morals. If the ideology is agreed upon that everyone in a society should follow the general moral guidelines of trying to allow maximum enjoyment for all, then it seems to follow that someone may only have authority to reduce another's freedom, if it is to increase overall enjoyment. 

Of course estimating overall enjoyment is complicated, especially since enjoyment is subjective. These complications are why there are so often disputes and arguments, basically anywhere on Earth where there are people. Societies usually have a somewhat decent concept put into place to deal with disputes, by having appointed individuals with extra authority who are supposed to have additional knowledge on pre-set moral guidelines we call laws. But Perhaps individuals could reduce disputes themselves, with more understanding of these concepts, and perhaps these concepts could be applied to circumstances where law is not applicable.

If the moral ideology is agreed upon of maximum enjoyment, complications can arise from estimating a comparison of oneself's enjoyment to another’s. Since this is all based on subjectivity, it may be best to take a default estimate of equality. If all individuals took this perspective that others enjoyment is of equal value as their own, they would avoid reducing someone else's freedom or enjoyment for their own benefit. 

This perspective of equality could also apply to scenarios of someone assuming they know better of what is best for someone else. I covered more of this idea in a post called; Freedom of Choice. As noted in that post, some scenarios exist where someone likely does know better and could have the authority to make a decision for another, such as parents over their children, or humans over animals. But how does this extend to authorities within society?

In reality, circumstances of life can be so complicated, where the effects on 1 person are very different than others and the difference of enjoyment could be significantly noticeable. If additional information and communication with those involved doesn't work to come to an agreement, authority could be given to additional 3rd party perspectives. Also, in reality, everyone does not follow these guidelines, so if someone blatantly and obviously disregards others enjoyment, this is where, ideally, societies designated authority of power could be applied. 

The next question could be; how much authority should be given to those in power? If authority is blindly given, this can lead to mass reduction of enjoyment or freedom, as can be seen by many examples of dictators in history. Keeping authority restricted to it’s scope of applicability for decision making could be 1 step to determine how much authority should be given. Not only can authority of power be given to individuals, but perhaps also authority could be taken back when deemed necessary to uphold morals of Authority of Freedom.

Read-lists

To keep things a bit more organized and centrally accessible, I've created some read-lists of categories which are more specific than the "labels" categories. I'll try to update this with new lists as I eventually sort. 

The following read-list categories include; Intelligence, Mental mechanics, Neuronics, Positive Perception, Ethics in Society, Faulty Humanity, Emotion Neurochemicals, Language, AI, Free-Will, Science of God, The Concept of a Concept

Intelligence (16)

Intellectual Intel (What is intellect?) 12 2016

IQ: Intelligence Questionability (Which function of intelligence is more effective?) 02 2017

Intellect Incorporated (What aspects have been incorporated from animals to humans?) 09 2017

Intelligence Inversion (What causes intelligence?) 02 2018

Generalised Intelligence (What allows intelligence of general circumstances?) 03 2018

General AI (How can general intelligence be programmed?) 03 2018

Learning Learning (What are the components involved in learning?) 01 2019

Maximum Intellect (What is a theoretical maximum for intellect?) 03 2019

Intelligence Evolution by Language (How has language influenced intelligence?) 04 2019

Intelligence; Inherent or Integrated (Is intelligence inherent or integrated?) 01 2020

General vs Memory Intelligence (differences general vs memory intelligence?) 01 2020

Intelligence Development (How has intelligence developed up to this point?) 01 2020

Intelligence Advancement (What are potentials for intelligence to advance?) 01 2020

Adaptive Intelligence (What function of intelligence is involved in being adaptable?) 04 2020

Intelligence Inference (How can a degree of intelligence be inferred?) 05 2020

Human Advantage (what advantage do humans have over other animals?) 05 2020

Mental mechanics (13)

Calculative Decisions (How does the brain make decisions?) 07 2017

Decision Drive (How predictable could human decisions be?) 09 2017

Memory Mechanics of the Mind (How does the mind function?) 01 2018

Plane’s of Brains (what categories are there for function of the brain?) 04 2018

Plane Priority (how do the categories of function interact?) 04 2018

Determinisation of Consciousness (Could someone’s decisions be calculated?) 04 2018

Equation of Action (What causes someone to take action?) 08 2018

Motivation Direction (What causes motivation?) 06 2019

Preprogrammed Adaptability (What preprogramming allows adaptability?) 09 2019

Fundamental Focus (Why do our senses, and memory access, focus on specifics?) 11 2019

Mind Driver (Which process drives the mind?) 11 2019

Reinforcement Mechanisms (How does the mind utilize reinforcement mechanisms?) 01 2020

Interpretation of Interpretation (How does interpretation function?) 03 2020

Neuronics (13) (updated Sept 20 2020)
Efficient Ease of Numerous Neurons (efficient use of neurons for consciousness?) 01 2018
Memory Combination Creations (How memories saved without new sensory data?) 04 2018

Neuronic Information (how is info divided between neurons to allow combinations?) 02 2018

Memory Information (How are memories saved and accessed as information?) 10 2019

Conscious Neural Combo (neural combinations involved in cause and effect?) 10 2019
Concept Neural Combo (combination of neurons required for a concept?) 10 2019

Brain Bytes (How does our brains’ memory compare to computers’?) 11 2019

Electric Brain (How does electricity flow to neurons to create memories?) 11 2019

Instruction Interpretation Code (How does the brain use coding for neurons?) 11 2019

Subconscious Conscious-Memory Access (subc. access of conscious data?) 11 2019

Sub -Conscious Shift (How memories shift from conscious to subconscious?) 11 2019

Neuronic Territory (Do subconscious and conscious use different neurons?) 12 2019

Processing Proportions (proportions of subconscious and conscious used?) 05 2020

Positive Perception (15) (updated Sept 21 2020)

Negatron Negative, Positive, what’s the ultimate outcome of this world? rep (reposted) 01 2017

Alive with Drive What gives the drive to feel alive? (rep) 04 2017

Live in Fear, Live in Mere How does fear affect everyday life? (rep) 05 2017

Formula For Feedback formula for positive and negative feedback triggers? 01 2018

Confidence Key of Experimental Evidence How does experience cause confidence? 03 2018

Positive Perception What causes a perception of positivity? 11 2018

Contendment for Contentment What causes Contentment, and how is it achieved? 11 2018

Emotional Perception Can reinforcement triggers be manually driven? 06 2019

Motivation Direction What constructs of the mental feedback system cause motivation? 06 2019

Positron Are there negatives in this world, or only a lack of positives? 09 2019

*Positive Reinforcement Perception Relativity perception of negativity manipulated? 09 2019

*Scope of Hope Is hope a help or hinder? 09 2019

Past Positive How can someone perceive positives from the past as positive? 09 2019

Pass the Positive How can an indirect positive be passed, to add to perception? 09 2019

Grate Should we be grateful to God during times of difficulty? 11 2019

Ethics in Society (13) (updated Oct 1 2020)

Components of Contribution Is making a contribution pointless, or praising? (reposted) 01 2017

Prequel Chance, Equal Enhance to what extent should all be considered equal? (rep) 08 2017

Distribution Devisal What's the most effective method of distribution for a group? 09 2017

Concept of Contribution How should contribution be considered and calculated?  08 2018

Disproportionate Society Causes and effects of a disproportionate society? 08 2018

Greater Good How is the Greater Good determined? 11 2018

Titled, but not Entitled Is anyone legitimately entitled to anything? 12 2018

Reduction by Regulation What's an effective limit for regulations? 12 2018
Free- Be. advantages of freedom? How much liberty is effective? 12 2018

Material Motivation What causes and effects are there for materialism? 05 2019

Mutual Morality What morals should be followed? 06 2019
The con, in Conform pro’s and con’s of conformity?

Fairly Fair what is the most fair perspective for valuing all units included? 08 2019

Faulty Humanity (12) (updated Oct 1)

Mind Bind Causes and effects of blindly following in a mind bind? (rep) 07 2017

Power of Purchase How significant is the effect of purchases in this world? (rep) 08 2017

Colossal Collateral What collateral damage are humans causing? 09 2017

Intellect Incorporated How much does intellect need to catch up to society? 09 2017

Cynical Cinematic Sample of Society What are some examples of stupid society? 09 2017

Humanities Murder-Suicide factors of our murder of Earth/ suicide of humanity? 10 2018

Emotion in Motion How does emotion suit the motion of modern society? 04 2019

Update Pending: Subconsciousness Is subconscious outdated for society? 04 2019

The Fault of Default Hardware effects of defaulting to the subconscious in society? 04 2019

Intelligence Development How has intelligence developed throughout humanity? 01 2020

Intelligence Advancement How might intelligence advance in the future? 01 2020

Tree of Knowledge Effects from humans eating from the tree of knowledge? 02 2020

Emotion Neurochemicals (11) (updated Spet 23)

Formula For Feedback What is the formula for feedback triggers? 01 2018

Instinctivity What is instinct, and what effect does it have on the mind? 11 2018

The Notion of Emotion How does emotion function? 03 2019

Emotion in Motion How does emotion suit the motion of modern day life? 04 2019

(AI)motion How would “emotions” be programmed in an AI? 04 2019

Emotional Perception difference between emotion and reinforcement triggers? 06 2019

Motivation Direction Are feedback triggers the cause of all motivations? 06 2019

Reinforcement Mechanisms How the mind uses reinforcement mechanisms? 01 2020

Emotion Reinforcement How do Re-triggers affect as emotion? 01 2020

Emotional Effect  What effects do emotions cause? 02 2020

Conscious Emotion How do emotions affect conscious thought? 02 2020

Language (11) (updated Sept 26)

Vocabularisation How distinct is vocabulary? 04 2017

Theory of Thought Can all conscious thought be viable using memory of words? 01 2018

Indistinctivity How distinct is interpretation of terminology? 09 2018

Labelling Language How significant language, for intelligence? 04 2019

Intelligence Evolution by Language Language influences on evolution? 04 2019

Artificially Intelligent Language How can a labeling system be applied for AI? 04 2019

Processes for Thought How does the mind construct sentences? 09 2019

Labelling Memory Information How are labels saved as info in memory? 10 2019

Categorically How are various categories saved in memory? 10 2019

Define Define What are the parameters of any given definition? 04 2020

Generalized Subconscious Communication Use of generalized communication? 08 2020

AI (6) (updated Sept 28 2020)

AC (Artificial Consciousness) Could consciousness be replicated artificially? 01 2018

General AI Aspects of instinct and subconscious to program general AI? 03 2018

Key Concept to Create General AI How are Concepts relevant for GAI? 03 2018

(AI)motion How would “emotions” be programmed in AGI? 04 2019

Conscious Artificial Intelligence Programming of consciousness? 04 2019

Artificially Intelligent Language labeling system applied for AGI? 04 2019

Free Will (14) (updated Sept 28 2020)

Intercedal implementation what extents does God intercede? 02 2017

Control to Free, Allowance Degree God knows future, we have free will? 02 2017

Inverted Inevitability Is everything inevitable? Was it always? 10 2017

Indeterminisation If purpose, then why probability in the universe? 10 2017

Conditional Coercion can conditions for free-will be guaranteed? 10 2017

Intrication How would God continue his will without altering free will? 10 2017

Relevant Route of Decision Direction how can God change our decisions? 11 2017

Influence Implementation How can God use our will? 11 2017

*Evolution of Free Will How evolution allows free will, and how it evolves? 11 2017

Free Will, Alter & Falter Why does free will cause harm in this world? 08 2018

Relevance of Will Is anyone’s will relevant, relative to God’s will? 02 2020
Willing Gods Will How much free will can be given up willingly? 02 2020

Free Will Requirements What basic building blocks required for free will? 02 2020

Unknown Freedom How does knowledge affect free will? 02 2020

Science of God (9) (updated Sept 30)

Deity Deduced Universal deductions 01 2017

Methods of Miraculous Manipulation Does God use science? 01 2017

Law of Physics or God Compiler of laws of physics 01 2017

Evolution of Free Will How can evolution of humans cause free will? 11 2017

Potential Functional Consciousness of God Function of God’s consciousness? 11 2018

Method of Guidance How could God guide someone scientifically? 02 2020

Adam and Eve Adamant Evolution Could Adam and Eve be in evolution? 02 2020

Distinguishment of Divinity What attributes distinguish God? 02 2020

Evidence of Alteration Is there, or could there be, evidence of God? 02 2020

The Concept of a Concept (9) (updated Oct 1)

General Generalization How is a concept generalized? 04 2018

Carry the Concept How can a concept be carried to new variables? 09 2018

Philosophication What is Philosophy? 05 2019

Learning Memory Mechanisms How are concepts involved in learning? 09 2019

Complete the Concept How is a concept complete? 10 2019

Questioning Questioning What is the process of questioning? 10 2019

Concept Neural Combo Neurons’ function in comprehension of a concept 10 2019

Context of Context What are the parameters of context? 03 2020

Hypothetically Hypothetical What does hypothetical mean? 03 2020