Manifesto
My beliefs are reasonably simple, namely that organ donation should be mandatory (not opt out, mandatory) and the subsequent surplus of meat should be sold comercially.
Aditionally, murder should be legal, however have an extensive licensing process.
in this manifesto, I will explain and justify my views in more depth, and also explain the process by which the ideal world I describe could come to be.
Firstly, it must be addressed the current justice system does not work. I argue that it does not work for one very specific reason: law and morality are equated. Simply put, law and morality are two different tools for two different purposes. Morality serves as an enforcer and lubricant of social cohesion, a method by which members of an ingroup can relate to one another. If two members of an ingroup agree to something being moral or immoral, the outgroup that disagrees is immoral, which makes the ingroup just and therefore ingroup members safe to be around.
Law however, is a tool used to create an ideal society based on what the lawmakers consider is an ideal society. Which, in undemocratic countries or countries without diversity of ideas in politics, is inevitably based on the lawmaker's system of morality. In democratic countries with diversity of opinion, law tends to be based on common denominations between the moral systems of the ingroups in charge, and thus can be equated to the search of univeral laws of morality. Universal moral laws do not exist, and that is a good thing, because if morality wasn't subjective it would defeat the point of it existing as a concept in the first place.
Lets look at some examples. Prohibition and the war on drugs: the moral systems that led to both the prohibition AND the war on drugs are almost identical, namely that the lawmakers identified substance abuse as a threat to public health, and thus concluded that all substance use is immoral, and thus addicts are immoral. There were of course different factors at play such as racism, classism and political maneuvering in both of these, but that was the moral logic that the populace accepted so that is what I will use for my point. the reason that both of these movements failed is they both failed to account for one very simple fact: people seek what they want and need. If they cannot find it within the law, they will find it outside it.
The Bloody Code: The Bloody Code was a system of law and punishment in 18th and early 19th century Britian where even minor crimes such as petty theft would result in the death penalty. The reasoning that justified this practice was quite simple: if simple crimes had a risk of death attached, there would be a high deterrant. Some pocket change is not worth your life. And if people steal and die anyway, oh well. Their eternal soul will pass on to the afterlife. However, this reasoning failed to account for human desperation. If you cannot afford to eat, a chance of death for stealing is better than certain death by starvation. If you are caught, oh well, hanging is faster and less painful than starvation.
My point is, for an ideal world for as many as possible regardless of moral system to exist, LAW MUST BE AMORAL.
Instead of considering what is "right", law must consider how rules will effect the population as a whole, all groups, and all individuals. If it has a net positive effect on health, lifespan and happiness, it should be applied. if it has a net negative, it should be discarded.
But anyway, on to the actual subject of this manifesto.
Why organ donation should be mandatory: Simply put, any human life is worth more than any human value. People die, and thus lives, livelihoods, genetic diversity and economic circulation are lost because individuals would rather have their lifesaving organs be discarded rather than used after a point where bodily autonomy has no sway.
I personally am pro-choice in terms of abortion rights, however after death, recievers of organs gain everything, and the dead have nothing to lose or gain.
while there might be a short term public outcry, in the long term this would save and extend countless lives and greatly increase public hapiness as a result.
Why human meat should be sold comercially: two reasons: one, there is a market for it, the only reason it is not being already sold is the stigma and pointless moral panic around it. The risks of prion diseases are far smaller than people would have you believe, and even then are only really a risk if you're consuming the nervous tissue of someone who died of a prion disease. In a world where everyone gets regular health checkups, and all corpses are autopsied before they are butchered, the chances of getting sick with a spontaneous human prion disease are lower than getting an existing animal prion disease such as mad cow.
Secondly, it it is the most efficient and eco friendly method of recycling human protiens and calories. Cremation wastes fuel, and produces excesses of carbon monoxide and dioxide. Burial wastes land, resources and labour (seriously, modern coffins are stupidly ostentatious for no reason) and embalming fluid leaches toxins into the soil. Not to mention that most modern burials are so deep that the nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium that was in the body are out of circulation fo hundreds of years. Direct consumption of human flesh beats out even human composting by a mile, given that even taking into account pure trophic level, human ==> human is exponentially more efficient than human ==> bacteria ==> plants ==> human. not to mention that those nutrients will be re-entering the ecosystem anyway, since human waste is already used to make compost.
Why murder should be legal: The fact of the matter is, murder happens, and retributive justice is not only innefective, it is damaging to society as a whole. Murder happens, and is going to keep happening because we are human, and humans kill each other. However, there are different reasons humans kill. I will explore how I believe different types of murder should be dealt with.
Murder of passion: The most common form of murder, and the most wasteful. the only real way to prevent this as much as possible is widespread implimentation of conflict resolution and de-escalation experts throughout society.
Murder of desperation: should not be illegal, full stop. A deep investigation into the issues that led to the act of desperation should be conducted, and how similar issues throught society can be addressed and avoided.
Murder for personal gain: the only way to really avoid this kind of murder would be to make the risks not worth the reward. I.e, an investigation into suspicious deaths where individuals able and willing to have done it would have something to gain, and all rewards they would have gained be conviscated and professional reprimands issued (lawyers disbarred, doctors have their medical liscence revoked, etc) if they are found to be responsible.
consensual murder: murder where both parties agree to it should be fully legal, however there should be a (at least) two month waiting list after both agree, that either of them can pull out at any time. Any murders that are seemingly consensual but do not go through the waiting list should be treated as extremely suspicious.
Murder to satisfy a deep seated need: should be allowed, with an extensive licensing process, and an exaustive evaluation to determine whether a murder license is the only way to satisfy this need.
As previously mentioned, people will seek what they want and need, and if they cannot find it legally they will find it illegally. People who want and need to kill not only exist but will always exist. Only through legalisation and licensing can you control how many they kill in a year, and not muddy the waters in terms of the other kinds of murder.
Through extensive and mandatory documentation of their kills, a review board can also ensure that the people killed are not anyone the killer knows, so it is not another type of murder disguised, and that no demographics are overrepresented in their killings.
Getting these things enshrined in law will be difficult. But the first step in getting your voice heard is ensuring that you have a voice TO be heard. Share this manifesto, even if ironically. Make your own blogs with your own ideas relating to this topic, with details of how this ideal world could work and become a reality. Make this vision a recognised worldview, even if it takes years.
Then, when we have a voice, we can demand change.
