Yoggism - Yogg Interest Theory
Yoggism, aka Yogg Interest Theory, is an individualist philosophical framework built on the Fulfillment of Interests as the source of Ethics.
Acts that intrinsically frustrate and subordinate others' interests, are illegitimate. Defense of interests is the imperative.
Interests as a value is justified as being necessary for the deduction of normative claims.
This concept is called Justification Ethics.
--Content Usage--
The Texts, Theories, Ideas, and Info Posters present on this page, relating to Yoggism, can be freely redistributed with credit to TonyTCB.
Page Version: v5.5.4
Details of the Theory - Info Posters
Yoggism is an ethical framework built on the idea that the following ethical claim is the only claim that can be philosophically justified:
Actions that intrinsically frustrate interests, and inherently subordinate others' interests, are unjustifiable and illegitimate, and actions taken in defense against such conduct are justifiable.
Below are Info-Posters explaining in simplified form, different parts of the philosophy.
These may be freely redistributed with credit to TonyTCB.
Step-by-Step Guide
Yoggism has various sections that act as justification and answers to different questions of how the framework works.
Basic Definitions::
1. Interest - A preference / goal, that which a sentient being's behavior tends towards.
2. Inherent Interest - An interest that acts as a conduit for other interests, other fundamental interests depend upon it.
3. Normative Will - The capacity for normative and rational claims to be evaluate-able; aka ethical agency.
4. Abusive Interests - Interests that enforce through misaligned interests, active frustration/violation of inherent interests.
- The core principle of Yoggism, that unjustifiable frustration against inherent interests is illegitimate.
www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text1_anti-abuse-principle
- The justification for why Interests as a Value is presupposed by any attempt to rationally justify normative claims.
www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text2_justification-ethics
- The basis of how actions are weighed against each-other, and how 'Inherent Interests' act as conduits for other interests.
www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text9_inherent-interest-theory
Retaliatory Law
- Justification of Self-Defense, of defense against inherently frustrating actions.
www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text6_retaliatory-law
- This theory justifies what kind of life the framework applies to. Yoggism grants all sentient beings value through Interests.
www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text5_normative-will
--Implications of Yoggism--
Markets and Interest Alignment [see full text]
- How Worker-Owned Cooperatives are more Ethical and Prosperous as they allow greater Interest Alignment and prevent abuse via the AAP
Omnilibertarian Rule Theory [see full text]
- How Private Communities have a duty of Fairness to all members, and how Yoggism prescribes True Individualist Freedom in all domains
Environmentalism from Interests [coming soon]
- How Entanglement of Interests generate environmental rights and justify anti-pollution sentiment via individualism better than the NAP
Interest Property Theory [see full text]
- How a value of Interests implies non-abusive Property Rights
Solving the Non-Identity Problem [see full text]
- How Derek Parfit's Non-Identity Problem is addressed by Yoggism
Definition of Inherent Frustration
(from Inherent Interest Theory):
Some actions can be more inherently frustrating to interests, based on whether the frustration of interests is inherent to the content of the action itself.
This can also be measured by looking at whether a particular action is inherently frustrating to interests that act as a conduit for other interests.
Anti-Abuse Principle (AAP)
Actions that are intrinsically frustrating to another's non-abusive fulfillment of interests, or inherently subordinate another's interests, constitute abuse, and are thus illegitimate.
Actions that proportionately defend against abuse, or inhibit conduct that is inherently frustrating of interests, are legitimate insofar as they constitute self-defense.
--- (Simplified Principle)
This principle can be stated in essence in a simple sentence:
"Acts that intrinsically frustrate and subordinate others' interests, are illegitimate. Defense of interests is the imperative."
--- (The Abuse of the Spook - AS Recognition)
Some actions function as a 'spook' against interests, and can be defined as intrinsically frustrating actions that inherently subordinate another's interests.
These actions constitute abuse and are thus illegitimate.
This principle is justified by Justification Ethics.
The notion of inherent frustration is derived from Inherent Interest Theory.
Justification Ethics
Justification Ethics is the backbone of Yoggism, used to derive the key parts of the philosophy.
The way it works is a step by step exploration of how normative ethical claims can be derived.
The overall claim is that rational justification of normative force requires an appeal to the interests of whomever you are interacting with.
Types of Premises
The different kinds of premises that can be used to derive claims are:
1. Truth Claims (true facts about the world, is-statements)
2. Reason (logical truths, A=A, if A implies B and A is true then B is true, I think therefore I am)
3. Interests (wants, desires, preferences, goals; of some sentient being)
4. Axioms (assumptions, statements assumed to be true without justification)
5. Presuppositions (norms presupposed by things actors are already doing)
Is-Ought Gap limits Normative Proofs
Is-Statements (the sky is blue) cannot be used to derive Ought-Statements (you ought not break a chair).
This is called the is-ought gap and it is a logical consequence of deduction, it gives a fundamental limitation to how normative claims can be proven.
Normative claims, being ought statements, thus cannot be derived from Truth Claims, or pure Reason. The only exception is arguments that don't prove ethical claims, but only rational claims like "1+1=2".
For ethical claims, only Interests and Axioms work.
Interests are the Only Option
But even here, axioms cannot be used as the core for the rational justification of normative force because you cannot prove someone else "rationally ought to accept X claim" if they do not accept your axiom.
Axioms are by definition unprovable, they are assumptions.
Interests though, can be used to prove normative claims. Imagine you want to prove your friend "ought to buy a washing machine". This can be as simple as appealing to their interest in clean clothes.
Therefore, only Interests can be used to prove normative claims.
Definitions:
Justification: Proving an action justifiable means to form a deductive argument that derives a claim in the form "you ought to accept X". Such a deductive argument only proves justification if the conclusion is derived from premises that apply to the person you're justifying the action to; for if they don't then the conclusion cannot follow.
Normative Claim: For the purposes of this text, the claims used are not simple normative truths like "you ought to accept 1+1=2" but rather something like "you ought not steal".
Normative Justification: A deductive argument (or argument equivalent to a deduction) that derives a claim in the form "you ought to accept X".
Deriving Interest Fulfillment
Persuasive Arguments and thus Rational Justification must appeal to Interests
Premises of a persuasive argument must be justifiable to the person the ought claim is made to, otherwise the claim could not follow.
Rational Justification functions as a persuasive argument, an argument that proves a claim in the form "you ought to accept X" to some opponent. Any argument like this, any 'persuasive argument' at all, must appeal to the interests of the opponent for the opponent to accept the premises; the only exception being arguments that prove claims solely based on rationalism itself.
For if the opponent does not accept the premises, the argument will not follow.
For example, trying to argue that "you ought to buy a washing machine" must appeal to the interests of the opponent.
Rational Justification must appeal to the Normative Value of Interests
Normative claims cannot be derived purely through non-normative premises. If a claim is truely normative, that normativity has to come from premises that are justifiable.
Persuasive Arguments, and thus Rational Justification, is only meaningful if it proves a normative claim "you ought to accept X". The normativity of the claim must be derived from the premises of the argument, and those premises must appeal to the interests of the opponent.
Therefore, as a premise of any act of rational justification, the normative value of the opponent's interests must be appealed to.
Interactions should be Rationally Justifiable
If you act in a way where your behavior is rationally unjustifiable, you are being irrational. Any semblance of reason would thus discredit such behavior.
If you interact with someone, you should be able to rationally justify your interaction, in a way where those involved in the interaction should be rationally required to accept your justification.
This means you should be able to justify that the claim “You rationally ought to accept my way of interacting is reasonable” is true for the person you are interacting with; you should be able to argue you are acting reasonably.
To contradict the value of Interests is to contradict Rational Justification
Interactions that contradict the normative value of interests, fail to be rationally justifiable to those engaged in the interaction.
This is a 'persuasive argument', meaning an argument that attempts to derive a claim in the form "You ought to accept X". Any argument in this form, must appeal to the interests of any debate opponent for the conclusion to have valid normative weight.
To engage in an interaction that is inconsistent with the normative value of interest, is to engage in an interaction that cannot be rationally justified to anyone.
Imagine someone is outside of your house and is dancing weirdly on the sidewalk. Not too close to your house to disturb your yard, not making much noise, either. They just.. look weird, and you can see them being weird out of your window.
Imagine you have an interest in them not doing that. Said another way, you don't like that they are doing that. What is more reasonable relative to the Fulfillment of Interests?
A. To forcibly stop the person from doing what they want.
B. To close your window so them dancing stops getting on your nerves.
Inherent Interest Theory
--The Action Spectrum--
Different actions carry more or less justificatory burden based on how much the action interferes with interests, and whether that interference is intrinsic to the contents of the action itself.
This creates a spectrum between action and inaction and is logically necessary as the rejection of this spectrum makes neutrality and inaction collapse as distinctions, and allows the derivation of contradictory claims.
--A Definition of Inherent Interest--
Inherentness is a spectrum used to compare interests.
An interest is more inherent than another if the given interest is entangled with other interests, or acts as a conduit for other interests regardless of external factors; in a way the second interest does not, or to a higher extent.
For example, an interest in not having food taken away, can in most circumstances be a very inherent interest, as it acts as a conduit for an interest in not dying; which itself is a conduit for all other interests.
Normative Will
A water bottle cannot behave irrationally, the distinction of rational behavior and irrational behavior does not apply to it. A water bottle's behavior can only be measured relative to the laws of physics themselves.
Sentient beings can act rationally and irrationally though, relative to their interests and relative to the value of truth.
The Normative Will of sentient beings is the difference in volition and capacity to resist instinct, the capacity to act rationally or irrationally relative to rational standards and relative to one's own interests, and the capacity to contradict naturally selected preferences.
Through Justification Ethics, we can derive that all sentient beings have normative value.
Definition:
Normative Will is therefore the capacity for normative evaluation of behaviors relative to standards beyond the mere laws of physics; including rationality, ethics, and personal preferences.
Implications
How it connects to Justification Ethics
Justification Ethics is the idea that rational justification presupposes an appeal to the Normative Value of Interests themselves.
If you interact with a water bottle, you need not justify your actions to the water bottle, because rationally justifying a claim of "this water bottle ought to accept X idea" makes no sense. The water bottle is not a rational actor at any level.
For sentient beings this isn't true. Consider the interaction of "I will steal this child's candy". How can you rationally justify such an interaction? The child would object, and the child's cognition should be complex enough to be able to judge the action on rational grounds, thus the objection is of rational weight.
Thus, rational justification requires you to be able to prove "the child ought rationally to accept my interaction as non-contradictory". This is impossible, because you cannot:
1. Prove it's positively rational to steal candy based on rationalism alone, with no explicit or implicit appeal to normative value.
2. Prove it's legitimate to steal candy relative to the normative value of Interests, as the action is inherently frustrating and without reason.
Therefore, stealing candy from a child is rationally unjustifiable.
Therefore, Normative Will is the way to measure how strictly Justification Ethics applies.
Animal Rights through Justification
Justification Ethics, which implies the Normative Value of Interests, can apply to any sentient being where their cognition is complex enough to judge a given action on rational grounds, relative to the standards or complexity of the action and it's affects.
In the "stealing candy from a child" example, the child's cognition is complex enough such that you can derive the normative claim "they rationally ought to disapprove of you stealing from them" is true for the child, relative to their interests. Likewise, you can't derive they rationally ought to accept your behavior.
Similar logic applies to animals, you can simply replace "child" with "monkey/dog/bird/earthworm" and it's fine. Those beings do have the ability to act rationally and irrationally relative to their interests, and relative to how they should act relative to truth. Since preference is present in all sentient beings, normative claims can be derivable through an appeal to their interests.
If you try to kill a dog for no reason other than you want to, it is impossible to make an argument such that "the dog ought rationally to accept your interaction as non-contradictory". This is impossible, because you cannot:
1. Prove it's positively rational to harm the dog based on rationalism alone, with no explicit or implicit appeal to normative value.
2. Prove it's legitimate to harm the dog relative to the normative value of Interests, as the action is inherently frustrating and without reason.
Since normative claims involving the dog must appeal to their interests, and acting to hurt the dog is inherently frustrating, such actions are unjustifiable.
Absolute Interest Conclusion Proven
It has thus been shown that Normative Will is the appropriate measure on how strictly Justification Ethics applies.
Killing a dog is unjustifiable because normative claims involving them must appeal to interests, same with killing a monkey, or a child, or a cow, or a human.
The logical consequence of this is that any entity that is sentient with Interests, has Justification Ethics apply to it to the rational extent.
Any unnecessary inherent frustration of their interests is thus illegitimate as it cannot be justified without appealing either to factual and purely rational premises, which doesn't work, or appealing to the Normative Value of Interests by trying to appeal to their own standards, which contradict the claim trying to be proven, thus justification fails.
Therefore, the Fulfillment of Interests of all sentient beings, in all reference frames; with priority to Inherent, Rational Interests, as a value, is sustained.
Yogg Virtue Theory
Yogg Virtue Theory is the idea that the definition of a Good Character or Good Virtue is founded on the Respect for Interests, and behaviors that curate this respect, are good.
This grants the Yogg Virtue Principle:
You ought to act in a way consistent with the virtues that curate respect for interests, including Mutual Respect, Justice, Truth, and Recognition of others as Self-Sovereign.
You ought to not act against Consent, or enforce Interest Misalignment for your own gain through Unfairness, Irrationality, Explotativeness, or Abuse.
You ought to form a character that adheres to the responsibility of upholding these character traits, against Negligence towards others, and Abuse of others.
Common virtues such as Justice, Self-Sovereignty, and Generosity, are simply emergent properties of the Respect for Interests.
The idea of Virtue is a great way of explaining how inaction can be morally wrong. Specifically if someone does not act to save someone and lets someone come to harm, the justification of calling that a moral wrong, is difficult under Justification Ethics,
Justification Ethics is contingent on the normative obligation to rationally justify methods of interaction. If there is no interaction occurring, it's not obvious how there could be an obligation to rationally justify inaction, or even how such justification could happen, and to whom.
Praxeological Asymmetry could also be used to argue for inaction not needing justification, based on the epistemic logic of there being a default state of falsity for any positive claim, thus disbelief in something can be excused simply by the lack of evidence, though a true lack of evidence in all directions implies neutrality, violating this asymmetry.
Virtue Ethics, specifically built around the Respect for Interests, solves these problems. Virtue Ethics is a philosophical approach emphasizing character and virtue, rather than adherence towards a principle or goal.
Positive traits, Virtues, and negative traits, Vices, are the attributes that help curate morally positive and morally negative behavior, respectively.
The Anti-Abuse Principle can then be used as an easy way to justify how:
1. Behaviors functioning off of misaligned interests can result in frustration for one side of a deal, which is dangerous, and
2. Respect of Interests in a way similar to Immanuel Kant's "Treat People as an End, never as a Mere Means" is a good way of describing how to prevent such abuse from occurring.
These are the justification for Yogg Virtue Theory and it's utility.
Absolute Interest Conclusion
It is utmost rational to uphold the fulfillment of interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, inherent interests, as a value.
This conclusion is justified by rational justification itself via Justification Ethics, Normative Will, as well as the idea that the Utmost Rational Outcome for any specific set of sentient beings to approach is the outcome that best upholds the fulfillment of their Interests, where 'Interests' are rational preferences, wants, desires, or goals.
It is also justified by an idea called Value Reductionism, wherein any value you have ultimately can be reduced to Interests and thus an implicit value of Interests.
Further detail on Inherent Interests and non-inherent interests, is present in Inherent Interest Theory.
Therefore, actions that are against the normative value of Interests are self-contradictory.
Key Full-Texts Guide
Oughts from Logic
[see full text]
Absolute Interest Conclusion
[see overview]
[see full text]
Anti-Abuse Principle
[see overview]
[see full text]
Justification Ethics
[see overview]
[see full text]
[see deduction]
Inherent Interest Theory
[see full text]
Retaliatory Law
[see full text]
Normative Will
[see overview]
[see full text]
Yogg Virtue Theory
[see overview]
[see full text]
Interest Property Theory
[see full text]
Markets and Interest Alignment
[see full text]
Rationally, you ought to utmost-Rationally Fulfill your own Interests, as all beings are acting in accordance with their interests and thus rationally must act utmost-rationally towards their ends.
Thus, rational existent interests must have prioritization to the self.
The utmost-rational outcome that all sentient beings should align with is that which upholds the Fulfillment of Interests of all sentient beings, in all reference frames; with priority to Inherent, Rational Interests.
The distinction of Inherent Interests and non-inherent Interests is derived by Inherent Interest Theory.
Thus, from the AIC, actions that constitute interference with another's non-abusive fulfillment of their own rational interests, are illegitimate.
Actions that result in the frustration of interests, due to misalignment of interests between parties, are irrational, constitute "abuse", and are illegitimate. Abuse must be defended against.
The Fulfillment of Interests as a value is implied by Rational Justification. Rational Justification of anything beyond pure rationalism requires appealing to the normative value of Interests, so any interaction that violates the value of Interests is rationally unjustifiable.
As interactions ought to be rationally justifiable, that justification must be based in Interests, if an interaction cannot be justified on rationalism alone.
Inherent Interest Theory explains how Yoggism implies some interests take priority over others, it defines Inherent Interests as interests that act as a conduit for other interests, and explains the difference between actions that inherently frustrate and actions that frustrate for external reasons.
Justification Ethics and Inherent Interest Theory can justify self-defense rights through an estoppel argument, the action spectrum, and the recognition of a state of war brought about by unjustified transgressions.
Furthermore, lethal retaliation is justifiable if necessary to defend against inherently frustrating conduct.
Only sentient beings have interests relevant to Justification Ethics and Yoggism, as these beings can be described in terms of the rationality of their behavior relative to different standards. A water bottle cannot behave irrationally, yet sentient beings can.
Normative Will is thus the capacity for normative evaluation of behaviors relative to standards beyond the mere laws of physics, including rationality, ethics, and personal preferences.
Every sentient being possesses some degree of this Normative Will. This also functions as a measure of how strongly Justification Ethics may apply to a given sentient being.
The value of well-rounded Consent can be derived via Justification Ethics. This virtue-wise can be framed as a Respect for Interests broadly.
Through this value, is inaction always justified? A framing of Virtue Ethics in terms of the Respect for Interests solves this problem, regardless of Justification Ethics granting explicit obligations, there is a basis for good character.
This grants the Yogg virtue Principle:
You ought to act in a way consistent with the virtues that curate respect for interests.
Self-Ownership can be justified under Yoggism based on Consent, where abusive conduct is framed as a violation of consent, in a way that contradicts the Absolutist View of Ownership; due to it contradicting interests.
You thus own your Interests, and Preferences, via the normative value of Interests, and also your Body and Mind as they are the primary conduit of your interests.
Inherent Frustration is condemnable in local spaces; to be censored for honest criticism or fired for unfair reasons is inherent frustration even if done in the larger purview of property rights rather than direct use of force, as abusive use of property based on Interest Property Theory is not ethically justifiable.
Due to the tendency for monopolization and more broadly centralization of firms in an unregulated market economy, caused by varying barriers to entry, inconsistency of perfect competition, and the self-reinforcing nature of market share growth, unregulated market economies naturally lead to abusive outcomes.
All Yoggism Pages
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggism
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text0_oughts-from-logic
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text1_anti-abuse-principle
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text2_justification-ethics
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_deduction-of-interests
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text9_inherent-interest-theory
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text6_retaliatory-law
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text5_normative-will
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_actions-must-be-justified
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text4_absolute-interest-conclusion
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text3_yogg-virtue-theory
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text7_interest-property-theory
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text8_markets-and-interest-alignment
https://www.tc-blox.net/omnilibertarian-rule-theory
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_solving-the-non-identity-problem
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text2_yoggism-as-a-procedural-norm
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_refutation-of-argumentation-ethics