Applying Law to an Emerging Digital World by Means of Philosophical Analysis

As a human being alive in 2021, I have arrived in a dream state[1] that is almost a perfect replica of my real-life state[2]. This dream state, which is eerily similar to the virtual world that has infiltrated the lives of the human in the Corona age, is rather off. The notion of law and order has been removed and replaced by nothing of the sort; it seems as though I must start from scratch and rebuild society before it buckles under lawlessness and the animalistic human instinct that results from the discovery of living in this newly lawless land of the dream state (or virtual world or the Internet- whatever you want to call it)[3].

This dream state must become organized in order to preserve the entire community. Without organization, the community will become ridden with selfish action instead of the desire for the common interest of living a good life. A social contract, or law, must be implemented in one way or another, but arriving at a successful implementation is difficult, for many factors and circumstances are dependent on the application process as well as the current status of the community. The application of law has been discussed in various ways for as long as man has been able to use reason. Aristotle’s idea of government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s idea of government hold particular interest because of the opportunity to compare and contrast the two ideas. Both philosophers find that government has been overtaken by those who only want to reserve an advantage for themselves and not for the good of the entire community, but their structures differ between the rationality offered. Aristotle relies on a type of natural, inherent social contract based on human experience whereas Rousseau relies on manufactured social contract that is of man’s descent. The latter enforced that an individual’s needs and interests were not always going to be the same. The virtue offered by the two ideas of how a government should be structured should be analyzed in order to gain perspective into how to apply virtuous nature towards this newly implemented dream state/virtual world/Internet. Put more precisely, we must break down the ideas of government by philosophy in order to obtain the proper application of law to be used towards the new, digital world that has been thrust into our lives.

Aristotle teaches that humans realize themselves (i.e have the ability to hurt themselves) therefore humans are concerned with a life worth living, resulting in a purpose; an aim. To achieve this goal, subsidiary actions must occur. For instance, war, which is the master activity, is not simply just to be violent and kill people, but rather for an end goal.

Happiness is the prized possession in Aristotle’s Ethics; it is the aim for a life worth living. Humans take part in activities that yield results that are good. An act is not done because it is expected to yield a bad result. These activities are usually building blocks towards something else that is a means to a higher end. An activity that is an end in itself must be the highest good, which Aristotle claims is happiness. Happiness contains the end goal of being happy; happiness results in happiness. Success and money are not means in themselves; I can accumulate wealth, but I cannot really aim for something that depends on other things because it is then contingent and not a means of itself.

A life worth living is not only to satisfy brute desires; man must scarify desires for virtue, but mere human nature is to fall privy towards brute desires. According to Aristotle, the human function is to think and act in regard and reason while leaving behind the brute animalistic life for a life worth living that is engaged in proper conduct. Happiness is achieved in the life of this resulting fully virtuous person.

The chief human good of happiness is obtained by a complete life of excellence by virtue. Instead of merely acting accordingly, a fully virtuous person knows the right thing to do by nature and requires no threat to perform the virtuous action. Fear is not required in order to make this person act virtuously; inherent virtuous character makes this person act virtuously. The right act and the why of that act is known by the fully virtuous person. Aristotle makes it clear that the not-fully virtuous person relies on the rules/laws set and follows them without further ponderance of the why or how these laws were established. He argues that fully virtuous person does not need to follow the law because of law’s nature to train a population. The law gives information on the correct thing to do, but a fully virtuous person already contains practical wisdom by nature. Aristotle expresses that a decision to perform an action as a virtuous person must stem from rationale and knowledge rather than from a different source, such as law.

The development of reason, discourse, and language, what is commonly referred to as a part of logos, occurs naturally for Aristotle by means of human existence. Humans’ existence equals an inherent investment in the social contract. Engagement in life makes the human political, here meaning an engagement in interest of self and environment. Being a human results in being a citizen of a society, which results in the questioning of what the good life is as well as a query into the notion of common interest. The society engages in politics, according to Aristotle, and the government is the society writ large. The people who are focused on living well make up Aristotle’s constitution or politeia.

In Politics, he famously states that “even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.” Law is sufficient but not appropriate for every situation, so a fully virtuous man is needed to dictate proper discourse. The application of abilities of reasoning, wisdom, and emotional separation from human nuances result in a virtuous representation. A life filled with this virtuous contemplation is a life filled with happiness containing the never-ending presence of the highest good.

We have established that the goal of politics is happiness. The main concern of politics is to organize specific noble actions. Living a virtuous life is achieved by political immersion. One must be a part of politics in order to be an ethical and virtuous person. Being political in Aristotle’s sense requires a virtuous character. Simply knowing how to be good but not acting good does not make a virtuous person. A virtuous person must apply his theoretical knowledge towards knowledge of emerging life. A person must become developed through life experiences and then make ethically correct decisions through this experience.

Intentionality is clearly necessary for further analyzation of what composes virtuous action since “virtuous action” is arbitrary. For instance, a virtue cannot be a virtue if it is used excessively. A virtue can quickly turn into a vice when utilized irresponsibly. Balance is a key part of Aristotle’s ethic, made clear by stating that “virtue then is a state of deliberate moral purpose consisting in a mean that is relative to ourselves, the mean being determined by reason” (Ethics 2.6). The mean, which is the balance, is only able to be found through the use of proper reason. Human nature allows for inherent evil, which must be practiced against by consulting moral purpose rather than animalistic urges.

This legal system is based off Aristotle’s interpretation of virtue, which focus on habituality and disposition rather than action of state of mind. Virtuous actions need virtuous laws for a virtuous society. Clearly this is an arbitrary account and is interpreted differently by each person who comes across it. Aristotle insists that virtue is the highest good because it is the highest good, A = A. However, in order to make this system of law work as intended, a better definition is needed that leaves little to interpretation.

Protecting the legislative will is a key element of Jean- Jacques Rousseau’s philosophy, which is related to Aristotle’s quest for the good life through common interest. Rousseau separates legislating functions from functions of governing unlike Aristotle who kept the functions together. Rousseau famously begins On Social Contract with “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” Natural liberty is given up by means of social contract, which allows for a developed civil freedom that then allows for rational thought in a developed society. A social contract is needed in order to preserve a community, which was also understood by Aristotle. The sovereign, which is introduced by this act of preservation of community, has its own will and is the supreme authority of the state. The general will of the sovereign is to always promote the common good, instead of merely narrowing in on the individual private will of a citizen which has an aim that only has a personal benefit rather than a benefit for the population.

Law is then established by a separate government from the sovereign and must be beneficial to the entire population. Conception of law cannot occur by using reason alone because of inevitable arbitrariness- an issue Rousseau was keen on. Liberty must be protected and the common good must be advocated for by a sovereign legislator separate from government who carves a path of law. This legislator will teach the population and prevent infiltration from private interests that threaten all parties involved in the process. Rousseau states that “nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests in public affairs, and the abuse of laws by the government is a lesser evil than the corruption of the lawmakers which is the inevitable result of pursuing particular views…the state is altered in substance, and all reform becomes impossible” (On Social Contract 3.2). In short, the general will is protected when government and legislative powers are separated.

Rousseau was aware that this authority was not enough to introduce and rectify a general will. It must be ensured that power is not seized, but if a power separates itself from the ideals of the sovereign, it will be more than likely to be at odds with the sovereign- an issue that Aristotle would have with Rousseau’s form of government. Three forms of executive power are offered to attempt to deal with possible usurpation. Large communities should be ruled by a monarchic ruler, aristocracy should be introduced to mid-sized states, and democracy should be promoted in smaller states. Lawmaking should be done by all citizens in order to preserve sovereignty and teach virtues. For Rousseau, a healthy government is one where civil religion instills positive dogmas within people to encourage proper behavior as a citizen who respects the social contract and law.

Rousseau stresses the importance of the maintenance of the legislative will, leading to a creation of a separate government. He keeps a divide between the sense of rule from administration in order to create a system of checks and balances. Aristotle, in keeping legislative and executive powers as a unit, does not separate manifestation from determination. He instead argues that some things are means in themselves. Administration cannot dictate what it means to live a virtuous life. However, he knows that there can be an issue of conflict of interest as personal interest can interfere with general interest; the arbitrariness is again prevalent. To be virtuous, one must meet a certain standard of qualifications, but this is limited by the established of Aristotle’s classes in society. Rousseau, on the other hand, strays away from political by nature and instead argues political by injection. If political nature is artificial, then Aristotle would argue that because it is artificial there is a chance of opposition to the good of a population. Because of this chance of revolt, political nature should be observed as inherent rather than artificial. Instead of having to conjure up a separate government that may establish for itself a chance to revolt, a unit should be kept in order to retain community and engagement towards common interests. Allowing for a separation allows for further separation, and before it is even properly realized there are several deviations from the main idea of community, some of which are bound to have different ideals than the main entity. Having governments at odds with each other is prevented with the restriction of separation.

The dream state/virtual world/Internet must mirror a government that allows for the flourishing of the entire user base. The lack of law-and-order results in a transfer of crime from the offline world to the online world.[4] From our analysis of ideas behind government, we can conclude that if Aristotle were living in the digital age, he would surely advise against parsing in order to retain legitimacy and control. The arbitrary nature of Aristotle’s system is of concern, however; the interpretation part is what Rousseau attempts to stray from with his establishment of the sovereign and a separate government. This allowance for separation is dangerous, though, and arguably worse than that of allowance for interpretation. Although Aristotle seems a bit hopeful that proper ordinance will be set in place by virtuous folks with virtuous intent (and admittingly that ordinance will be altered as time moves forward in order for better adjustment), this hopefulness lays better framework for approaching government rather than spreading out resources. If the individual is the only focus in the digital age, then the digital age will continue to be a lawless land that contains no structure for the betterment of the people, but only structure for the betterment of the head honchos, namely Big Tech. If there is no law in the digital world, then the separation (Big Tech) will grasp that law and define it according to their standards instead of the established government taking proper control. This dream state of 2021 is no longer a dream; it is increasingly becoming our permanent reality. Because of this merge of the offline and online selves, it is now more important than ever to implement government on the digital that benefits the entire Internet community instead of only benefiting Big Tech. Without successful ordinance and legislation, we may be hurdling ourselves into the future of a broken system that lacks interest in the common good of the people and their rights to data and privacy, but rather focuses on the greed of the individualistic nature of Big Tech.

[1] Online world

[2] Offline world

[3] It is helpful to mention that in referencing the lawlessness of the virtual world, I do not mean that there are no laws in the virtual world. It is clear that there are certain thing that I can or cannot do on the internet that may break real, “offline” laws. I am making the point that many crimes are committed online, such as the buying and selling of personal, hacked information and that there is not much legislation behind the rights of data and privacy. What happens when my information is “leaked” by a data breach? What are my rights? An approach to government must be established for this new, digital world.

[4] the risk is lower due to the notion of anonymity and the lack of danger to physical being, i.e the dangers of robbing a convenience store versus the dangers of selling information online