VIRTU3 and Death

The theory of VIRTU3 classifies human behavior using three domains: consequences, ethics and morality. I think seeing how the theory of VIRTU3 applies to death will helps to understand and apply it to life.

When looking at death from a consequential point of view, there are three possible options. We can know someone is dead. We can know someone is alive. We can be in the dark about whether or a person is alive or dead.

When looking at death from an ethical point of view, there are three possible options. We can know someone acted in a way that directly lead to someone's death. We can know nobody acted in a way that lead to the person's death. We can be unsure about whether or not anybody acted in a way that lead to somebody's death.

When looking at death from an moral point of view, there are three possible options. We can know someone wanted that person dead. We can know nobody wanted that person dead. Or we can be in the dark about whether or not anybody had a death wish for that person.

So the theory of VIRTU3 has 27 ways to classify any particular death status. I'll just focus on the eight fully-informed situations and leave out the consequential, ethical and moral "in the dark" possibilities for the rest of the discussion. So someone can be DEAD or ALIVE, their death can be NATURAL or ARTIFICIAL, and their death can be DESIRED or UNDESIRED.

CASE 1: ALIVE, NATURAL, UNDESIRED
Living. This is the status of almost all of us in our day-to-day lives. We are, in fact, alive. We aren't facing a deadly peril. Nobody hates us so much they'd be happy to hear of our deaths.

CASE 2: ALIVE, NATURAL, DESIRED
Hated. Someone hates the person and wants him dead. This situation would include the planning time before a murder. It would also apply if someone just hopes another person dies, but isn't taking any actions that would lead to that other person's death.

CASE 3: ALIVE, ARTIFICIAL, UNDESIRED
Accidental near miss. Someone acted in a way that could have killed someone out of carelessness. The person, thankfully for both the actor and the potential victim, survived.

CASE 4: ALIVE, ARTIFICIAL, DESIRED
Attempted murder. Someone acted in a way that could have killed someone because he wanted to kill that person. He did not succeed.

CASE 5: DEAD, NATURAL, UNDESIRED
Passed away. This is death by natural causes, including illness and natural phenomenon (e.g. tornadoes, floods, fires, earthquakes). It would also include situations where a causal link to another person's actions are too unclear or indirect to assign blame.

CASE 6: DEAD, NATURAL, DESIRED
Hated dead. In this situation the death was natural, so even someone who hated the dead man and was actively planning to kill him would bear no ethical responsibility for the death. It could also include situations where a causal link to another person's actions are too unclear or indirect to assign blame.

CASE 7: DEAD, ARTIFICIAL, UNDESIRED
Manslaughter. Anyone who dies because of another person's careless, but non-malevolent, behaviour falls into this category. There was no intent to kill, but there is still a clear and direct causal link between someone dying and the actions of another person.

CASE 8: DEAD, ARTIFICIAL, DESIRED
Murder. Intentional, premeditated murder.

When the topic of death comes up, justice follows on its heels. The theory of VIRTU3 is about assessing human behavior, about figuring out the proper way to act given everything we know. About figuring out what type of punishment is appropriate for each situation. Clearly murderers (CASE 8) must be brought to justice. Manslaughter (CASE 7), too, should be dealt with, though less punitively than murder. The enemies of the hated dead (CASE 6) should be left in peace, though the cleverest murderers will seek to kill by sufficiently indirect methods that investigators mistake CASE 8 murders for CASE 6 deaths. As for those who die of natural causes (CASE 5), death is often more punishment than they and those they leave behind deserve.

Attempted murder (CASE 4) cannot be ignored or treated much less harshly than successful murder. In non-fatal, but injurious near-miss situations (CASE 3 with harm), most people believe damages of some kind are owed to the victim. But is it ever appropriate to punish someone who hasn't harmed another person but has acted recklessly (CASE 3 without harm)? The time and energy needed to ferret out secret hate (CASE 2) makes any punishment for this situation cost-prohibitive and socially corrosive. Finally, for the living (CASE 1), life is reward and punishment enough for those of us fortunate enough to experience it.

The Relativistic Plane

The plane in VIRTU3-space that is exactly half-way between the VITRU3 and 3VIL corners is the relativistic plane. This plane is where most political and cultural battles are fought. On this plane, no position is is better or worse than any other from a fully virtuous perspective.

The Relativistic Plane in VIRTU3-space

The Relativistic Plane

From the perspective of the selectively blind or the absolutist, there are huge differences between different parts of the relativistic plane. One of these six ways of looking at the world becomes dominant as you approach each of the six edges of the hexagon-shaped relativistic plane.

It's easier to get people to rally around absolutism, so most political parties or social movements drift towards the red, blue or green edge.

• Moral absolutism tends to be associated with progressive movements
• Ethical absolutism tends to be associated with independence movements
• Consequential absolutism tends to be associated with conservative movements

Institutions tend towards one of the three blindnesses due to their fundamental incentive structures.

• Organized religious/ideological institutions grow out of particular combinations of ethical and moral beliefs. Consequential blindness comes from the tendency of these types of institutions to stick with official doctrines despite (or even because of) the destructive results of past applications of those ideas.
• The core purpose of governments is to punish immoral behaviors (intentional murder/theft/etc.) and protect or reward moral behaviors (with renown/subsidies/etc.). Governments can drift towards ethical blindness unless they are vigilantly policed by powers outside of their legislative/judicial purview.
• Markets exist as a successful set of ethical rules that allow for peaceful trade between relative strangers. Once it reaches a certain size a market becomes morally blind as participants have no way to know anything about the moral intentions of other participants.

Institutional VIRTU3

Most institutions grow out of a set rules for two of the three domains of VITRU3. Communities depend on a set of moral and ethical standards to avoid conflicts and resolve disputes peacefully. Markets function through a set of ethical and consequential conventions that foster mutually beneficial exchanges. Governments grow out of the attempt to codify a set of moral standards that will lead to long-term positive outcomes. Each of these institutions is subject to one of the three types of blindness.

The table below shows how differences in the priorities of institutions contribute to conflicts within and between societies. True VIRTU3 comes from each of these institutions compensating for the weaknesses in the others.

	COMMUNITY	GOVERNMENT	MARKETPLACE
DOMAIN	Moral & Ethical	Moral & Consequential	Ethical & Consequential
PLUS/MINUS	Right & Good/ Wrong & Bad	Positive & Good/ Negative & Bad	Right & Positive/ Wrong & Negative
CATEGORY	Theory & Beliefs	History & Beliefs	Theory & History
TIME	The Present & Future	The Past & Future	The Past & Present
SPACE	Local	National	Global
HIGHEST VALUE	Idealized Truth	Idealized Authority	Revealed Truth
MEASURE OF SUCCESS	Population Growth	National Autonomy	International Influence
BASIS	Self-Knowledge & Human Nature	Self-Knowledge & Observed Results	Human Nature & Observed Results
STYLES OF REASONING	Intuitive & Deductive	Intuitive & Inductive	Deductive & Inductive
FAILURE MODES	Self-Delusion/ Logical Fallacies	Self-Delusion/ Black Swans	Logical Fallacies/ Black Swans
SOURCE OF ERROR	Consequential Blindness	Ethical Blindness	Moral Blindness
MORAL PHILOSOPHY	Religion	Interventionism	Laissez-Faire
SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY	Social Correctness	Social Engineering	Engineering
JUDICIAL EMPHASIS	Mens Rea & Fault-Based Liability	Mens Rea & No-Fault Liability	Fault-Based Liability & No-Fault Liability
RELIGIOUS FOCUS	Divine Grace & Justice	Divine Grace & Favor	Divine Justice & Favor
ECONOMIC TOOLS	Economic Philosophy & Economic Praxeology	Economic Philosophy & Econometric Analysis	Economic Praxeology & Econometric Analysis
POLITICAL NARRATIVES	Aspirational Rationalism	Aspirational Pragmatism	Rational Pragmatism
AMERICAN POLITICS	Progressive Movement	Bipartisan Establishment	Conservative Movement
POLITICAL ECONOMICS	Cooperative Socialism	Regulatory Corporatism	Market Capitalism
POLITICAL HIERARCHY	Cooperative Meritocracy	Authoritarian Collectivism	Market Aristocracy
POLITICAL POWER-GROUP	Revolutionary Patriot-Insurgents	The Government (Civil & Military)	Reactionary Patriot-Insurgents
POLITICAL FAILURE MODE	Revolutionary Fragmentation	Military Totalitarianism	Reactionary Fragmentation

Personal VIRTU3

The three domains of VITRU3 show up in many other areas of human action. The table below shows how some important conflicts and differences of opinion map back to fundamental disagreements about the nature of virtue. The columns represent the three absolutist stances on each of the different topics. More complex, nuanced views would apply to the three blindnesses. A full understanding of VIRTU3 comes from synthesizing these views without compromising any of them.

	INTENTIONS	ACTIONS	RESULTS
DOMAIN	Moral	Ethical	Consequential
PLUS/MINUS	Good/Bad	Right/Wrong	Positive/Negative
CATEGORY	Belief	Theory	History
TIME	The Future	The Present	The Past
SPACE	Hearts and Minds	The World of Forms	The Real World
HIGHEST VALUE	Ideals	Truth	Experience
MEASURE OF SUCCESS	Popularity	Wisdom	Prosperity
BASIS	Self-Knowledge	Human Nature	Observed Results
STYLE OF REASONING	Intuitive	Deductive	Inductive
FAILURE MODE	Self-Delusion	Logical Fallacies	Black Swans
SOURCE OF ERROR	Belief ≠ Reality	Theory ≠ Reality	Data ≠ Reality
MORAL PHILOSOPHY	Intentionalism	Natural Law	Utilitarianism
SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY	Social Advancement	Procedural Correctness	Practical Utility
JUDICIAL EMPHASIS	Mens Rea	Fault-Based Liability	No-Fault Liability
RELIGIOUS FOCUS	Divine Grace	Divine Justice	Divine Favor
ECONOMIC TOOLS	Economic Philosophy	Economic Praxeology	Econometric Analysis
POLITICAL NARRATIVES	Aspirational	Rational	Pragmatic
AMERICAN POLITICS	Democratic Party	Liberty Movement	Republican Party
POLITICAL ECONOMICS	Socialism	Voluntaryism	Capitalism
POLITICAL HIERARCHY	Progressive Meritocracy	Associative Individualism	Traditional Aristocracy
POLITICAL POWER-GROUP	Scientific-Technical Elite	Guerilla Patriot-Terrorists	Military-Industrial Complex
POLITICAL FAILURE MODE	Totalitarian Communism	Feudal Anarchy	Totalitarian Fascism

The 10 Commandments of VIRTU3

1. Live virtuously at all times.
2. Act only with good intentions towards yourself and others.
3. Act only in accordance with the rights of yourself and others.
4. Act only in ways that will yield positive results for yourself and others.
5. Do not act with bad intentions towards yourself or others.
6. Do not wrong yourself or others by your actions.
7. Do not act in ways that will yield negative results for yourself or others.
8. Do not use good intentions to justify wrong actions or negative results.
9. Do not use right actions to justify bad intentions or negative results.
10. Do not use positive results to justify bad intentions or wrong actions.

The 3 Types of Blindness

Some people believe that one of the three domains of virtue is completely irrelevant. Because of this belief, they voluntarily blind themselves to the full view of VIRTU3-space.

Moral Blindness

Those who believe that morality is irrelevant are susceptible to moral blindness. For the morally blind, ethics and consequences are the only standards of virtue. An action can be judged as wholly good without any consideration of the moral intentions that led to the behavior. Immoral behavior is justified and wholly excused by correct ethics and positive outcomes. Moral blindness is associated with sayings like "fake it 'til you make it" and totally rejects personal morality as having any weight, even as a secondary or side constraint.

This figure shows how the morally blind orient VIRTU3-space. The yellow and white corners are considered equally virtuous. The blue and black corners are considered equally vicious. The other four corners are mixed, since they are either ethical or constructive, but not both.

Ethical Blindness

Those who believe that ethics are irrelevant are susceptible to ethical blindness. For the ethically blind, morals and consequences are the only standards of virtue. An action can be judged as wholly good without any consideration of the ethical nature of the behavior. Unethical behavior is justified and wholly excused by correct morals and positive outcomes. Ethical blindness is associated with sayings like "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" and totally rejects ethical rights as having any weight, even as a secondary or side constraint.

This figure shows how the ethically blind orient VIRTU3-space. The purple and white corners are considered equally virtuous. The green and black corners are considered equally vicious. The other four corners are mixed, since they are either moral or constructive, but not both.

Consequential Blindness

Those who believe that results are irrelevant are susceptible to consequential blindness. For the consequentially blind, morals and ethics are the only standards of virtue. An action can be judged as wholly good without any consideration of the real or predictable outcomes of a given behavior. Destructive behavior is justified and wholly excused by personal morality and correct ethics. Consequential blindness is associated with sayings like "do what's right, come what may" and totally rejects real-world results as having any weight, even as a secondary or side constraint.

This figure shows how the consequentially blind orient VIRTU3-space. The aqua and white corners are considered equally virtuous. The red and black corners are considered equally vicious. The other four corners are mixed, since they are either moral or ethical, but not both.

Centered VIRTU3

Doubt reigns in the center of VIRTU3-space. There are many circumstances where there just isn't enough information to make any judgments about a particular behavior. We might not know what someone intended, so it's hard/impossible to make a determination about their morality. We might not know who has what rights based on the full history of interactions, so ethical judgments might be conflicted or uncertain. It might be unclear what the full long-term results of any particular action are, so it can be unclear if the action is creative, destructive or somewhere in between.

The center is, in my opinion, where all of us are born. Each of us may, based on in-born temperament, be more attracted to some part of VIRTU3-space. Temperament aside, most of us are ready and able to learn and follow the particular morals, ethics and expectations of our societies. A free society is one where a wider variety of temperaments can find full expression. A restrictive society is one where little or no accommodation for personal temperament is made.

The Centered VIRTU3 Framework