The Philosophy of Explanation

Under the idea of ethics, we discuss what a properly functioning human being is and requires. Under the idea of morality, we discuss what a rational functioning society is and requires. A rational functioning society can continue to exist only when the individuals of whom it consists are happy. Otherwise, there will be tribal warfare, and the society will collapse as its individuals are killed off.

We note that the smallest society consists of two persons. If we were to discuss two people living together on a deserted island, we would be able to discuss what a rational functioning society is and that upon which its happy existence depends. And in doing so, we would discover the answer to one of the greatest questions facing man.

What is personal salvation, and upon what does it depend?

Note: Personal salvation is not achieved in isolation. When one understands one is worthy of personal salvation, one’s thoughts and thereby one’s actions will be fundamentally altered.

An ethical person, a person selfishly motivated by personal salvation, will seek another person similarly motivated by personal salvation. When successful, the living-existence of each is saved. Their personal salvation is provided to them by their God, by their mutually agreed-to godly interaction. God is their savior. Notice how their godly interaction is something they are responsible for and not the other way around.

Note that they each become both their own personal savior and the savior of their chosen sexual partner. In other words, they are responsible for the existence of their God. It is their godly behavior that is responsible for their salvation. Further, it is God that is responsible for the salvation of the human species.

The idea described by the concept of capitalism does not address why human happiness exists, in abundance, on this planet. Capitalism was not created to address the issue of happy human existence. Capitalism was created only to describe how properly functioning persons behave when socially engaged; they behave rationally. In other words, capitalism discusses that behavior, the natural product of which is the proper existence of human beings in a social setting. It does not discuss that behavior, the natural product of which is the happy existence of individual human beings.

As implied above, there is a specific kind of capitalistic behavior that is responsible for the selfish production of personal happiness. But to avoid a great deal of confusion, we must replace the term capitalism whenever we discuss the purposefully selfish production of personal happiness. That new term is God. Like capitalism, God also describes proper human behavior in a social setting. Where capitalism describes rational human behavior, God describes required human behavior. To be considered a happy human being, one must not only be able to act in accordance with what God is and describes, one must actually do that.

God is the new term replacing capitalism whenever that specific behavior responsible for the purposeful production of human happiness is discussed. God is responsible for causing, or producing, that intellectual condition the existence of which is called happiness. Note here that human happiness does not exist in reality, it exists in intelligence. One cannot go to a market and purchase a bag full of happiness. Intellectual happiness is produced by a specific kind of human activity; it is produced by that specific capitalistic activity called God.

What happiness explains the existence of must be produced by those who are interested in experiencing it. God is not what happiness is or explains, nor is God the product resulting from the production of happiness. God is that specific human activity the naturally occurring result of which is called intellectual happiness.

Happiness is not real; it is ideal. As implied above—where capitalism involves the ideal production of reality-based profit, God involves the ideal production of reality-based happiness. Like all ideas are natural resultants of the human mind’s ability to understand the fundamental nature of reality, so is the idea of God.

Notice that, because God is a more fundamental term than capitalism, whenever we use the pre-capitalistic term God we cannot continue to properly use the newer capitalistic term profit to denote the ideal existence of its real product. The pre-capitalistic term used to denote the ideal existence of the real product of God is child. The child of God replaces the profit of capitalism when discussing human happiness. Child is the natural result of the purposeful production of self. Where capitalism is that idea focused on the needs of society, God is that idea focused on the needs of individual humans.

It is the selfish production of profit that capitalism describes. It is the happy production of children that God describes. Each is a requirement of the continued existence of human existence, although God is the more fundamental requirement. The previous allows for introducing the distinction between need and value.

Distinguishing Need from Value.

Need is a metaphysical term, and is therefore called a word. When the physical basis of need is idealized it becomes pleasure. Pleasure is the term used to describe the human animal’s automatically occurring (instinctual) response to satisfaction of need.

Where need is a requirement of proper living, pleasure is a requirement of intellectual happiness. The fundamental needs of living are food, oxygen, water and reproduction. The fundamental pleasure of understanding one is not only able to achieve eternal survival, but has enacted the virtue necessary to bring that into reality, is happiness.

Happiness moves pleasure into intelligence and calls it the fundamental human value. Happiness, then, is the intellectual concomitant of what it means to satisfy the fundamental needs of life. Not just any life, human life. Not just any human life, one’s own.

Notice how, when speaking about the selfish production of personal happiness, it is no longer proper to say we are acting in a capitalistic way. To avoid confusion when discussing that activity responsible for the selfish production of personal happiness, we must change the term we use. When producing personal happiness, we have transitioned from acting in a capitalistic manner to acting in a godly manner.

We are the source of the happiness our parents experienced in the same way our children are the source of the happiness we experience. We have reproduced the happiness they experienced by reproducing that which is responsible for it: ourselves. For our parents, the product of our selfish production of happiness is called their grandchild. Whenever we act in a godly manner, we are responsible for extending their happiness into the future. Again, personal happiness is the proper state of intellectual existence for humans, making God responsible for the rational existence of human happiness right here on earth.

Very importantly, our child is not something new in the sense that it came from nothing. Our child is the existence of a real something which continues to exist. Our child is our living-existence existing not anew, but still. Our child is our living-existence existing again as a separate living person.

Notice we have again advanced the discussion, and this requires us to change the terms we use. To avoid confusion when discussing the reproduction of self, we can no longer use the capitalistic idea of social interaction. The new idea is sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse replaces social interaction whenever we discuss our purposefully selfish godly interactions. Sexual intercourse is the fundamental moral idea because it is the fundamental ethical requirement. Recall that ethics requires that individual persons benefit from their own selfishly motivated actions. The greatest benefit an ethical person can enjoy is the continued existence of self.

God was created by the human mind to denote the existence of that special capitalistic relationship that can exist only between a man and a woman.

Where capitalism describes the fundamental requirements for the social production of profit, God describes the fundamental requirements for the social production of “the children of God.”

A capitalistic interaction produces that which is a requirement of human existence. A godly interaction produces that which is a requirement of human happiness.

God is the basis of—it is the fundamental requirement of—what capitalistic production is and requires. For capitalism to continue to produce the needs of human beings, God must continue to reproduce the living-existence of those same individual human beings, over and over again. God did not create living human beings; it only describes how their living-existence, right here on earth, is saved.

Why and how living humans came into existence in the first place is for another book. Since this is a scientific issue, it is outside the philosophical focus of this book. But let it be said here and now: like water, living human existence is the result of a naturally occurring physical phenomenon.

When insanity, and its religious counterpart, is removed from the discussion, we are left with the above “Human Nature” graphic. We now have only the real, and its rational counterpart, as the focus of our discussion. We will now study these and learn how properly functioning human beings deal with one another right here on earth.

This altered structure permits us to more closely examine the nature of human nature for the specific purpose of understanding happiness and that upon which its continued existence depends.

If one were to closely investigate the above graphic, one would find that the real alternative is the basis of ethics and that the rational alternative is the basis of morality.

Further investigation of it would reveal that only ethical persons do act properly, and only moral persons can achieve happiness.

(Personal Survival)

Under the laws of human nature, and therefore under the principles of ethics, is where we talk about survival—personal survival. To survive means to remain a living being, to remain alive. Notice that survival does not and cannot include death. This is because to die is to fail to survive death.

Like eternity, survival is not a time-sensitive idea. Survival does not mean some kind of temporary existence; it means permanent existence. To survive death means to not die, ever! But notice how this seems to contradict that which one sensually knows to be the case. Let me emphasize that the contradiction only seems to exist. The evidence is otherwise.

Survival is an idea based on the more fundamental idea of eternity. Eternal survival is the denial of a time element with regard to one’s personal existence. The eternal survival of self is an idea based in what one already knows to be the case but may not have thought about. I am going to uncover and resolve that thinking failure—the failure to identify and describe what is sensually known to be the case about the eternal nature of one’s own survival.

When we focus on the needs of our own physical existence, as the beasts do, we are constrained by what is available to our sensual observation. And we observe that individual human persons do die. I do not dispute this observation. It is a good, true, and valid observation. Individual humans do die. All humans will eventually die. All animals will eventually die. All plants will eventually die. I cannot and do not, and therefore will not, dispute this observation.

To discuss the issue of social happiness—with social happiness being the epistemological advancement on the idea of personal survival—we must move the discussion from the real to the ideal, from the physical to the rational, from the objective to the conceptual, from sensual knowing to rational understanding, from personal selfishness to social capitalism, from timed existence to eternal existence, from knowledge to intelligence.

(Social Happiness)

As previously discussed, social happiness is the epistemological concomitant of personal survival. Where survival is a word based in the eternal nature of physical reality, happiness is a concept based in the rational nature of human intelligence. Where survival involves knowing that one’s person exists, happiness involves understanding what the existence of one’s person requires for it to always remain in existence. The consequence of knowing what one’s existence requires is called survival; the consequence of understanding what one’s person requires is called happiness. Survival is physically potent, where happiness is intellectually potent. One cannot be separated from the other.

To explain the requirements of happiness requires one to understand the relationship between behavior and consequences, between acting as a beast and acting as a human, between acting religiously and acting rationally. Where acting rationally (in accordance with the laws of nature) involves reason, acting faithfully (in accordance with the dogmatic laws of religion) involves emotion.

Achieving happiness requires reason, not emotion. Emotion will get in the way of one’s achievement of happiness. To achieve happiness, one must be able to understand that there is an alternative to death and that one is able to experience that alternative. But to stop here is to fail. One must actually do that which is a requirement of one’s happiness; otherwise one will not experience it. One must behave consequentially; one must purposefully create the consequence responsible for describing what human happiness is and requires. This requires one to think about what the requirements of achieving happiness are and then put into action those virtues required to bring about a happy experience.

I am frequently asked, “Do you believe you are going to die?” I respond with “No! I know I am going to die.” But this is, of course, not a completely accurate response. And the reason for this is that knowing is a sensual response between two things when at least one of these things is a brain. In other words, I have not sensually witnessed my own physical death. Therefore, the claim “No! I know I am going to die” is not based on what I know to be the case. The accurate way to respond to such a question would be: “No! I understand that one day I will die.”

However, when one understands that one’s personal physical death does not—as if by the law of necessity—require that one’s living existence ceases to exist, this understanding will have an evolutionary effect on the way one thinks and therein on the way one behaves. This is saying that, when investigating human happiness and what it requires, one cannot be limited by what is sensually available to one’s brain. It must also include that which one’s mind rationally understands to be the case. When investigating happiness, the requirement is to understand why properly functioning human beings must act in the ways they do.

We need to understand the intellectual nature of human nature rather than just knowing that human beings do exist. Once we understand why properly functioning humans must act in the ways they do, we can begin to understand what human happiness is and that upon which its continued existence depends.

Intelligence is not a concern for what exists; intelligence is concern for what its existence is. Similarly, happiness is not concern for knowing that one exists, rather it is concern for understanding what one’s existence is and what it requires to remain what it is—that is, for it to remain in existence forever.

You and I and they do exist. That is what we need to be talking about. What is that? It is the existence of their living existence. More specifically, it is the existence of one’s own living existence and what that requires of one for it to remain in existence forever.

Existence is a concept created to describe a certain kind of idea. Existence, then, is not real—it’s ideal. Existence is not physically potent and therefore cannot be a known. The existence of existence must be—it can only be—understood. Existence is an intellectual abstraction. Like all intellectual abstractions, the existence of existence was abstracted from that which exists in a sensually knowable way.

One cannot go to a market and purchase a pound of existence. Existence does not exist in that kind of way; it does not denote a real physical something. Existence is reality idealized, rather than known. This makes existence an intellectual something as opposed to a real something. Existence denotes the existence of the absolute nature of physical reality. Existence is not what it is but that it is. Existence conceptualizes the absolute nature of physical reality into the abstract nature of rational intelligence. Existence exists as an idea within rational intelligence, not as a something within physical reality.

Existence is what knowledge is the epistemological concomitant of.

It can be said that existence exists and that knowledge is what that existence is. Knowledge is what the existence of the absolute nature of physical reality is. Knowledge is physical existence conceptualized into a rational idea. Where existence denotes the physical nature of reality, knowledge denotes the rational nature of existence. Knowledge moves the physical nature of absolute existence into the rational nature of abstract existence. Knowledge is that audio/visual symbol the human mind created to denote that what one requires to understand what the abstract nature of human happiness is—does exist. What is it? It is the existence of one’s own living person.

The issue boils down to this: Every living organism will eventually die. But does that, as if by the law of necessity, demand that its living-existence has gone out of existence? The evidence is clear, and the answer is no. What is the evidence supporting such a claim? It is the living-existence of you and me and them!

Consider this: If it is true that every person preceding you has died, in the sense their living-existence has gone out of existence, then how do you explain your living-existence? If their living-existence has actually gone out of existence, why are you still here? Where do you think your living-existence actually physically came from?

A theist will tell you that your living-existence exists because of the miraculous powers of their God-being. But your mind understands this is not the case. Your mind understands that you have parents and that it is their actions, as properly functioning living beings, that is responsible for your living-existence. Your mind understands that your living-existence is not different from that of your parents. Your mind understands this, but it may not as yet have thought about the enormous implication this will have on your intelligence, and thereby on your religion, once your mind does begin to think about it.

When your mind begins to understand that your living-existence does exist and that there is a way in which you can cause it to continue to exist—even beyond your own personal lifespan—this understanding will set your mind free of the mystical influence religious belief may now enjoy over its rational operations.

Acknowledge this: Unlike the knowing function of your brain, the understanding function of its mind, called thinking, does not proceed automatically. Thinking (the virtue of understanding) is that mind function that must be done—it must be volitionally engaged. If your mind is to ever begin to think, you are the one who must cause it to do that. I can’t cause you to think; no one can. That is your responsibility. It is your intellectual responsibility as a properly functioning human being to think about what you are, where you are living, and what these require of you.

To survive means to do that which your nature as a living being requires of you. A person living alone on a deserted island can be considered a properly functioning human being, but he cannot be considered a rational functioning member of society. Recall that it is the natural consequences resulting from one’s social interactions that determine whether one’s actions are rational or not.

In other words, our island dweller can only do that which is required to live throughout a normal lifespan. He cannot do that which is required for his living-existence to survive beyond his own physical death. He can benefit from his selfish actions, but he cannot profit from the living-existence of his own person. This is because a profitable social interaction is not available to him, and this is because he is the only person living on that deserted island.

Personal production is the fundamental requirement for the continued existence of one’s living person. The law of fundamentality applied to one’s personal existence states that personal production is that ethical act upon which the continued (eternal) existence of one’s living person depends. To be considered personally productive requires that there is another with whom one has been socially engaged. Personal production is the difference between ethical selfishness and moral capitalism. Personal production is the difference between living properly and surviving happily.

Do not become confused by what is being said here. This is not saying that people who do not, for whatever reason, have children cannot be considered to be functioning in a proper human way. That would be an absurdity. What is being said here is that they cannot be considered to be happy about that.

The contrary of happiness is sorrow. It is not possible to experience sorrow in the absence of a real cause of it. As happiness is an intellectual abstraction, so is sorrow. Since happiness and sorrow are intellectual abstractions, then, they are not sensual knowns. What they are—what their true meaning is—can only be understood.

Like all intellectual abstractions, that which is responsible for their existence is sensually known to exist. Recall that knowing is that automatically occurring sensual response between two objects when at least one of these objects is a brain. These types of automatically occurring sensual responses are more properly called “instinctual reactions.” Like all non-human animals, instinctual responses to pain and pleasure are also requirements of human survival. Humans are animals after all. Within the mind function of the human brain a painful physical experience is the responsible cause of the concept of sorrow and a pleasurable physical experience is the responsible cause of the concept of happiness.

When I watched my daughter Kristin being born that made me happy, very happy. I didn’t care why. Being happy does not need to be understood or explained. This is because happiness is the natural and normal intellectual state for rational human beings.

But: When I watched her die all the rules changed. I needed to understand that. It wasn’t something I wanted to do. It was something I had to do. I had no option as to how I responded to watching my baby die. The issue was, either understand it or go insane. Going insane is the intellectual equivalent of physical death. This remains the most serious issue I have ever faced. I cried every single day for 20 years before I got to a place where I understood just what the hell had happened to me—personally. I am not happy about what I discovered. But I do understand it. I understand why the pain is so overpowering and why it will never go away and why I do not what it to go away.

Happiness is not real; it is ideal. Happiness is not something one can go to a market and purchase a gallon of. Happiness is not a something that exists in a physical kind of way. Happiness is an intellectual abstraction and as such, it is the fundamental conceptual creation of the human mind. Happiness is a necessity of proper human existence.

Happiness is an idea abstracted from what is understood to be the case. When one understands, one is not only able to act in a personally productive way, but one has done so. The natural result is intellectual happiness. Intellectual happiness is the fundamental consequence of personal production. It is the understood existence of one’s self that is the standard of one’s happiness. Happiness is described as being the proper state of intellectual existence for human beings. Happiness, then, is a rational idea rather than an emotional [instinctual] reaction. Again; happiness is created; it is not experienced.

Happiness does not occur automatically just because one has done whatever one damn well pleases. Happiness is the natural result of a specific kind of human act, the purposeful production of self. And that purpose is called happiness. Notice how personal happiness cannot be achieved via hope, religious or otherwise; it can only be achieved via the fundamental selfish act, the purposefully selfish (capitalistic) production of self.

The tragedy is that many people are happy and don’t know it. And many people claim to be happy and have no idea what it is they are talking about. The greater tragedy is that many people deserve personal happiness but are unable to achieve it. My own daughter Kristin is an example of this.

Recall when we discussed the above “Human Nature” graphic.

Recall that we discussed the premise that to become intellectual, one needs to fully remove oneself from the stupefying influence of religion. I will now continue this discussion, but first I will remove the insane and the religious alternatives from the above “Human Nature” graphic. See the resulting graphic below.

If one were searching for why the Space Shuttle exists and one went to an insane asylum to conduct that research, one’s efforts would be frustrated by what one finds there.

Similarly, as one searches for the requirements of human happiness but remains connected to, and thereby influenced by, the underlying principles of religion, one’s efforts will likewise be frustrated by what one finds.

This is because the dogmatic nature of religion is a purposeful attempt to explain the existence of nothing. As such, dogmatic religion is not different from what mental insanity is—it is merely the mystical (not intellectual) expansion of it.

Whenever we remain connected to a fundamentally insane premise and/or religious principle that will frustrate our intellectual efforts. One cannot pursue intelligence religiously, only rationally.

For one to discover why humans have remained in existence for as long as they have, one must observe only proper human behavior. It is only persons who act in a proper human way who can be held responsible for the continued existence of human beings and the happiness upon which that depends.

This is how you got here, this is how I got here, and this is how the human species will continue to exist for the remainder of eternity.

Note that the idea of eternal existence is not a time-sensitive idea. The idea of eternity is the concept of always absent its time requirement. To eternally exist is to have always existed. And to have always existed requires that time is not involved in that existence. “Eternal time” is a contradiction.

Time is a concept created by the human mind. Time is not real, it is ideal. Time does not exist in reality, it exists in intelligence. The issue is not, “What is time?” nor is it, “Does time exist?” The issue is, “Why does time exist?”

The final group of the philosophical ladder is “The Explanation Group.” This group consists of a single rung, the esthetics rung. The esthetical rung of philosophy is that science concerned with explaining the nature of human happiness and that upon which its continued existence, right here on earth, depends. To explain human happiness requires there are living humans to explain it to.

To explain anything is to reveal that it is what it is—that it actually does exist in a verifiable way. To tell the truth about the nature of human happiness and that upon which its existence depends requires one to be standing firmly on the esthetical rung of the philosophical ladder. To firmly stand on the esthetical rung of philosophical ladder requires one to have previously stood firmly on the moral rung of the philosophical ladder. To have firmly stood on the moral rung requires one to have previously stood firmly on the ethical rung. To have firmly stood on the ethical rung requires one to have previously stood firmly on the epistemological rung. To have firmly stood on the epistemological rung requires one to have previously stood firmly on the metaphysical rung.

It’s impossible to explain the nature of human happiness until one has satisfied each rung of the philosophical ladder. It’s impossible to explain the nature of human happiness until one has advanced up the philosophical ladder from the bottom to the top. It is impossible to explain the nature of human happiness until one is able to explain the laws of nature as these apply to and derive the laws of society.

The moral laws of society are derived from those naturally occurring laws of nature governing what a proper human existence consists of and requires. This is saying that the moral laws of society can only evolve from observing the actions of ethically functioning individuals when those individuals are socially engaged. The laws of ethical behavior translated into the laws of moral behavior become the “proper” laws of society.

The laws of ethical survival—the laws governing proper human existence—are determined by human nature; the laws of moral happiness—the laws governing a rational human society—are determined by human intelligence. One cannot be separated from the other.

The laws of social happiness are evolutionarily different from the laws of personal survival. They are an intellectual expansion of what one’s personal survival requires of one when one is socially engaged.

Ethical behavior is a necessity of personal survival; ethical behavior in a social setting is a necessity of social happiness. The laws describing the laws of social happiness are captured under the concept of capitalism. Capitalism, then, is the fundamental concept of morality.

Capitalism is a necessity of social happiness, which is a derivation of personal selfishness, which is a derivation of human intelligence, which is a derivation of human nature, which is a derivation of the laws of nature.

It’s impossible to have a reason-based philosophy constructed in any other manner.

Devotion to truth is the hallmark of intelligence. To tell the truth is to reveal ones intelligence. The truth stands above the moral rung of the philosophical ladder. To tell the truth requires acknowledgement of the rational nature of human beings. However not all persons do, or are able to, function rationally. Case in point: Suicide bombers and child kidnapping, rapping, murdering, bastards.

It is impossible to formulate a truth in the absence of a properly formulated moral principle. And it is impossible to formulate a moral principle in the absence of a properly formulated ethical principle, which is impossible to formulate in the absence of a properly formulated epistemological principle, which is impossible to formulate in the absence of a properly formulated metaphysical principle.

In other words, to tell the truth depends on knowing what it is one is talking about. And knowing, as we have seen, is that automatically occurring sensual event that takes place between two real objects when at least one of these objects is a brain.

To tell a truth is to reveal the existence of some aspect of physical reality. To tell a truth is to reveal that upon which its sensual, factual, conscious, perceptual, rational, conceptual, and intellectual nature depends. To tell a truth is to provide to another the physical evidence required to validate that the truth is a derivation of something one knows to be the case. To tell a truth is to bring into the sensual range of the other that upon which its rational existence depends.

The truth explains the nature of human nature, and the nature of human nature is governed by the laws of reality. It is impossible to tell a truth outside the laws of reality, outside the laws of nature governing that on which a proper human existence depends. It is impossible to tell the truth about God outside the laws of nature governing the happy existence of human beings right here on earth.

The issue is not, “Does God exist?”

Nor is it, “What is God?”

The issue is, “Why does God Exist?”

Why did the human mind create God?

Why did the human mind bring God into existence?

As previously noted, as the focus of our interest changes from one rung of the philosophical ladder to another, we must also change the terms we use. Since we are now moving from “The What Group” of philosophy to “The Perspective Group,” we must change the terms we are using, otherwise we will become confused as to what it is we are talking about.

We note here that “The Perspective Group” of philosophy is higher on the philosophical ladder than “The What Group.” Since we have advanced above the epistemological rung of the philosophical ladder, the terms we use from here forward are primarily conceptual in nature. They are governed by the law of intelligence, which specifies that when we speak epistemologically, we are referencing the rational nature of intelligence rather than the physical nature of knowledge.

When considering “The Perspective Group” of the philosophical ladder, the focus of our interest is from what perspective or from what point of view are we discussing metaphysical absolutes and epistemological abstractions? Are we discussing them from an ethical point of view, or are we discussing them from a moral point of view?

It is important—even critically important—to point out that “The Perspective Group” is merely a highly focused epistemological view back into what “The What Group” consists of. In other words, “The Perspective Group” is the intellectual concomitant of a specific aspect of “The What Group.”

In “The Perspective Group,” the focus of our interest is the ethics of individual behavior and the morality of social interactions, whereas in “The What Group,” our focus is on the absolute nature of physical existence (metaphysics) and the means of understanding what that is (epistemology).

Under “The Perspective Group,” our goal is to differentiate:

Where metaphysics deals with the real existence of all physical objects, ethics deals with the real existence of a single physical object, a human being.

Where epistemology deals with the rational nature of all ideas, morality deals with the rational nature of a single idea, the idea of society.

Under ethics, it is as if we are considering a person who is living on a deserted island all by himself. This person must function in a specific way; he must function as a human being. This person cannot continue to exist on that island if he tries to function as a whale or an eagle or a rosebush. His only alternative, his only option is to function as a human being.

Under ethics, a human person is an individual object of physical reality. This requires that the terms we use be governed by the law of words, which states, “When we speak ethically, we speak about that which we sensually know to be the case.”

But as previously stated, since we have advanced above the epistemological rung of the philosophical ladder, the terms we use are governed by the law of concepts, which states, “When we speak epistemologically, we speak with regard to what we understand is the case.”

To act ethically is to behave as a properly functioning human being. This requires one to think about the consequences of one’s behavior and then only do that which will have a beneficial effect on one’s physical person.

Under morality we talk about a single idea, the idea of society. When we move our discussion from ethics to morality, the rules defining proper human behavior are expanded. Under morality, the rules are no longer determined by what constitutes proper behavior—they are additionally determined by what constitutes rational interaction. Where proper deals with the actions of ethical individuals, rational deals with the interactions between those same ethical individuals.

But notice that society is a concept. Concepts denote ideas; they don’t denote the absolute nature of physical reality. Society, then, is not a real physical something—society is an abstract ideal something. Society does not exist in reality in an absolute sensually knowable way. It exists in intelligence in an abstract, rationally understood way.

Society is purely an idea. An idea derived from that which is sensually known to be the case—an idea derived from the absolute nature of physical reality—is a rational idea. It is considered a rational idea because it explains what society is and how individual humans are related to it.

In a rational functioning society, the individual humans of whom it consists are acting ethically. In other words, they are acting in accordance with the rules of human nature, in accordance with the laws of nature governing what a proper happy human existence consists of and requires.

Therefore, the laws of nature governing the behavior of ethical functioning human beings determine how those same individual human beings will behave when they are socially engaged.

Rather than being said to be acting properly, they are said to be behaving rationally.

It is the laws of nature governing proper human existence that determine the laws humans create when socially engaged. These are the laws of a rational functioning society. The laws of society, when governed by the laws of nature, are called moral laws. They are called moral laws because they describe the behavior of ethical functioning human beings when those same human beings are socially engaged. Moral laws do not—cannot—prescribe what rational social behavior is and requires; they can only describe what it is.

To describe proper human behavior in a social setting, it must be observed. The consequences resulting naturally from the interaction between individuals determine whether the behavior of those individuals is rational or not.

The consequence must not conflict with the nature of the individuals performing those actions. Further, it must not conflict with the nature of any human being now living or who will live at any time in the future.

It is only in a moral functioning society that we find properly functioning individuals—that is, ethical functioning individuals. We do not find ethical functioning individuals in any other type of society, the actions of which are detrimental to the rational nature of human beings.

Under ethics, individual action is considered proper only when the individual performing the action benefits from the consequence resulting naturally from his own actions. Otherwise, that individual suffers by having created a consequence that is detrimental to his person.

Ethics requires that the living existence of each individual person benefit from the naturally occurring consequence of his own actions. Ethics demands that the individual performing those actions benefit from them.

Consider the individual living alone on a deserted island. This person must perform specific actions; otherwise, his living person is going to suffer from not doing so.

This is saying that the naturally occurring consequence resulting from his actions is considered a beneficial consequence only when it satisfies a survival need of his living person.

An action is considered moral only when the individual performing that action is an ethical actor. That he is actually functioning in a proper human way, meaning that his primary goal is to benefit from his actions. Only then can he engage another person morally; only then can he engage another person in a social interaction that is profitable.

We note that two properly functioning persons—two ethical actors, voluntarily working together—create a greater benefit for themselves than if each had performed those same actions on his own. That greater benefit resulting from their volitional social interaction is called profit.

Proper individual action is ethical, and ethical action results in producing a beneficial consequence for the actor. Proper individual action, performed in a social setting, is called a rational social interaction. And the naturally occurring consequence of a rational social interaction produces a greater benefit for each of its participants. To avoid confusion, that greater benefit produced is renamed profit. Ethical functioning individuals profit from willingly engaging other ethical functioning individuals.

Again, profit is merely the greater benefit realized when two ethical functioning individuals purposefully engage one another to their mutual benefit. A rational interaction, then, is that mutually agreed-to social interaction, the purpose of which is to create a greater benefit for each participant. Note that each must benefit from his jointly agreed-to interactions.

Socially produced profit, then, is the epistemological concomitant of the metaphysical nature of individually produced benefit. When the individuals of a society benefit from their selfishly motivated interactions, the individuals of society are said to profit from their own purposefully selfish actions.

Beneficial action is selfish action; it is the principle of selfishness. The individual living alone on the island must benefit from his actions. He has no other choice or option. His only interest is himself. His only interest is his continued existence as a living person on that island.

There is no other person on this island for him to be concerned about. His self-interest is his greatest and highest goal. This is the principle of selfishness.

The principle of selfishness does not involve any other individual. There is no other person living on this island with this individual who is living there in a proper, selfishly motivated, human way.

The consequences of his actions are not influencing, either positively or negatively, the existence of any other human being. He must and does act alone; he simply has no other option. He is, therefore, considered both a selfishly motivated and an ethically guided person—meaning he is and must continue be a properly functioning human being in order to remain alive on that island.

When translating the naturally occurring ethical principles of individual selfishness into the principles describing rational social behavior, we get the moral principles described by the idea of social capitalism.

Where individually produced benefit is considered a proper consequence of selfishly motivated individual action, purposefully produced profit is considered a rational consequence of capitalistically motivated social interaction.

The underlying moral premise governing the actions of selfishly motivated individuals when socially engaged is that they agree to engage others only on this fundamental capitalistic premise: “From mutual agreement to mutual benefit.”

When an ethically functioning individual engages another ethically functioning individual (another selfishly motivated individual), that interaction (as we have seen) produces a greater benefit for each than if these same two individuals had acted alone. That greater benefit is called profit. Profit is the additional benefit produced as a direct result of the selfishly motivated social interactions of properly functioning (ethically acting) individuals.

Ethically acting individuals profit from their social interactions with other selfishly motivated individuals. And the selfish creation of social benefit—that is, the purposeful creation of profit—is called capitalism.

Capitalism is evolutionarily different from selfishness. Capitalism is an intellectual advancement over what the metaphysical nature of selfishness is. Capitalism is the epistemological concomitant of selfishness. Capitalism is proper individual action moved into a rational social setting.

Capitalism is not a real something—it is an ideal something. Capitalism is not a physically potent idea; it is an intellectually potent idea. Capitalism does not describe what proper individual action is and requires, it describes what rational social interaction is and requires. Rational social interaction does not exist as a real physically based word statement; it exists as an ideal rationally based conceptual statement.

To be a capitalist is not to be a person who properly benefits from one’s own individual actions. To be capitalist is to be a person who rationally profits from the individual actions of others. Capitalism describes that naturally occurring social relationship that exists between ethically functioning individuals—between individuals who engage others for no other purpose than to enjoy even greater personal benefits.

Where beneficial action is considered ethical, profitable interaction is considered moral. Restating: Where proper individual action is considered ethical, rational social interaction is considered moral. And where personal selfishness is considered proper, social capitalism is considered rational.

Capitalism does not describe the real production of products, goods, and services; it describes the ideal production of more products, goods, and services. Capitalism is the idea that explains what a profitable social interaction is and requires.

A capitalistic relationship produces greater benefits only for those engaged in it. Otherwise, we need to explain what charity is and requires. And since charity is a term described under the idea of religion, it is not proper to include it under a rational discussion.

Any action—whether ethical or moral, whether individual or social, whether selfish or capitalistic, whether natural or contractual—carries consequences.

Under ethics, these consequences are called natural consequences. Recall that under ethics, we are considering an individual who is living alone on a deserted island. The consequences of his actions are delivered to him by the laws of nature. They cannot be avoided. When he performs an action, he will experience the consequence resulting naturally from it.

If he is a properly functioning human being, the consequence will be pleasant. If not, the consequence will be suffering, anguish, sadness, and eventually death.

Repeating from above: Any action—whether ethical or moral, whether individual or social, whether selfish or capitalistic, whether natural or contractual—carries consequences.

Under morality, we are considering the consequences resulting from the voluntary interactions between ethical functioning individuals. These consequences are called contractual consequences as opposed to natural consequences.

In a rational (a proper social) interaction, the individuals involved in that interaction do not engage one another without understanding what the consequences resulting from that interaction will be. These consequences are understood and agreed to by each individual prior to either performing any action. Agreed-to consequences are considered moral and therefore rational as opposed to being considered ethical and therefore proper.

Under the principles of social morality, the consequences of agreed-to interactions are written down and become the laws of contract. It is these laws of contract that the idea of capitalism was created to denote the rational existence of. Notice how the laws described within and under the idea of capitalism are the moral equivalent of the laws of nature governing ethical human behavior in a social setting.

Notice that the moral laws of capitalism are a step up from the ethical laws of selfishness. It is therefore impossible for a capitalistic agreement to violate the ethical nature of the persons engaged in it. Contractual law applies the laws of nature governing proper human existence to society.

Social morality is evolutionarily different from personal ethics. Social morality is an epistemological advancement over what the metaphysical nature of personal ethics is and requires. The existence of the idea of social morality represents an intellectual advancement over what the physical nature of the idea of personal ethics is and requires.

To act consequentially means to both know what one is doing and also to understand what the consequence of what one is doing is going to be. This is the principle of responsibility. Each person is responsible for his own actions, necessarily including the consequences resulting from those actions.

The purpose for legalizing the laws of nature governing what rational human behavior is and requires is to provide a document that can be witnessed by all those concerned with whether they can be considered a properly functioning human being when socially engaged. Their documented witness is testimony of their intent to act in a proper human way. The document protects others from their transgressions, whether purposeful or not.

Under ethics, the laws of nature governing what a proper human existence is and requires are the final arbiter as to whether one’s actions are beneficial to one’s person or not. It is the laws of nature that govern whether one’s actions are in accordance with what one is and where one is living.

As previously discussed, if one is behaving properly, then the consequences resulting from one’s actions will respect one’s fundamental nature as a living being, a living human being.

The only responsibility the person living alone on the deserted island has is to perform those actions that will insure he remains a living person on that island. The consequence of behaving in accordance with one’s nature as a living human being right here on earth has been named—it is called survival. It is the principle of personal survival.

As we have seen, to act properly as a human being means to selfishly benefit from one’s own actions. The benefit the person living alone on the deserted island enjoys is his self. It is the continued existence of his living person on that island. To act for one’s continued living existence is to act ethically. To act ethically is to be selfishly motivated to avoid death.

Personal survival is the fundamental underlying principle of ethics. Note that ethics only involves living individuals. It is only living individuals who can act ethically, who can act in accordance with their best interest, who can be selfishly motivated to avoid death.

The person living alone on the deserted island will act in his best interest throughout his entire lifespan, and then he will die. He has no other option. There is no other alternative available to him. His continued existence on that deserted island is governed by the laws of nature.

The ethical science of philosophy deals only with the requirements of individual living persons, and the lifespan of each individual living person is finite. One day it will cease to exist.

When we translate the principles of ethical behavior into principles of moral behavior, the rules change. When the laws of nature governing ethical behavior are translated into the laws of man governing moral behavior, we transition from personal survival to social happiness.

The difference is immense. It is beyond measure. It is the difference between the finite nature of one’s real person and the infinite nature of one’s ideal person. Note here that the physical existence of one’s real person is a time-sensitive idea, but the physical existence of one’s ideal person is not.

Under ethics, people act to their personal benefit. But under morality, these same people associate with other ethical people to create an even greater personal benefit for themselves. As we have seen, that greater personal benefit is called the profit resulting naturally from their voluntary social interaction. And the purposeful production of profit is called capitalism.

Have I stressed point this enough? I have repeated myself on this point over and over again. Why? Because capitalism is the most misunderstood and misrepresented idea in the entire human language—even more so than God, which will also soon be cleared up.

Selfish people purposefully engage other selfish people for only one reason: to profit from that social interaction. The selfish production of profit is called capitalism. Properly functioning individuals purposefully and selfishly capitalize on the talents, skills, and abilities of others. They have to. They have no other alternative if they are to be considered properly functioning human beings.

A fundamental action is that action upon which all others of similar characteristics depend. Fundamentally speaking, the profit one’s person enjoys by virtue of a rational social interaction has been named. It is called their child.

Their child is of enormous personal benefit to each person involved in that rational social interaction. It is their living existence continuing to exist into the future. Their child represents the living existence of each person continuing to exist again.

Their child is not different from the living existence of each; it is an extension of the living existence of each. Their child is physical evidence of the living existence of each, existing again. Their child is their living existence existing again as another living being.

Where the existence of one’s living existence is evidence of one’s ability to act in a properly selfish way, the existence of one’s child is evidence of one’s ability to act in a rationally capitalistic way. In other words, one’s child is living evidence of one’s ability to act in a properly selfish way in a social setting.

You are living evidence of all those who precede you with their living existence. You are proof that their living existence has not yet gone out of existence. You are living proof that their living existence exists still. Your real existence is their real existence, idealized. You represent the continued survival of their living existence. You are their physical survival idealized into rational happiness.

To act ethically is to selfishly do that which is required to live a normal lifespan. To act morally is to capitalistically do that which is required to survive beyond one’s natural lifespan right here on earth.