The Principle of Life Ownership Explained

Shidoshi Ken Harding

It seems I write a lot about morality— the ethics of behavior. That’s because I realize that if all I ever accomplished was to teach people how to fight, or fight more effectively, then I know that I will have failed in my mission. The world is not made better by filling it with people who know how to fight. I think that having a system of ethics, a framework, makes the issue of morality easier to figure out. There have been systems offered to us from different directions, but none of these has been satisfactory. Some people even think that there is no ethical framework— that your moral choices always change with the situation (this is called Moral Relativism).

Other people insist that they have in their possession an “objective moral standard”, rules of conduct for everyone that are literally set in stone (this is what is called Moral Objectivism-- the idea that morality is objective, or independent of human beings). Furthermore, these kind of people argue that all of our country’s problems— from inner city crime to earthquakes— would vanish into thin air if we would only come to our senses and live by their moral standards. But they don’t stop there. They go on the moral offensive, and accuse people like myself of having no moral foundation. They label people like me as an advocate of ‘situational ethics’ and ‘moral relativism’.

While it’s clear to me how wrong these people are, they do force me to explore just how I determine what constitutes moral behavior. When people argue about morality, it’s common for someone to ask, “How do you know what is moral and what’s not?” Sometimes, all we can answer with is something to the effect of: “I can’t tell you exactly how I arrive at my morality-- I just know what’s right and what’s wrong!” While this response might be true, it is hardly satisfying. In the mind of the Moral Objectivists, we’ve just created a moral vacuum. And they would be right. It’s difficult to replace an existing program with no program at all.

Objective Morality is the idea that human morals are fixed in stone, rules that we are required to live by no matter what the situation is— it is a system that states that morality is objective; that it exists outside of the human experience. Part of this concept is the idea of Objective Evil— that there is evil in the universe apart from Man, that it is floating out there in space somewhere like some kind of cosmic fog. Some people really think this way. The way I understand things, good and evil are labels that we humans put on behavior, based upon whether that behavior is harmful or beneficial to other people. Let’s use an example to take look at the problems facing 'Objective Morality'.

Objective morality states that lying is wrong. Why? That is the important question. Objective morality states that lying is wrong because it is just plain wrong– because it is untruthful, and because truth carries a higher value than falsehood. The behavior is the principle. But should the behavior be the principle?

I’m about to explain to you a system in which the behavior is not the principle, one in which the principle is independent from the behavior– where the principle guides the behavior.

Is lying wrong in all cases? Is it always moral to tell the truth? The knee-jerk response is to say yes. But, we can’t immediately answer this question. We hesitate... We can’t instantly say “yes”. The first thing that pops into our minds is: “What kind of lie?” or, “What is the circumstance?” Right away, we try to find the context of the falsehood. And here is where Objective Morality breaks down. It fails to deal with real situations. I’ll get back to this in a moment.

Another reason the idea of Objective Morality is shown to be untrue is that history denies it. What we think is moral today is not the same as people thought years ago. Consider slavery. 500 years ago, slavery was natural and accepted, and you would not have been able to find anyone who thought there was something wrong with it. Today, the idea of slavery is totally unacceptable and abhorrent. This is a radical change, and it indicates a fundamental shift in what humans have considered moral. Throughout history, we as human beings have continuously reconsidered what constitutes morality.

We owe it to ourselves to express just how we arrive at our moral decisions. What principles guide us? How does it all work? What are the mechanics behind our morals? In this issue I will set forth what I believe to be a rational and objective system of morality, and I will attempt to explain how this system works. This framework, called the Principle of Life Ownership, was formulated by modern day philosopher Michael Scott Earl, and to him I owe the foundation of this article. His system is universal, and useful in nearly every situation, to help you understand your ethics. This is not moral anarchy— in fact it is far from it.

Essentially, this framework is based upon the realization that I own my own life. It is mine. Mine to do with as I wish. I have freedom to act in any way I choose. But this freedom does have it’s limitations. I’ll get to those later. The main advantage of such a system is that it is an objective system, a system grounded in the real world, but it allows you the freedom to make rational choices. This moral system operates within a framework of two fundamental assumptions. These assumptions are:

1) A PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNCERTAINTY
Socrates once said, “The only thing I know for certain is that I do not know anything.” Certainly Socrates was more honest than most people. I will change one thing about his comment— I do think we can be certain of our own existence. In other words, I know that I exist. And you know that you exist.

So the first step in this system is to acknowledge the unknown. It is an act of intellectual honesty. When confronted with big questions, we need to have the courage to say, “I don’t know.” For thousands of years uncertainty has been perceived as some sort of philosophical enemy. But uncertainty does not need to be looked at as an enemy. Every moment of our lives presents us with a new uncertainty. We need not shy away from the unknown. We can embrace it and learn from it.

Because we are certain of nothing beyond our own existence, we need to make a basic assumption about the world around us. Specifically, we need to assume that the universe does not exist in our minds only, but that it is an objective reality that exists independent of us. The assumption of an objective reality is important because it establishes an environment in which all of your actions have real-world consequences.

2) THE ASSUMPTION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUALITY OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS
This principle asserts that other human beings are fundamentally no better or worse than I am. Accordingly, I have no greater right to exist than the next guy, and vice versa. The inherent worth of one human being is no greater than that of any other human being, regardless of one’s race, gender, income, place of birth, sexual orientation, or any other genetic quality.

Having made this assumption of human equality, rational morality can begin to take on some real meaning. And that’s because rational morality is based on a sort of universal human empathy. When we can realize that all other people’s lives have the same value that we ourselves posses, it is possible for us to identify meaningful standards of moral behavior.

I believe that most people are basically good. This is a belief of mine, based upon the people I know and what I know about human nature. While I think it is true that most people primarily look out for their own interests, I think that most folks don’t want to cause pain and harm to others, and want to do the right thing. Try to picture everyone you know, and I think you’ll agree with me that most people are basically good. Criminals are the exception, not the rule.

For our ethical system to work, we also must assume that the most important thing we value is human life. Human life— this life that we are now living— is the ultimate value to us. Nothing else comes before it. If you place something else above human life in terms of value, then this is not a system which will work for you. There are certain things that all of us value. We as human beings all value our lives, our property, and the people who are close to us. These are universal values. These are all valuable simply because of the experience of being human.

THE PRINCIPLE OF LIFE OWNERSHIP
I own my own life. I can do whatever I want to with it. This is a right that I take for myself. No one has a right to take my life away from me— all of it, or any portion of it— without my CONSENT. No one may diminish the quantity— or the quality— of my life. To be consistent, I also extend this right to everyone else, because all people are fundamentally equal. Everyone has the right to his or her own life.

Whether or not it is acceptable to kill another person suddenly becomes perfectly clear. Let’s say a person will live a hundred years. To kill that person at age fifty would be to steal the fifty years that remain to him. Do you have the right to take someone else’s life away? No, because that life did not belong to you. It belongs to them. When is it acceptable to kill someone else? When they are trying to take your life, or the life of someone else. It is not immoral to kill when you are defending the Principle of Life Ownership.

Simply saying: “You should not kill” is not enough. (Talk about situational ethics!) Within the framework of rational morality, killing another human being— except out of self-defense— would be the ultimate violation of the Principle of Life Ownership.

Remember the case of lying? Is it always wrong to lie? Sometimes it is, when it violates the Principle of Life Ownership.

Here is a case to illustrate this point. Let’s pretend you are living in Germany in 1941. You are hiding a Jewish family in your basement. One night, you hear a loud knock on your door. It’s a troop of Nazi soldiers. They’re going door to door looking for Jews, and they ask you if there are any of them in your house. What should you tell them? What will happen to the Jewish family? According to the Principle of Life Ownership, there is no question that the only moral choice is to tell a big, fat lie. You are defending the Jewish family’s right to own their own lives. It is perfectly clear.

Is it wrong to lie? Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on the situation. Does this mean we change our morality with each and every new situation? No, it does not. The behavior can change, but the principle NEVER changes. The Principle of Life Ownership is what our behavior is based upon, and it is something we can adhere to, no matter what the situation is.

Why is stealing wrong? Let’s say you want a new car. You work hard, save your money for a year, and buy that car. To earn the money, you have to trade hours of your life for money. That car cost you a portion of your life. If someone steals the car, then the thief has stolen however many hours it took you to earn the money to buy that car. The thief has, in a very real sense, stolen a portion of your life. You could have spent that time doing something else instead of working— so the thief has also robbed you of some of the quality of your life too. Stealing is wrong because it violates the Principle of Life Ownership.

“Consent” is a very big component in this system. It is permission from someone who owns his or her own life. Consent is the difference between lovemaking and rape. Between employment and slavery. Between charity and theft. In the dojo, we inflict pain upon each other. We do it all the time. But we do it with each other’s consent. If we were to go out into the street and do these same techniques on some unsuspecting person who does not give you his consent to do so, it would be assault and battery. Behavior that is perfectly moral in one case becomes completely immoral without the consent of the person whose life it is. In our interactions with others, the consent of the people involved makes all the difference. Think about any ethical situation you want to. How can you apply the Principle of Life Ownership? The Principle can tell you when an action is moral, and when an action is immoral.

THE PLATINUM RULE
A practical, positive side of the Principle of Life Ownership is what is known as the Platinum Rule. You are probably already aware of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is a very good rule. But we are going to go one step better. The Platinum Rule states: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” This is a subtle but important difference, one you should think about in your daily dealings with people, and your interpersonal relationships. This approach does take more work on your part. It requires that you find out what the other person wants. What you might want to have done to you might not be the same thing as someone else might want to have done to them.

A REAL SENSE OF PURPOSE
No system is as real, as solid, and universal as the Principle of Life Ownership. It works the same in all places, in all times, and with all people. Slavery is wrong now for the same reason it was wrong 200 years ago, and 3000 years ago— it is the theft of human life. Our system of ethics does not change for different times, and makes no excuses for different social conditions. With this system of rational morality we exist inside an objective reality, and we can act within it and make a difference. Recognizing our potential to make a difference in this world lends a very real sense of purpose to our lives. Purpose is a reason you give yourself for your existence. We each have our own purpose, and the search for a purpose is something we must all go through. Within a rational framework you acquaint yourself with the real world around you and you recognize your ability to act and to make a difference. And therein will be your purpose.

Read this article many times. Try to understand the Principle of Life Ownership. Put it into practice right away. Share it with other people. It is something that the world needs. Imagine if everyone on earth practiced it.