Two Pillars of Enlightenment

Because of this, people without spiritual inclinations are not interested in a deeper consideration of this concept. In this text, we will try to discard prejudices and demonstrate that the question of enlightenment is, in fact, a question of understanding moral principles. We will show that the level of awakedness is an objectively measurable parameter of personality.

To be enlightened

Being awakened, unlike sleeping, means being aware. But aware of what? Becoming enlightened, enriched with light, means illuminating, i.e., becoming conscious of the foundations of one's being. But what are these foundations? In

this text

we talked more about the building blocks of our character and learned that sovereignty and equality as the foundations of our being are manifested in reality as two moral principles that should serve as a filter for every thought, word, and above all, action. Being enlightened means being aware of the existence of these two principles and living morally, i.e., in accordance with them. That's why they are called the two pillars of enlightenment, and they are:

1. The Principle of Non-Aggression. Do not initiate harm to others. - In other words, do not violate someone else's sovereignty. This principle nurtures equality, and if it is not well-formed, we have the master syndrome, where we tend to be bullies or act as if we have greater inherent rights than others.
2. The Principle of (Self)defense If someone has initiated harm, you have the right to defend (yourself) by force. - In other words, do not allow someone to violate your sovereignty. If it is not well-formed, we have the slave syndrome, where we tend to become victims and believe that others have greater inherent rights than us.

Harm

The first question we encounter is, What is harm?. Harm is a consequence that arises from an action that is not in accordance with the natural ownership of a material object. Such an action is called a harmful action. For more information about the nature of ownership, I invite you to read

this text

. What should be kept in mind throughout this analysis is the terminological difference between harm and unwanted effect. We refer to the consequence of any action as an effect, while an unwanted effect is an effect that is not in the subject's interest. Harm is the unwanted effect that arises from actions that are not in accordance with natural ownership. Initiating harm constitutes a violation of the non-aggression principle, which implies that it is justified to prevent harmful action through the application of physical force, i.e., it is justified to apply the principle of (self)defense. In other words, the one who initiates harmful action in a given situation is considered immoral. Anyone has the right to use force to prevent them from causing harm. There are two types of harmful actions:

1. Direct - (Inter)actions that, independently of the context, inherently cause harm. For an action to be direct, it must involve interaction, meaning it must have multiple participants, and the one who suffers harm must be a participant in the interaction.
2. Indirect - Actions that, on their own, do not cause harm but are complicit actions that contribute to direct harmful actions. Additionally, the one suffering harm is not a participant in these actions.

Direct actions

A conscious being named Conor is performing a direct action on an object owned by Owen. The object can be anything that Owen possesses, including his property or his body. We call the result of the action harm, and an action is considered a direct harmful action if and only if the following conditions are met:

1. Lack of consent - Owen does not consent with the action, thus fulfilling the necessary condition for harm, i.e., the owner's consent is violated.
2. Coercion - Owen's ability to make a free choice has been taken away, thereby meeting the necessary condition for harm, i.e. Owen is compelled, physical force is applied to him, or the threat of physical force is imposed upon him.

Each of these conditions is necessary but not a sufficient condition. Let's examine all the possibilities using a table of cases.

	Lack of consent	Consent
Coercion	1 - Harm	3 - No harm - The owner agrees to the use of force
No Coercion	2 - No harm - The owner is free to walk away with the object	4 - No harm

From the table, we can see four cases:

1. If there is both lack of consent and coercion, then a sufficient condition is met, and the principle of non-aggression is violated. Harm is initiated, the action is immoral, and regardless of whether harm actually occurred, an immoral act has been committed. It is justified to defend oneself by using physical force. In this case, Conor would be referred to as an aggressor or a perpetrator of violence, while Owen would be the victim.
2. When there is no physical force compelling someone, every individual is free to avoid unhealthy frameworks and relationships they do not consent to, thereby having the potential for preventing an unwanted effect. Owen's free choice is a crucial factor that determines whether an unwanted effect will occur. If we were to consider this effect as harm, both Conor and Owen would be responsible for the harm due to their freedom of choice. It would then be justified to apply physical force to either of them to prevent harm. However, this would lead to absurdity because it would then be justified to use physical force on Owen to protect him from the unwanted effects of his own free choices. For example, if Conor somehow conditions, coerces, or belittles Owen, it would be justified to physically remove Owen from the situation to prevent the effects of those words on him. Ironically, in this scenario, the only aggressor would be the one who attempted to protect Owen in this way because they introduced coercion, thereby depriving Owen of his freedom of choice. In situations of this type, Owen is often in a mental cage that he unconsciously maintains due to reasons such as the illusion of comfort, lack of courage, irrational fear, lack of self-belief, self-hatred, etc. The exception is fear grounded in threats of force, which, as we will see later, elevates this situation to category 1.
3. The presence of physical coercion alongside consent suggests voluntary role-playing as a dominant and submissive, which cannot be characterized as immoral. Real-life situations of this nature can include acting scenes or consensual sexual interactions.
4. Interactions accompanied by consent and without coercion constitute the largest set of interactions. These are just standard voluntary and free interactions.

So, among direct actions, the only harmful ones are actions in which both lack of consent and coercion are present. Other types of direct actions do not constitute harmful actions.

Indirect actions

The aggressor carries out a direct harmful action against the victim. There are three approaches that a third party (referred to as Defton in the following text) can have regarding this:

1. Positive Approach - Defton tries to prevent harm in any way or protect the victim. These are actions in line with the principle of (self)defense, and we call them helping the victim. They can also be referred to as actions to obstruct the aggressor. Such actions are not harmful; in fact, they are moral.
2. Neutral Approach - Defton does nothing regarding the situation; his actions are irrelevant to the situation, as if he doesn't exist. These actions are commonly referred to as not helping and can also be called non-obstructing, in the context of both the aggressor and the victim. Since this is a lack of action, it cannot be considered a harmful action. Therefore, it is not immoral, and it is not justified to compel this observer in any way. This forms the basis for the conclusion that helping is not a moral obligation. You can read more about this in
   this text
   .
3. Negative Approach - Defton attempts in any way to enable harm or protect the aggressor. These are actions that violate the principle of non-aggression, and we call them obstructing the victim or actions of complicity in direct harmful actions. They can also be referred to as actions helping the aggressor. Such actions are harmful, i.e., they are immoral. It follows that it is justified to use force to prevent them.

So, among indirect actions, the only harmful actions are those of a negative approach to the original harmful action. It is important to emphasize that in the case of these actions, a new observer has the same choice in selecting a reaction. Therefore, someone can react with a positive, neutral, or negative approach to an indirect harmful action. Other types of indirect actions do not constitute harmful actions.

Force

The application of physical force is justified and moral only if a harmful action has been initiated. In all other situations, it is not justified to apply force, as doing so would make us the aggressors. The limit on the amount of force justified in (self)defense against an immoral act or violence is determined by two parameters: the amount of force in the immoral act KN and the minimum amount of force required to defend against it KO. It falls within the range [0, max(KN, KO)], where 0 represents not using force. From the formula, we can observe two cases:

1. In the first case, the amount of force in the immoral act is less than or equal to the minimum amount of force required for defense. In this case, the justified amount of force is any force less than or equal to what the victim needs for defense, i.e., in the range from 0 to KO.
2. In the second case, the amount of force in the immoral act is greater than the minimum amount required for defense. In this case, the justified amount of force is any amount of force in the range between 0 and KN.

In other words, if it is necessary to respond with the maximum possible force, including killing the aggressor, in order to (self)defend, then it is morally justified to do so. The burden of moral responsibility is never on the victim or defender, although in individual situations, roles may change due to the use of unjustified force. In the case of using force beyond the justified range, the previous victim would become the aggressor, and it would be justified by the same principles to defend against them. Although a threat of force is not physical force itself, it is a form of coercion. If the other conditions for harm are also met, it is justified to use force to (self)defend. Is a threat of force coercion? The answer to this question is essentially the answer to whether there is no possibility of free choice for the person being threatened. When someone threatens force, they demand a certain course of action from the other person and claim that if the person acts contrary to their will, physical force will be applied. Because the free choice of the person being threatened undoubtedly results in coercion, we can argue that the person's freedom is already taken away during the threat, i.e., that the threat of force is coercion. To learn more about the concept of the amount of force and whether a threat of force is always verbal and in what variations it appears, you can read about it in

this text

.

Knowledge and capabilities

Since we, as beings, are limited by space and time, there are often situations when we do not possess all the relevant information, i.e., when our perception is not aligned with the truth. In this regard, there are two limitations that make fair reactions challenging:

1. Knowledge - Our perspective is limited by consciousness and knowledge, which is why we must exercise caution in judgment and reaction if we want to be fair. Whenever possible, it is best to gather enough information before reacting, and if that's not the case, it's even more important to know the right measure of reaction in an attempt to minimize harm. To answer the question, "Is it okay to react?" we need knowledge about the situation, so a lack of knowledge represents a mental limitation. There are real situations when acquiring more information or obtaining consent is impossible before taking action, and we call them situations of deferred consent. You can learn more about their nature within
   this text
   .
2. Capability - The question, "Are we capable of reacting?" points to another aspect of limitation in moral action, which is the spatial-temporal (material) limitation.

Both limitations, especially the second one, introduce the possibility that the reaction may be delayed, meaning that the response does not represent defense during moments of violence but rather punishment or revenge after an immoral act, with or without harm done. Since these phenomena are of broad scope, I invite those interested to read

this text

dedicated to them. Within the first point, I mentioned the desire for justice. To understand why it is important to be just, you can read

this text

. Let's return to the analysis and recognize two characteristics of (re)action:

1. Proportionality - The intensity of the (re)action directly affects the severity of the outcome and its potential correctability. Although it does not change the morality of the (re)action, it is best when it is in line with the situation, neither excessive nor too weak. In the absence of knowledge, this factor becomes even more crucial because if the (re)action is excessive, it can lead to unjust (re)actions and irreparable harm. When it is too weak, it can lead to failure in terms of (self)defense.
2. Timeliness - It is constrained by physical capabilities. If the reaction is delayed, a temporal window opens in which there can be a change in the general state of the participants in the interaction. Therefore, the same, now delayed reaction, can be an immoral action within the context of the ongoing situation. Revenge is one form of a delayed reaction. On the other hand, a premature reaction affects knowledge and indirectly the ability to react justly. Assuming maximum knowledge, a premature reaction is desirable, but the problem with this is that in general, it is impossible because it involves looking into the future, which violates the laws of causality. Therefore, timeliness, especially prematurity, further emphasizes the importance of intensity. This strongly resembles Spielberg’s movie Minority Report in which Tom Cruise does exactly that. You can read an analysis of the morality of this film
   here
   .

Furthermore, it is important to understand that our abilities, knowledge, or lack thereof regarding a particular interaction do not change the nature of the morality of that interaction. In other words, the interaction and all the information that constitutes it objectively exist, or have existed, regardless of whether we are aware of them and to what extent. Therefore, there is only one correct decision. Applying physical force is objectively just or unjust, and this cannot be altered in any way. It does not depend on our knowledge of the interaction, our ability to react, or even our understanding of morality. This fact makes morality objective.

Conclusion

The two pillars of enlightenment are desirable behaviors within the framework of moral law. By striving to align our everyday actions with it, we build a solid foundation for the development of our own values, and thereby, stable grounds for the development of an extremely prosperous society. Such a society is not governed by human law but lives in accordance with natural moral law. What is the moral law, how does it work, and what is its nature? Find out more in

this text

. Eventually, I would like to invite you to test the presented analysis with examples and try to find cases where the application of these rules results in a wrong decision. In other words, try to find situations where applying these rules would turn an immoral action into a moral one, or vice versa. Analyze the true nature of that action, and if you find one, feel free to contact me via email and send your example and explanation. Often, when we talk abstractly, everything seems to make sense, but faced with examples, or when we are the actors in questionable interaction, conflicts and misunderstandings arise. That’s why I suggest that before you dive deep into your own search, cut the trouble and read

this text

which goes through controversial examples and shows how this logic applies to them.