Yoggism - Yogg Interest Theory
Yoggism is an individualist philosophical framework built on Interests as the source of Ethics.
Acts that intrinsically frustrate and subordinate
others' interests, are illegitimate. Defense of interests is the imperative.
This is the Anti-Abuse Principle, an ethic derived as the most non-arbitrary ethic by how the justification of action-guiding claims requires an appeal to interests.
See Justification Ethics for the proof.
Below is a complete guide to the framework, how it is grounded, and all it implies about philosophy.
--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: v5.9.0
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.
These are Info-Posters explaining in simplified form, different parts of the philosophy.
These may be freely redistributed with credit to TonyTCB.
Fundamentals of Yoggism
The Anti-Abuse Principle and it's application, how Interests form a new theory of Ethics.
Keep it simple, stupid!
Every section of Yoggism, from what the philosophy implies, to how it's ethic is the only one that can be proven to be true.
Actions which are inherently frustrating and intrinsically subordinating to interests are illegitimate.
12 Minutes - [see full text]
How Yoggism is an ethic that can be proven to be true. Justification of normative claims requires an appeal to interests, implying the AAP.
27 Minutes - [see full text]
Some actions frustrate interests in a way intrinsic to the content of the action itself, and how distinguishing action and inaction resolves conflicts.
[Resolving Conflicts under JE and AAP]
18 Minutes - [see full text]
What determines which beings the framework applies to, and why most sentient life is applicable.
Ethics is not limited to one group, but to all interests.
10 Minutes - [see full text]
A deep-dive into self-defense logic and the logic of defense proportionality.
10 Minutes - [see full text]
Why an appeal to Interests can prove most-rational courses of action and thus derive normative claims.
[Addon to Justification Ethics]
8 Minutes - [see full text]
Why Yoggism is an ethic that can be proven to be true, through tit-for-tat defense justification.
27 Minutes - [see full text]
How, in cooperative deliberation, arguments not fully derived from first principles, are justified by the premise of the value of others' reasons and thus interests.
10 Minutes - [see full text]
The value of interests is utmost rational to uphold for all sentient beings in all possible reference frames.
15 Minutes - [see full text]
How ethical duty and the notion of positive obligations, relatives to Yoggism and the value of interests.
20 Minutes - [see full text]
Yoggism's Implications
The Implications of the Anti-Abuse Principle (AAP), and of the value of Interests themselves.
The implications of Yoggism in social, economic, and political theory.
Rules like freedom of expression and criticism apply universally in all domains, public and private.
15 Minutes - [see full text]
Workers rights are based, actually.
How the concept of interest alignment explains why the distinction between employee, employer, and consumer, can become abusive.
20 Minutes - [see full text]
An exploration of property rights from the Yoggist perspective.
How Interest Entanglement explains property appropriation.
12 Minutes - [see full text]
Why Interests can be frustrated ahead of time and how that doesn't imply self-defeating obligations.
10 Minutes - [see full text]
Shows how markets that follow the AAP can ensure efficiency in contrast to Austrian Economics, and explains how interest abuse and arbitrary force are both bad for markets.
15 Minutes - [see full text]
A deep-dive into philosophical arguments involving the human fetus, and how Yoggism solves everything.
20 Minutes - [see full text]
Why the defense of interests in a decentralized manner by way of gun rights is unjustifiable to surrender.
12 Minutes - [see full text]
In Defense of Yoggism
Rebuttals to possible objections to Yoggism, as well as defense of premises of its arguments.
Why must Axioms require Justification? What presuppositions are invalid?
What about the Is/Ought Gap? How can Rights be grounded?
A detailed refutation of many different objections that could be made against Yoggism.
20 Minutes - [see full text]
A defense of each premise used in the deductions for Justification Ethics, Actions Must be Justified, Inherent Interest Theory, and Oughts from Logic.
30 Minutes - [see full text]
A refutation of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, which claims that engagement in argumentation presupposes the Non-Aggression Principle.
10 Minutes - [see full text]
Yoggism Derived in VI Steps
I. Actions should be justified
(to engage in argumentation presupposes that propositions regarding actions can be evaluated and premises they are derived from can be challenged, as such the insistence that actions hold a justificatory burden is implied by engagement in argumentation in such a way where the norm if rejected outside argumentation invalidates arguments that act as rational justification for actions, to reject this is to devolve to might makes right which is not a valid ethic and contradicts the idea that such propositions should be evaluated and challenged at all, forfeiting argumentative force)
[see Justification Ethics for full argument]
II. Interests can derive normative claims
(there are certain actions that are more rational to perform than others, relative to your interests and relative to what logically makes sense, as such you can prove someone rationally ought to do something by appealing to their interests, for example if someone has an interest in clean clothes you may prove they rationally ought to buy a washing machine, interests are that which a being's behavior tends towards and as such interests are inherently action-guiding)
[see Oughts from Logic for full argument]
III. Only interests can derive normative claims upon others
(truth claims and logical truths cannot directly derive normative ethical claims due to the is/ought gap, presuppositions cannot prove ethical claims due to norms of some activity not applying outside of it without hidden assumptions, axioms cannot fully justify ethical claims because axioms are definitionally unjustified and thus nobody can be proven to be rationally required to accept one they reject, just as how you can’t argue for a belief by simply assuming it's true, thus only interests can derive normative ethical claims)
[see Justification Ethics for full argument]
IV. Interests as source of Justification leads to an action spectrum which then resolves conflicts
(if bob wants to wear a red shirt and alice wants to kill anyone wearing a shirt then without a distinction between actor and non-actor, we end up proving contradictory ethical claims where both people are unjustified and all actions are both justified and unjustified, to avoid this we must have a distinction and in any given conflict between two people we must distinguish which is the non-actor and which is the actor, based on interference to interests, since interests are as explained necessary to justify claims, this then allows us to ask who is more interfering and whose actions are more intrinsically frustrating to interests)
[see Inherent Interest Theory for full argument]
V. Normative Justifications are the appropriate standard of Ethics
(engagement in argumentation presupposes that action-guiding propositions may be evaluated and rightfully challenged, it also presupposes that claims requiring less assumptions and claims that pass a stronger burden of proof are decidedly stronger than claims that do not, less arbitrary propositions are favorable as their claims have a lower epistemic cost, therefore normative justifications for actions that prove one ought accept a proposition are a standard that takes precedence over actions that pass a lesser standard, to reject this is to claim all propositions are equivalent in strength which implies true claims of any framework are subjective, i.e. that 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are equally true, which forfeits the meaningfulness of argument itself)
[see Justification Ethics for full argument]
VI. Therefore, the Anti-Abuse Principle
(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, justified by the estoppel argument that someone attacking someone cannot consistently claim they themselves should not be attacked, as that would contradict their own conduct)
Solving Metaphilosophy
Economics, Epistemology, Human Action, Metaethics, Metaphysics
(this section is incomplete)
An analysis of what it means to want, how interests and outcomes should be measured irrespective of time, and how knowledge and truth is obtained.
Shows how markets that follow the AAP can ensure efficiency in contrast to Austrian Economics, and explains how interest abuse and arbitrary force are both bad for markets.
15 Minutes - [see full text]
How Interests can be frustrated ahead of time and why that doesn't imply self-defeating obligations.
10 Minutes - [see full text]
How Empiricism and the Scientific Method can be grounded in argumentation, causality, and consistency.
15 Minutes - [see full text]
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 - Anti-Spook Doctrine)
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".
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.
The claims implied by the justification of actions have differing epistemic costs, and because of Justification Ethics these costs must center around interests.
--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, normative 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.
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]
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.
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 Normative Justification. Normative 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.
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/text_oughts-from-logic
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_anti-abuse-principle
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_justification-ethics
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_deduction-of-interests
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_inherent-interest-theory
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_estoppel-ethics
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_retaliatory-law
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_normative-will
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_actions-must-be-justified
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_absolute-interest-conclusion
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_interest-theory-of-duty
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_yogg-virtue-theory
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_interest-property-theory
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_markets-and-interest-alignment
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_omnilibertarian-rule-theory
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_interest-praxeology
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_solving-the-non-identity-problem
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_solving-humes-problem-of-induction
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_fetal-rights-and-abortion
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_yoggism-as-a-procedural-norm
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_refutation-of-argumentation-ethics
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_refutationofthenap
https://www.tc-blox.net/yoggtexts/text_rebuttals-to-objections