Revising Rawls: A

1

• Revising Rawls A Force of Nature Original
  Position
• Charles Tandy, Ph.D. ? Fooyin University ? Taiwan
• www.DoctorTandy.com
• This is a ROUGH DRAFT!
• Your comments are welcomed tandy_at_ria.edu
• PART ONE
• 1. Introductory Remarks
• 2. Rawlsian Basics
• 3. Alternative Original Positions
• 4. Alternative Approaches to Theory Construction
• 5. A Revisionist Rawls, and an Alternative
  Position
• 6. Historical Dynamics and the Force of Nature
  Position
• PART TWO
• 7. Technology Today to Implement Principles Zero
  and One
• 8. An Evolutionary Implementation of the
  Principles
• 9. Closing
  Remarks 1

2

• Revising Rawls A Force of Nature Original
  Position
• Charles Tandy, Ph.D. ? Fooyin University ? Taiwan
• Abstract
• John Rawls (1921-2002) analyzed the
  conditions of a just society and of decent
  relations between societies.
• PART ONE We piece together his various revisions
  of his own work and present a new and original
  scheme of five (not two) principles of a revised
  Rawlsian justice as fairness original position,
  listed in lexical priority. This Revised Rawls
  is then used as a springboard toward developing
  our own alternative position. Rawlss conception
  of fairness leaves out, in an important way,
  the injustices of nature.
• PART TWO We show that almost now is the
  opportune time for almost universal peace via
  implementation of our non-controversial PFIT
  (Peaceful, Free, Intentional, Transparent
  physical-social technology) proposal.
  Technological humans have become a force of
  nature.

3

• 1. Introductory Remarks
• ... the limits of the possible are not given by
  the actual, for we can to a greater or lesser
  extent change political and social institutions,
  and much else.
• John Rawls (Rawls, 2001 5)
• We have become more powerful than any force of
  nature.
• Al Gore (Gore, 2006 300)

4

• 2. Rawlsian Basics
• According to the distinguished
  philosopher, Martha Nussbaum John Rawls is the
  most distinguished moral and political
  philosopher of our age. (Nussbaum, 2001) John
  Rawls (1921-2002) is known for his theory of
  justice as fairness based on his methodology of
  the original position. The justice as
  fairness idea is that of a just society
  perceived as a system of cooperation, publicly
  transparent, which is fair to all its free and
  equal citizens.

5

• In Rawlss initial A Theory of Justice (1971)
  TofJ, he focuses on the domestic dimensions of
  a just society. The original position idea is
  that of a kind of original or first step to help
  us engage in fair or impartial deliberation about
  the principles and structures of a just society.
  In said thought experiment, one attempts to
  modify the principles and structures, and the
  conditions of the original position, while taking
  into account other relevant considerations such
  as the empirics of the actual world, until they
  coordinate to produce a reasonable political
  conception.

6

• Rawls later said that his initial TofJ was
  flawed or confused in that he there failed to
  understand the proper role of a political
  conception in his theorizing. (Rawls, 1999
  179-180) Herein we will try to take seriously the
  distinction Rawls makes between a "political
  conception" and "comprehensive doctrines." A
  political conception addresses persons only with
  respect to, or at the level of, citizenship.
  However, comprehensive doctrines, whether
  religious or secular, address the full range, or
  deep levels, of ones personhood and
  relationships.

7

• Rawls says that his TofJ should have attempted to
  formulate a political conception rather than a
  comprehensive doctrine. For Rawls, it is possible
  for numerous comprehensive doctrines to live
  together in a single society (with a common
  political conception). It may be possible to
  formulate a reasonable political conception
  without first formulating and justifying a
  comprehensive doctrine or paying too much
  attention to metaphysics.

8

• 3. Alternative Original Positions
• Rawls has formulated more than one
  original position e.g., he analyzed (1) the
  conditions of a just society (in TofJ, 1971)
  and, (2) the conditions of decent relations
  between societies (in The Law of Peoples, 1999
  LofP). In alternative thought experiments in
  the form of original positions, there can be
  alternative topics to be deliberated and
  alternative parties to the deliberation.
• Likewise, the veil of ignorance
  (explained below) is modifiable. Rawls is here
  influenced or inspired by Kant, who argued that
  reasonable moral decisions and authentic autonomy
  are closely related. Authentic autonomy and
  reasonable moral decisions are difficult in that
  we too easily become confused by our own passions
  and perspectives. We may passionately feel or
  firmly think that our decision was fair only
  later to change our mind.

9

• So in TofJ, Rawls drapes each party in the
  original position with a veil of ignorance
  here this means that each party does not know
  which person (citizen) she is representing in the
  dialogue. Citizens will vary in passions,
  perspectives, skills, abilities, personalities,
  religions, luck, etc. With fairness in mind, the
  parties are deliberating for the purpose of
  formulating and agreeing to the domestic
  principles of justice.
• The veiling of the parties in the original
  position is meant to help provide a fair state
  of nature for rational deliberation and thus a
  hopeful basis for constructing a reasonable
  theory that can move us toward a more nearly just
  society. The persons in the original position are
  to reach unanimous agreement in their choice of
  principles. Therefore, we can view the choice in
  the original position from the standpoint of one
  person selected at random. (Rawls, 1971 139)

10

• 4. Alternative Approaches to Theory Construction
• The original position (including the
  veil of ignorance) is only part of a Rawlsian
  approach to theory construction we have already
  seen that, according to Rawls, alternative
  original positions are desirable. In this
  section, we will see that Rawls also believes,
  more generally, that alternative approaches to
  theory construction are called for.

11
.

• In 31 of TofJ, Rawls outlines the four-stage
  sequence he uses to construct his domestic theory
  (justice as fairness).
• But at (Rawls, 2001 48) he provides the
  following short summary In the first stage, the
  parties adopt the principles of justice behind a
  veil of ignorance. Limitations on knowledge
  available to the parties are progressively
  relaxed in the next three stages the stage of
  the constitutional convention, the legislative
  stage in which laws are enacted as the
  constitution allows and as the principles of
  justice require and permit, and the final stage
  in which the rules are applied.
• It is now time to mention major principles
  arrived at in the justice as fairness original
  position as revised by Rawls in (Rawls, 2001
  42-44, 48)

12
.

• ? Each person has the same indefeasible claim to
  a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties,
  which scheme is compatible with the same scheme
  of liberties for all freedom of thought and
  liberty of conscience political liberties (for
  example, the right to vote and to participate in
  politics) and freedom of association, as well as
  the rights and liberties specified by the liberty
  and integrity (physical and psychological) of the
  person and finally, the rights and liberties
  covered by the rule of law.
• ? Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy
  two conditions first, they are to be attached to
  offices and positions open to all under
  conditions of fair equality of opportunity and
  second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of
  the least-advantaged members of society (the
  difference principle).

13
.

• According to Rawls, the first of the two
  principles has priority it establishes basic
  liberties and a just constitution.
• The second applies to social and economic justice
  in the background institutions, where fair
  equality of opportunity has priority over the
  difference principle. Taken together, these are
  sometimes viewed as Rawlss two principles and
  two priorities however we will see below that
  Rawls will add more principles and priorities to
  the original position.

14
.

• In the meantime, here is a simplified outline of
• the justice as fairness four-stage
  sequence
• 1. Original Position Establish the two
  principles above.
• 2. Constitutional Convention Incorporate the
  first principle above.
• 3. Legislative Stage Incorporate the second
  principle above.
• 4. Administrative Stage Apply the rules.

15
.

• We have just described his TofJ approach to
  theory construction with respect to establishing
  a just domestic society.
• But his LofP approach to theory construction with
  respect to establishing decent relations between
  societies is another matter. In LofP, Rawls is
  able to imagine various kinds of societies, some
  of whom may be well-ordered enough to become
  members of a cooperative system of peoples that
  includes constitutional democracies and decent
  non-democracies. Rawls does not believe that any
  decent non-democracies presently exist, but he
  does not want to rule out the possibility that
  they may exist in the future.

16
.

• Rawls compares his two (TofJ and LofP) original
  positions in three respects, as follows (Rawls,
  2001 40)
• The (TofJ and LofP) original positions compared
• ?1.
• In TofJ, the parties represent individual
  citizens actual citizens often subscribe to
  comprehensive doctrines.
• In LofP, the parties represent peoples
  (societies) peoples (as peoples) often do NOT
  subscribe to comprehensive doctrines.
  (Specifically, a constitutional democracy as such
  subscribes to a political conception and does NOT
  subscribe to a comprehensive doctrine.)

17
.

• The (TofJ and LofP) original positions compared
• ? 2.
• (TofJ) An individuals fundamental interests as
  such have to do with their individual conception
  of the good, such as the pursuit of their
  happiness.
• (LofP) A societys fundamental interests as such
  have to do with its conception of justice, such
  as receiving proper respect from other peoples.
• ? 3.
• In TofJ, the parties are selecting the principles
  of a just structure or political conception for a
  domestic society.
• In LofP, the parties are selecting the principles
  of the Law of Peoples for direct and mutual use
  by all well-ordered peoples.

18
.

• Another difference between the 1971 TofJ original
  position and the 1999 LofP original position is
  that the veils of ignorance differ.
• In the 1999 LofP original position, the veil
  seems lighter in that the parties know they are
  not representing any society whatsoever, but only
  well-ordered peoples. One may be tempted to say
  more, that each party also knows if they are
  representing a constitutional democracy, on the
  one hand, or a decent non-democracy, on the
  other. If you have recently read LofP for the
  first time, you may say this is obviously the
  case.

19
.

• Further reflection, however, may suggest
  otherwise. ?Rawls has us imagine an original
  position representing constitutional democracies.
  ?He has us imagine another original position
  representing decent non-democracies.
• With respect to the Law of Peoples, the results
  from their respective original positions are
  identical. Herewith let us now suggest, given
  such results, that one can imagine the same
  results if both sets of parties had been
  deliberating in a single original position under
  a common veil of ignorance. (Of course, whether
  Rawls has correctly transcribed the results in
  each case is yet another matter!)

20
.

• Given all that has been said so far, we can see
  that the four-stage sequence used in TofJ is not
  the sequence of theory construction that Rawls
  would find appropriate for his LofP.
• The LofP sequence is simple and direct by
  comparison
• In the original position, decide on the
  principles or rules of the Law of Peoples.
• Have all well-ordered peoples endorse and follow
  said Law of Peoples.

21
.

• 5. A Revisionist Rawls, and an Alternative
  Position
• Next below we will try, briefly, to piece
  together his various revisions of his own work to
  give us a Revisionist Rawls. This will then be
  used as a springboard or point of departure
  toward developing our own alternative position.
• After consulting with the Rawlsian scholar,
  Samuel Freeman, the following new and original
  scheme is presented as the five (not two)
  principles of a revised Rawlsian justice as
  fairness original position, listed in lexical
  priority
• 0. Metabasic rights. Rawls credits R. G. Peffer
  (1990) for this principle.
• 1. Basic liberties.
• 2. Equal opportunity.
• 3. Just assistance (A. just savings and, B. duty
  of assistance).
• 4. Difference principle or permissible
  inequalities.

22
.

• 0. Metabasic rights.
• Rawls credits R. G. Peffer (1990) for this
  principle.
• Rawls endorses principle zero (called above
  0. Metabasic rights) as lexically prior to all
  others (Rawls, 2001 44, n.7). Only principle
  zero and principle one are incorporated as soon
  as possible into his theory construction sequence
  (i.e., immediately at the Constitutional
  Convention stage). Principle zero, Rawls says,
  requires that basic needs be met, at least
  insofar as their being met is a necessary
  condition for citizens to understand and to be
  able fruitfully to exercise principle one
  their basic rights and liberties.

23
.

• 3. Just assistance
• (A. just savings and, B. duty of assistance).
• We have reconstructed two Rawlsian principles
  into one as principle 3 according to Rawls,
  principle 3 is different from the others in that
  there are circumstances under which it would in
  whole or in part (there are two parts principle
  A principle B) terminate or, rather, be
  temporarily suspended but in any case, it is
  lexically prior to principle 4. The principles A
  and B of principle 3 have no lexical priority
  relation to each other so far as our reading of
  Rawls can determine. The principle A corresponds
  to the just savings principle mentioned in
  various parts of TofJ, including 44 however
  Rawls does not like his 1971 version of 44 he
  may or may not have been satisfied with his 1999
  version of 44. The principle B corresponds to
  the duty of assistance mentioned in various parts
  of LofP, including 15.

24
.

• Rawlss great inspiration, Immanuel Kant,
  formulated a cosmopolitan conception, the
  Commonwealth of Ends (sometimes translated as
  the Kingdom of Ends).
• But Kant also developed a non-cosmopolitan
  conception which Rawls re-formulates as the Law
  of Peoples. Perhaps in Rawls there is a similar
  tension between cosmopolitan and
  non-cosmopolitan conceptions? Indeed, one can
  rather easily (if one so wishes) read Rawlss
  1971 TofJ (justice as fairness) as either a
  domestic or a cosmopolitan conception see, e.g.,
  (Pogge, 2006).

25
.

• At times it does indeed seem obvious that Rawls
  would like us to aspire to attempt to formulate
  the original position of a cosmopolitan and
  omni-temporal (eternal) political conception.
• The idea seems to be that given said original
  position, we will be able to see more clearly the
  political structure which is most appropriate for
  any societal context in any stage of history.
  This paper so aspires even should our results
  turn out, at best, to be only partially
  successful.

26
.

• On the last page of the last section of both the
  1971 and 1999 versions of TofJ, we find Rawls
  speaking of the eternal original position here
  are his words
• Without conflating all persons into one but
  recognizing them as distinct and separate, it
  the eternal original position enables us to
  be impartial, even between persons who are not
  contemporaries but who belong to many
  generations. Thus to see our place in society
  from the perspective of this position is to see
  it sub specie aeternitatis it is to regard the
  human situation not only from all social but also
  from all temporal points of view. The perspective
  of eternity ... is a certain form of thought and
  feeling that rational persons can adopt within
  the world. (Rawls, 1971 587)

27
.

• To attempt to set up such an omni-temporal
  original position, we may find it wise to attempt
  to see history as dynamic and as potentially
  developmental. When we read Rawls, we may find
  his own more limited formulations as
  (philosophically) eloquent descriptions of static
  objects in reflective equilibrium. Amartya Sen
  criticizes his teacher for this culmination
  outcomes approach which fails to fully
  appreciate the historical dynamics of development
  and freedom see, e.g., (Sen, 1999 27-39,
  112-118).
• Arguably, the air of Rawlss high philosophical
  mountain is too thin for the needed vitality of
  historical dynamism. Or, to put it another way,
  Rawlss original positions are stuck in time, in
  Humes world of moderate scarcity. On occasion
  Rawls seems genuinely afraid of wealth (whether
  within a world of moderate scarcity or beyond it)
  as a detriment to proper political structures and
  virtuous human relations.

28
.

• In addition, Rawlss conception of fairness
  leaves out, in an important way, the injustices
  of nature. So, as we seek to formulate our new
  original position, we will need to broaden our
  perspective to include both the physical and the
  social world. Indeed, our political conception
  must widen beyond society to include environment.
  It will need to encompass not only new social
  structures (social technologies and inventions)
  but also new physical structures (physical
  technologies and inventions).
• Like it or not, our advanced technologies make us
  a force of nature. Technology, at least
  potentially, allows us to literally remake our
  physical-social environment. So now that we are
  outside the Rawlsian box, we have a broader and
  more realistic perspective from which to attempt
  to develop our dynamic force of nature original
  position or political conception.

29
.

• 6. Historical Dynamics and the Force of Nature
  Position
• There are numerous alternative approaches
  to the periodization of human history. As we
  consider the dynamics of humanitys past,
  present, and future, we will want to try to make
  our periodization both accurate and relevant for
  the task at hand. Our belief is that the
  periodization formulated below is NOT
  controversial in any case, it was inspired by
  Kenneth E. Boulding (Boulding, 1964).
• PERIOD I Before 3500BCE
• Preglobal Consciousness (Preglobalizational
  Developments)
• PERIOD II 3500BCE2000CE
• Global Consciousness (Globalizational
  Developments)
• PERIOD III After 2000CE
• Postglobal Consciousness (Postglobalizational
  Developments)

30
.

• PERIOD I Before 3500BCE Preglobal Consciousness
  
• Era of Precivilization (Nomadic Tribes
  Agricultural Communities)
• Hunting and Farming
• Make-do Technology (languages, sticks, etc.)
• PERIOD II 3500BCE2000CE Global Consciousness
• Era of Civilization (Cities Empires)
• Trade and War
• Inventive Technology (writings, guns, etc.)
• PERIOD III After 2000CE Postglobal
  Consciousness
• Era of Transcivilization (Intentional
  Communities)
• (Peace and Freedom? This question is addressed in
  7 below.)
• Force-of-nature Technology (computers,
  nanomeds, etc.)

31
.

• For the moment, let us assume that advanced
  (physical-social) proactive force of nature
  technologies have the capacity to provide an
  environment of stable peace and evolving freedom
  which will also allow all persons and peoples
  therein to live beyond moderate scarcity in great
  wealth. (Later, in 7 below, we will show that
  this assumption turns out to be
  non-controversial.)
• If this is the case, then a great moral-political
  imperative for our time is not so much whether we
  can more justly rearrange the chairs on the deck
  of the ship, but how quickly or slowly we will
  build new ships (intentional communities) not
  possible with previous technology.

32
.

• Thus the new issue for our new time is not so
  much the old moral-political issue of moderate
  scarcity (Rawlss principles 2, 3, and 4 i.e.,
  2 equal opportunity, 3 just assistance, and 4
  permissible inequalities). Rawls made a
  philosophically heroic effort to solve a hugely
  difficult long-standing moral-political problem.
• Fortunately, given our unprecedented level of
  technology, the actual philosophical
  moral-political task in our day (at the practical
  level) is easier than Rawls imagined. By focusing
  on the moral-political principles zero and one,
  we can guide our physical-social technology to
  evolutionarily realize the two principles at
  deeper and deeper levels over time while making
  the other principles effectively obsolete. For
  the sake of clarity, here are the two principles
  zero and one (based on 5 and 4 above)

33
.

• 0. The Principle of Metabasic Rights
• Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a
  fully adequate scheme of equal metabasic rights,
  which scheme is compatible with the same scheme
  of rights for all These rights include the
  rights required to meet basic needs, at least
  insofar as their being met is a necessary
  condition for citizens to understand and to be
  able fruitfully to exercise their basic liberties
  (see the principle of basic liberties).
• 1. The Principle of Basic Liberties
• Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a
  fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties,
  which scheme is compatible with the same scheme
  of liberties for all These liberties include
  freedom of thought and liberty of conscience
  political liberties (for example, the right to
  vote and to participate in politics) and freedom
  of association, as well as the rights and
  liberties specified by the liberty and integrity
  (physical and psychological) of the person and,
  the rights and liberties covered by the rule of
  law.

34
.

• PART TWO
• 7. Technology Today to Implement Principles Zero
  and One
• 8. An Evolutionary Implementation of the
  Principles
• 9. Closing Remarks
• 7. Technology Today to Implement Principles Zero
  and One
• This section is adapted from previous work see,
  e.g., (Tandy, 2011). The purpose of this section
  is to defend the claim that advanced
  (physical-social) proactive force of nature
  technologies have the capacity to provide an
  environment of stable peace and evolving freedom
  which will also allow all persons and peoples
  therein to live beyond moderate scarcity in great
  wealth. We will find that this claim turns out to
  be non-controversial. As we shall see,
  Postglobalizational Developments or Consciousness
  III encourages us to use our new
  Force-of-nature Technology to establish a
  peaceful and free environment of intentional
  communities.

35
.

• First however we comment on related matters that
  are also related to the two moral-political
  principles
• We have a right to live in an environment of
  stable peace and evolving freedom. The autonomous
  rights of that individual person (call her Lou)
  imply your individual rights too. (Otherwise, an
  assertion of rights is an assertion about power,
  not about rights.) Buford (Buford, 1984 187)
  points out that For Lou to have a moral right
  to do x, someone else is morally obligated to act
  or refrain from acting regarding x if Lou wants
  that person to do so. On the one hand, where
  there is an obligation there is not necessarily a
  right. On the other hand Wherever there is a
  right to something there is a corresponding duty
  or obligation to attempt to honor that right.
• Thus the interactive perspective of individual
  moral rights, properly understood, views persons
  as social beings instead of as egoistical atoms.

36
.

• Based on Rawls and on Buford, we may now
  articulate some of our findings with respect to
  individual (moral) rights and intentional
  (voluntary) communities Authentically choosing
  ones individual rights to life and liberty
  carries analogous implications for ones relation
  to others.
• The individual rights we identify with life and
  living mean we have mutual-obligations not to
  kill each other our societal environment ought
  to be one of stable peace devoid of violence,
  killing, and war.
• The individual rights we identify with living and
  liberty mean we have mutual-obligations to insure
  freedom of thought, of expression, of
  association, and to pursue happiness.
• Therefore, our mutual-obligation society of
  individual rights includes the right to live in
  peaceful and free communities.

37
.

• Presently we will proceed to show that
  Consciousness III force of nature technologies
  have the capacity to provide a Consciousness III
  post-scarcity environment of stable peace and
  evolving freedom.
• In the process, we show this claim
  to be non-controversial.
• We will begin first by discussing a feasible
  physical (green habitat) technology then we will
  discuss a feasible social (treaty organization)
  technology, finding that the two technologies
  combined result in a peaceful, free, prosperous
  environment of green habitat communities.

38
.

• The astounding capacity of future technology can
  be glimpsed at by taking a non-controversial look
  at the future of extraterrestrial ONeill
  Habitats and of molecular Drexler Technology (and
  their eventual melding together).1, 2
• We say non-controversial because the controversy
  in each case is over when, not if. Thus for
  present purposes we can overcome this dispute by
  simply talking non-controversially about these
  kinds of capacities in the far future (bypassing
  timeline predictions of near or far).

39
.

• Abundant extraterrestrial resources will be used
  to construct greener-than-earth, self-sufficient,
  self-replicating ONeill Habitats (not to be
  confused with space stations!) in orbit around
  planets and suns.
• Accordingly, barring catastrophe, it seems highly
  likely that in the long run almost all of our
  multitudinous offspring will be permanently
  living and working somewhere in the universe
  other than on planet Earth.
• Indeed, molecular Drexler Technology is NOT
  required for construction and development of
  extraterrestrial ONeill Habitats (SEG
  communities) it just makes the task easier.

40
.

• As life grew denser on planet earth, the
  environment on which each organism depended
  increasingly consisted of other living things.
• But the development of advanced ONeill Habitats
  (Sustainable Extraterrestrial Greener-than-earth
  communities, or SEGs) in orbit around a planet or
  a sun will mean multiple, self-reproducing
  biospheres "unlimited free land (freely
  available territory) and, the realistic
  possibility of intentional (i.e., voluntary)
  communities for all persons.
• Instead of remaining in the community or culture
  of one's birth, one will be realistically free to
  experiment living in one kind of community or
  another.

41
.

• The following metaphorical insights have been
  widely quoted by SEG experts
• "The Earth was our cradle, but we will not live
  in the cradle forever."
• "Space habitats SEGs are the children of Mother
  Earth."
• According to Carl Sagan, our long-term survival
  is a matter of spaceflight or extinction all
  civilizations become either space-faring or
  extinct.
• According to the mass extinction article in The
  Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.) The
  extinctions, however, did not conform to the
  usual evolutionary rules regarding who
  survives the only factor that appears to
  have improved a family of organisms chance
  of survival was widespread geographic
  colonization.1

42
.

• Now below we will discuss a feasible social
  (treaty organization) technology.
• We will find that the two technologies (green
  habitat and treaty organization) combined result
  in a peaceful, free, prosperous environment of
  green habitat communities.
• The Treaty Organization is to serve two
  functions (1) as gateway between planet earth
  and peaceful space this includes enforceably
  banning weapons and weapons-making from
  extraterrestrial space and, (2) as midwife to an
  evolving Extraterrestrial Society.

43
.

• On the one hand, our political interests today
  may constrain us in our present time and place.
  But, on the other hand, our political interests
  today may free us with respect to future times
  and places (e.g., our extraterrestrial future).
• What this means is that today we have a realistic
  prospect of proactively establishing the legal
  structure and enforcement powers needed for a
  world at stable peace in extraterrestrial space.

44
.

• How many persons or peoples would accept or
  endorse a Space Treaty that effectively and
  enforceably bans weapons and their manufacture
  from extraterrestrial space?
• In this context (a good and practical legacy to
  our offspring), we should think we should be
  diligent enough to rally enough supporters. For
  example, TO might be signed originally by, say,
  twenty Peoples or States (including most of the
  "major" ones).
• But the Treaty would be strongly effectively
  enforced by TOs Agency for a Better Cosmos (ABC)
  NOT by Peoples/States against ALL and
  EVERYONE, whether or not they sign the Treaty.

45
.

• What seems to us both practical and fair in this
  context is to think in terms of an
  Extraterrestrial Society of Intentional
  Communities. The previous analyses are
  suggestive.
• Each Intentional Community would have to work
  within the framework of peace established
  immediately above and as articulated in more
  detail below as PFIT given such an
  Extraterrestrial Society framework of
  requirements, consider now the following with
  respect to Intentional Communities

46
.

• At the level of the Society (of Communities) we
  have
• Peace Weapons, weapons-making, and violence
  (including animal cruelty and serious animal
  pain) are strongly effectively enforceably banned
  (and so-called research would not be permitted
  as a way to get around the ban)
• Freedom Every individual person is fully aware
  of and fully informed of their general liberty to
  leave their community. This too is strongly
  effectively enforced.
• The Society and the Communities necessarily work
  closely together for the purpose of practical
  coordination to help prevent potential conflicts
  in particular, the Society and the Communities
  necessarily work closely together to fully insure
  the liberties and responsibilities associated
  with both Peace and Freedom.

47
.

• At the level of Communities (in the Society) we
  have
• Intentionality (voluntariness) Within the
  good-faith transparent enforcement of Society's
  basic principles of peace and freedom, each
  Community has wide latitude for experimentation.
  Although there is a general liberty of members to
  leave the (intentional) Community, this does not
  necessarily relieve such persons from certain
  good-faith responsibilities to the Community
  and,
• Transparency (accountability) Each Community
  must strongly, effectively, and transparently
  help enforce the Society's basic principles of
  peace and freedom.

48
.

• We believe the political theory or
  moral-political approach we have invented above
  with respect to TO is unique and original. The
  PFIT (Peaceful, Free, Intentional, Transparent)
  framework here presented differs from the Law of
  Peoples conception of John Rawls in that TO is
  meant to be structured so as to necessarily
  ultimately generate an Extraterrestrial Law of
  Persons.
• Yet TO takes seriously the distinction Rawls
  makes between a "political conception" and
  "comprehensive doctrines." A political conception
  or model addresses persons only with respect to,
  or at the level of, citizenship. However,
  comprehensive doctrines or worldviews, whether
  religious or secular, address the full range, or
  deep levels, of ones personhood and
  relationships.
• In our "Society of Communities" theory, Society
  corresponds to a political conception or model,
  and Communities represent numerous comprehensive
  doctrines or worldviews.

49
.

• Persons of Comprehensive Doctrine X may be
  passionately convinced that their worldview is
  basically good and correct and that other
  worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect.
• Likewise, persons of Comprehensive Doctrine Y may
  be passionately convinced that their worldview is
  basically good and correct and that other
  worldviews are evil or bad or incorrect.
• YET if X persons, Y persons, and other persons
  (holding numerous differing comprehensive
  doctrines) can sincerely and in good faith agree
  to our TO political conception (our approach
  above), then stable peace is possible. Otherwise,
  they may consider agreeing to TO only as a
  temporary strategic compromise (thus ultimately
  open to future use of force and violence).

50
.

• According to TO, the architectures of
  extraterrestrial settlements will have to be PFIT
  (Peaceful, Free, Intentional, Transparent).
  Indeed, the architectures of all extraterrestrial
  structures will have to be congruent with PFIT.
• TO, via TOs ABC (Agency for a Better Cosmos),
  will proactively enforce the PFIT requirements.
  TO and ABC will have to be on the cutting edge of
  such changing technologies if they are to
  successfully fulfill their missions. PFIT
  preplanning and PFIT retrofitting of PFIT
  extraterrestrial settlements and structures will
  be an ongoing task.

51
.

• 8. An Evolutionary Implementation of the
  Principles
• In 7 above we looked at physical (green habitat)
  technology and at social (treaty organization)
  technology. We defended the claim that, combined,
  these two advanced proactive force of nature
  technologies have the capacity to provide an
  environment of stable peace and evolving freedom
  which will also allow all persons and peoples
  therein to live beyond moderate scarcity in great
  wealth.
• We found that the claim turns out to be
  non-controversial.

52
.

• The implementation of PFIT (Peaceful, Free,
  Intentional, Transparent) physical-social
  technology is a step in the evolutionary ladder,
  and there are steps within PFIT too, since it
  cannot magically appear full-grown overnight. But
  at some point it seems we will have to confront
  the great question of a cosmopolitan Commonwealth
  of Ends. PFIT has the virtue, if it is a virtue,
  of giving us more time to think about that
  profound puzzle.
• With the birth of PFIT there are not one but two
  realms Terrestrial or Earth and
  Extraterrestrial or PFIT.

53
.

• No doubt we shall have to make up the
  evolving-emerging details as we move along.
  Providing a broad outline or proactive agenda is
  important and necessary.
• However, micromanaging the future in advance (as,
  historically, some tyrants have tried) is
  undesirable and even dangerous. But one
  reasonable question to consider now, with the
  initiation of PFIT, is How much will it cost and
  who will pay for it? There are indeed
  alternative answers or solutions possible here,
  as professional diplomats and treaty-makers will
  tell us even as we also ask Can we afford not
  to do it?

54
.

• Or, to put it another way Does not some version
  of principle three (just assistance) come into
  play here?
• Principle three is the duty, under certain
  conditions, of justly assisting (A) future
  generations and, (B) burdened societies. We may
  want to say that the Terrestrial System (Earth)
  has a duty to assist future generations (via
  PFIT) in order to assist itself (via PFIT) by
  preventing and overcoming its terrestrial
  burdens. This is a very special kind of
  reciprocity!

55
.

• How much will PFIT cost and who will pay for
  it?
• Of numerous possible answers and solutions, we
  now briefly mention in passing one such
  possibility invented by the late Nobel laureate
  in economics, James Tobin. Here as follows is the
  Tobin tax idea in one of its versions There
  should be a worldwide tax on international
  currency transactions, set perhaps between 1.00
  1 and 0.01 1/100 of 1.
• The tax could go, say, to pay for a global task
  or to numerous global tasks, and thus perhaps do
  much (or even very much) to help the human
  condition go from bad to better instead of from
  bad to worse.

56
.

• In terms, say, of the first few years or decades
  of PFIT, it might be funded (from whatever source
  or sources) at a high or a moderate or a
  nearly-zero level.
• High here means thinking of PFIT as a major
  endeavor such as double the yearly costs (in
  adjusted dollars) of the Apollo Moon Landing
  Project of the 1960s (a difference being that
  Apollo was funded by a single country). According
  to our own simple quick and dirty calculations,
  a high funding level for PFIT would be
  considerably less than a global Tobin tax rate of
  0.01 1/100 of 1. To wit A global Tobin tax
  rate of 0.01 (1/100 of 1) of US1,000 trillion
  per year equals US100 billion per year.

57
.

• Our generation is privileged with the unique
  responsibility of taking the first PFIT step.
  Once the first PFIT step has been taken, then the
  additional hundreds or thousands of steps over
  many decades or centuries may proceed quickly or
  slowly.
• The first step is to pen and sign the PFIT
  treaty, thus enforceably banning weapons and
  weapons-making from extraterrestrial space.
• The first step is perhaps the most important
  one, and it requires no financial fees or Tobin
  taxes.

58
.

• 9. Closing Remarks
• Almost now is the opportune time for almost
  universal peace.
• Enforceably banning weapons and weapons-making
  from all of the universe (except for a single
  small planet) is politically feasible, morally
  desirable, and practically within our
  signature-signing hands.
• But if we wait too long, we may not be so free to
  do the right thing.

59
.

• When wise persons learn the Way, they practice it
  with zest.
• When mediocre persons learn of the Way, they are
  indifferent.
• When foolish persons learn of the Way, they laugh
  mockingly.
• If they did not laugh, it would not be worthy of
  being the Way.
• Daodejing, 41

60
.

• Acknowledgements
• We thank the philosophy department of National
  Central University (Taiwan) for their Visiting
  Scholar assistance and for the present venue.
• We are also grateful to Jack Lee (Taiwan), Samuel
  Freeman (USA), and Shui Chuen Lee (Taiwan).
• By permission, this presentation is adapted from
  Charles Tandys chapter on John Rawls in
  Charles Tandy Editor, Death And Anti-Death,
  Volume 9 (Palo Alto, California Ria University
  Press, 2011).