Ethical Principles explained by Mathematical Logic Pt3

3. Deontology = Human Right, Socialism, and Nihilism

In late 18th century, the most influential but extremely controversial ethical principle was invented by a very eccentric philosopher called Immanuel Kant. He had learnt from the ethical principle of John Loch which claimed that the ethical imagination is dynamic and goes beyond the reality of our currently living world. Then he developed and expanded the ethical principle further deeper and more complex.

He tried to detach ethics from natural science, economics (Social Science), and any popular philosophies (Kant called all ethics theories having existed before his "the pure philosophy" which merely exist to deserve what people and/or an powerful moral entrepreneur seek to fulfil their desire) in order to establish one legitimate philosophy called the "Pure Ethics" which truly contributes our humans' well-being. Kant claimed that there shall be something equivalent to the mathematical axiom for ethics which can objectively determines the validity of logical inferences in ethical theories and the righteousness of humans' action in our daily life. In order to judge whether these inferences and our actions are ethically valid or invalid, ethics needs an axiom which can self contradict these inferences.

Kant attempted to create this fundamental principle which judges the validity of our knowledge, action, and logical inference, and then our world really is. He called it the Categorical Imperative which insists that there is always something we must or at least ought to do regardless of what our experience tells, what logic implies, how we are pleased and pained, what the others want, and how the reality shows and treats us. He affirmed that the Categorical Imperative shall exist as the ethical fundamental principle which leads each of us and our world to be the truly virtuous. Furthermore, this principle is an objective measurement which aids us to discover and draw the image various unknown truth of our world and the cosmos. Then, according to this newly invented ethical principle, our own knowledge can be biased, the cause of our actions is merely hypothetical, i.e. not categorical, which means ethically nonsense, logic is a useless tool, and the reality of our world we are currently living can be merely an illusion or against how the world should really be.

First of all, Kant was sceptical about knowledge itself. The knowledge gained from experiences can be easily based by each human-being's own subjective interpretation of the experience. The only objective knowledge of any experience is the immediate memory at a moment. Nonetheless, this memory soon becomes modified by our own subjective prejudice after a few second passes.

The feeling of fear induces human-beings to believe in a superstition whose existence cannot be objectively proven by the fundamentals of physical/natural existences such as vertical axis, horizontal axis, altitude, and time. Kant strongly denied the existence of God in the physical world because God cannot exist in the formula based on these fundamentals of the natural world. John Locke put emphasis on the possibility of existence because the notion of distance and power is infinite so that God cannot be simply discovered in the natural world. By contrast, Kant completely separated the imaginable figure cannot be possible if it is deviated from the axiom. The infinity exists in the mathematical formula but not in the natural world.

Wisdom and history tend to be taught by those who have the power to indoctrinate the others with by means of their own favour. Before this understanding became popular, majority of people believed that the formation of governance and the history of nations were naturally created, and they were naturally born to participate in the function of these social structures differently owing to their innate ability, blood relation, and ambition. Nevertheless, since knowing the knowledge about history can be biased, these histories of social structure can be also hypothetically constructed by means of an interest of the few powerful minorities such as monarchies, moral entrepreneurs such as religions, and lack of knowing the true duty we all human-beings must or at least ought to accomplish.

Natural Sciences are utterly subjective even though majority of natural scientists claim it to be objective. These natural scientists persist that their discovery and their invention are derived from their scientific experiment. However, in the most of cases, the fact is that their scientific experiment is derived from their discovery, and their invention tends to be created from an accident. These scientists also deny the existence of some new discovery when it does not fit in with what their theory claims it to be. They often failed to invent a new practical thing or theory whenever they attempt to innovate a new technology by following their supporting scientific theories. What are introduced as their new inventions are only a few of those which are accidentally found to be able to use practically. Although, these scientists may say their perseverant efforts and their scientific knowledge induce them to achieve in discovery and technological innovation, they often encounter with their success when some accident, which can be called the miracle, happens. In addition, their knowledge is what they interpreted the phenomena of this natural world by means of their favour and fashion.

Kant was highly sceptical about logics itself which is used to infer something not known from either our experience or knowledge. The reason is that the formulas of logical inference are not based on something like a mathematical axiom which enables logic to objectively self-contradict itself. Therefore, there is nothing which can verify logic's validity, and then the reasoning derived from a logical inference is merely a hypothetical which is an ethically nonsense.

Kant explained that mathematics has been an only objective academic science because the axiom enables it to self contradict and verify its validity itself. The reason why mathematics is objective is that the axiom is a rigorous but very subjectively determined rule. This is the rule which mathematicians decide to use in order to create a truly objective science. Therefore, their strong intensive subjective will induces them to create an objective science like mathematics.

Kant aspired to establish the pure ethics as another objective science as mathematics. This fundamental principle of the pure ethics has to be intensively subjective as much as the axiom. As mathematicians agree to create a rigorous but intensively subjective rule to maintain mathematics as objective with their subjective will, he attempted to create a rigorous but intensively subjective fundamental principle. According to Kant's anticipation, this fundamental principle of the pure ethics should be able to objectively self-contradict our actions in our life and our knowledge about this world, and then verify their validity themselves by following this fundamental principle. He insisted that only the legitimate validity of the reasoning based on logical inference can be the fundamental principle of the pure ethics.

As expressed in the Venn diagram above, the validity of the existence of A (A=ℝ\0), no A (denoted A=0), (E.g. the infinity ( ∞ )), and (E.g. The complex number) depends merely on verification by the axiom denoted as " α " here. So, the validity of these existences can be only verified when α, the axiom, verifies. This principle regards that the reality, which we can see, imagine, and feel, in this world, is not necessarily always valid to be the truth as explained in the previous paragraphs. So, the reality (Our knowledge about) is not relevant to our reasoning for living. This implies that some impossibility or unimaginable things might be possible when the fundamental principle verify the validity of their possibility even though both observation and logic deny their possibility. An illusion might be truth and become an alternative reality meanwhile an reality we know can be an illusion and fake.



This theory is called as the Human-Right theory (Also called "Political-Liberalism" by John Rawls), and Kant is called as the father of Human-Right. As same as Natural-Right, Human-Right regards that all human-beings have the naturally endowed rights which should prevail for all humans under any circumstances. The difference between these theories of right is that Natural-Right regards providing people with right is conditional whereas Human-Right regards it must be unconditional. Regardless of the limitation of resource and technology available, there is an action we must do even though whatever the expected consequence turns up to be. Because this theory regards that any estimate based on either experience or logical inference is hypothetical which implies ethically nonsense according to this theory. It commands human-beings to follow what they must or at least ought to do whatever their given condition is in order to lead all human-beings together to accomplish in providing all of them with what the categorical imperative, the fundamental principle of this ethics theory, suggests.

Natural-Right suggests to offer an equality of opportunity and equal distribution of the basic necessities to the all. By contrast, this theory insists on providing some degree of equality in outcome distributed among all people. It regards that, in order to truly accomplish the equality of opportunity, it requires not only ensuring the equal distribution of basic necessities but also the collective responsibility among all people to conduct all people to be the good human-beings. It puts emphasis on ensuring the least fortunate member of the community of humans to avoid being impoverished and being wicked. Therefore, fortunate members of the entire human community must be obliged to contribute some proportion of their income and properties to the others, and there has to be a sufficiently big proportion of publicly shared properties among all people in this community.

Furthermore, this theory claims that the community of human-beings must have an universal moral duty to conduct all human-beings to be the morally right track of their life. Kant was also sceptical about the freedom of choice. He argued that the true freedom for human-beings shall be the freedom of living, and the freedom of choice restricts the true freedom. Because this theory regards that human-beings have to make their choice which the categorical imperative suggests to choose, and they may make a mistake of choosing the right pass, there always needs to be restriction on the hypothetical freedom in order to guide them to the true freedom. This moral error correction process should not forced to be done by a violence of moral entrepreneur; It has to be encouraged by the reason based on the fundamental principle of the pure ethics which is called the categorical imperative. An order by violence is against the categorical imperative because it allows human-beings to be cruel and vicious when any violent action is permitted.

This theory regards highly of the cultural and ethnic pluralism which admits that all of human-beings can keep their own unique life style following each different custom of their own culture. However, it insist on imposing an universal moral law on all humans and their communities in order to establish a harmony among all different kinds of humans and their different life styles. It suggests that this universal moral law has to be a moderator/guardian of their community so that it must be fair (By means of this theory implies) and neither religiously influenced nor based on one particular cultural standard. This universal law has to be secular because it has to be religiously and culturally intermediate. All in all, this pluralism is permitted to exist under one unified universal guardianship by the a secularist law enforcement agent. Meanwhile Kant denied the existence of God and condemned religious teachings, he seemed to have established one God-less monotheism and the moral teaching which is a resemblance to Christian moral teaching. This characteristics has attracted many individuals who were disappointed by Christianity for some reason, and provided them with an alternative belief which is different from Christianity but whose characteristics is similar to Christianity.



Kant only hoped that human-beings can only achieve in aspiring to keep acting according to what the categorical imperative implies to. Nevertheless, he did not expect that they can always follow what the categorical imperative suggests them because human-beings are not perfectly rational, and their surrounding environment often spontaneously affects the situation to be difficult for accomplishing in their rational action.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel modified Kantian theory to be a furthermore idealistic and a progressivist ideology. Meanwhile Kant did not expect humans and their world to be perfectly rationally oriented by perfectly following what the categorical imperative suggests, Hegel assumed that humans can gradually become able to accomplish in establishing what the categorical imperative suggests. Hegel applied his believing Luther Christianity, the Nordic Liberal Christian, to his own ethical theories hinted from Kantian philosophy. Unlike Kant's atheist view, Hegel indicated that the fundamental principle which Kant taught was actually the way God expects humans to be. So, he explained that, as the development of humans themselves and their world progresses, they gradually become evolved to what God expect them to be, and their world becomes more likely to be the heaven i.e. the utopia. Karl Marx interpreted Hegelian philosophy and historical view, and he invented his own political philosophy claiming that socialism is the necessary step to the utopia.



There is another big stream of Kant's influence which is totally different from Hegelian perspective but based on Kant's principle. These philosophies are different from Kantian perspectives but they are heavily influenced by Kantian philosophical principle.

Pragmatism took over the perspective which regards that there should be an axiom verifying the validity of both knowledge from experiences and answers induced from logical inferences, and justifying the righteousness of any decision making. However, it focuses on a much shorter perspective than Kant's and Hegel's philosophy. Kant and Hegel believed that there shall be a universal principle which prevails at any times, in any place, and on any occasion. By contrast, Pragmatism only regards that there are various different principles across different times, places, and occasions. It attempted to create a practical philosophy which combines both the idealistic philosophical rationale and the natural scientific analysis which Kant described as hypothetical. For example, Mount Everest is considered to be high and big by means of earth geological view whilst it is considered to be short and small by means of astrological view. So, how things are measured varies across a different fundamental applied to any measurement. Pragmatism approves a hypothetical decision making process as long as a fundamental principle basing this decision making process verifies it. Pragmatist ethical principle has encouraged a specialisation of academic subjects since it became influential. Before its influence, academics studied various different subjects and dissolved sets of the knowledge into their own philosophical theory which was used for reasoning their own cause and belief in their life. Nevertheless, since both Kantian philosophy, and then Pragmatism, started influencing over the world, the reasoning process of our own cause and belief in our life has started being seen as nonsense, and majority of academics have no longer pursued their own cause nor created their own unique philosophy. Since then, majority of academics have specialised in studying one particular subject by following the principle given from their chosen academic. The fundamental principle for each subject is determined by an academic peer group, and it has become taboo to deviate from this already created principle verified by this peer-assessment.

There is a philosophical theory, called Logical-Positivism, which deeply regards highly of natural science and a hypothetical decision making process. It is yet under a strong influence from Kant who was sceptical about natural science and condemned a hypothetical decision making process. The common perspective between Kantian philosophy and Logical-Positivism is the perspective regarding that there is an absolute universal principle which verifies the validity of experience, knowledge, and logical inference, and determines the righteousness of any justification and decision making process. Logical-Positivism also copied the idea of denying not only the existence of God but also believing our own cause, and described that having our own unique cause, belief, reason, and ideology as pathetic. This philosophy describes senses as merely biological functions and/or illusions. So, owing to this philosophical perspective, knowledge from experiences and inference, feeling, and sense of reasoning and belief have to be examined by a scientific experiment and theory in order to verify their validity.



This caused individuals to become apathetic to hold their own cause and reason, and then nihilism has spread as epidemic since then. I rather follow Aristotle's perspective which regards that we constantly suffer from ignorance, and then we have never known the absolute truth or principle. Kant and all those influenced by him started arguing that ignorance is sin, and there shall be a measurement which leads us to know the absolute truth. The converse effect of these previously mentioned philosophical theories of pursuing the absolute truth has created Nihilism which regards both the truth and the reality are nonsense because these people are simply taught to think there is only one absolute reality = truth. But, they become too tired of pursing it, and then become apathetic about pursing it even though they still remain the existence of an abstract image of the absolute truth in their mind. Furthermore, they are also already too castrated to have a pride to create and emphasise on their own interpretation of the reality. Then, they have eventually run away to the illusion.


All in all, those who are influenced by Kant always say "But, that's not true", and treating anything challenging the mainstream perspective as deviants.

Sequel of Econometric Experiment of Laffer Curve

* Please could you read this previous post before reading this one:
Econometric Experiment of Laffer Curve

The previous post shows the optimum tax rate maximising the tax revenue. The optimum tax rate is 16.55%.

This entry tries to investigate that there can be some sort of cost when tax is increased. So, in order to find out the optimum tax rate which maximises the net gain of the tax revenue instead of the gross gain shown previously. The national dept % GDP (The public deficit) is denoted as the cost of high taxation. The GLS estimate below is the regression of the national dept % GDP on the tax rate and the lags of this explanatory variable.

The tax rate levied in 3 years ago is highly correlated. The estimate is also detected as consistent.

So, the higher tax rate causes the higher loss in 3 years later. This can be because that, when the government is too used to rely on the high tax revenue, then it may cause the decline in the private sector activities. Also, when the volume of the reliance on the government expenditure does not seem to be robust. Furthermore, when this volume of the reliable becomes bigger, the volatility of the reliance also become bigger. All in all, the prediction cost becomes bigger when the size of the public sector economy becomes bigger.

In order to find out the optimum tax rate which maximises the profit from the taxation i.e. the tax revenue minus the tax cost = the deficit in 3 years ago. As shown below, both functions are differentiated by means of the tax rate. At the tax rate where the differentiated tax revenue equals the differentiated deficit, the net gain from the taxation is maximised.

Owing to the result, when the tax rate is 10.5%, the net gain is maximised. This tax rate 10.5% is lower than 16.55%, the tax revenue maximising the gross gain shown in the previous post.

Econometric Experiment of Laffer Curve

g1

Laffer curve is the theory indicating that there should be an optimum level of tax rate which maximises the tax revenue. It claims that the tax rate should be neither lower or higher than this optimum tax rate to maximise the tax revenue. Therefore, in terms of what Laffer Curve theory indicates, the correlation between the tax revenue and the tax rate is the up-facing parabolic equation shown by the graph above. (Y denotes the tax revenue, and X denotes the rate of the tax on income and profit (From OECD, 2004-2011)) The countries whose data is missing for 2011, it refers to the data in 2010.

Then, in order to find out the optimum tax rate, this formula is factorised as follows.

f1

g2

Therefore, the optimum tax rate is denoted as Beta divided by bracket two times Alpha. This value shows the average across all countries and times.

These countries might have a different rate of the optimum tax rate due to their geographic characteristics and political situations. So, the deviation of their own optimum level from the average rate is denoted, where the sum of ±D is zero, as follows:

g3

In order to create the formula suitable for the regression analysis, the formula involving ±D is expanded as follows:

f2

In order to simplify and avoid the multicolliearity problem, both the left side and the right side of this equation is divided by X. At this time, both sides of the equation involves the variable X, there is a worry about the simultaneous equation problem. So, in order to verify that the simultaneous equation problem is avoided at 95% confidence level, the Generalised Least Squares (GLS) model is used to assess this equation in order to use its Hausman test (The test assessing whether the analysis is consistent or inconsistent). The other reason to use the GLS model is that the sum of the dummy variables has to be zero because the barometer "Beta divided by bracket two times Alpha" is supposed to be shown as the average of all these countries across all the years.


f3

f4

GLS Result

The GLS model in this software can only regress on the time dummy variables of the fixed effects (I.e. The random effect of the time dummies cannot be used). The dummy variables of the time effect are excluded from this model because the Wald Omit Test showed that the time dummies are not significant (See below).


The Breusch-Pagan test (p-value 0.025 < 0.05 ) indicates that, at the 5% significance level, the unit specific effects (The Random Effect) exist. So, the optimum tax revenue for some countries can be significantly different from the average optimum tax revenue. The Hausman test (p-value 0.94 > 0.05 ) indicates that, the estimates are consistent. This claims that the previously mentioned simultaneous equation problem is avoided, and there is no concern about any other inconsistency problem such as the serial correlation.


The following process is to transforming the equation for the GLS back to the original parabolic equation, and then factorise it to find out the optimum tax rate.

Result


Tax Rate minus the optimum rate (16.55)

The ranking of the optimisation

Ethical Principles explained by Mathematical Logic Pt2

2. Natural Right:

This mathematical logical foundation invented by Aristotle had been a dominant ethical principle of the Western philosophy as well as the law principle of Catholic church. Nevertheless, in 17th century, a historically remarkable philosophical rebellion against Aristotlean ethical principle which had dominated for approximately 2 millenniums (2,000 years)! John Locke, a physicist as well as the father of Liberalism, challenged against Aristotle's foundation of ethics.

The name of this most remarkable rebellious philosopher is John Locke who was mathematician and physician as well as an ethical philosopher. He pointed out that our living world is composed of not only all what are already existing (A=ℝ\0) and nothing (A=0) but also something not discovered yet.

He criticised that the perspective of Antiquity only regards of the physical substances already discovered in this natural world and then ignores both those which have not yet discovered and those which can be invented. For instance, Schliemann was motivated to discover the ruins of Troy by assuming that Troy was not purely a mythological city and so existed in real.

Furthermore, from his physician's perspective, he argued that engineers and scientists often try to invent something they want it to exist but does not really exist yet. At this process, they always have an imagination of what they wish to invent. Therefore, without any imagination of something which have not existed, any new invention will not be created. For instance, when we wished if we could have an instant verbal communication with people living in the place which is several miles away from where we live, the motivation to create an international telecommunication tool was born, and then this wish became true.

Of course, the new innovation will be created as long as it is possible to exist in the reality of this natural world. So, the resources and the tools, these inventors can use to use the new substance which has never existed, must be the physical substances which are existing. But, without their imagination of something which has never existed, their motivation to discover and invent cannot exist. All in all, Locke insisted that it is essential to have an imagination of anything unreal and mythological which we wish if it can exist. But, he also claimed that this desired discovery or invention will become to really exist in this natural world as long as the already existing resources and tools are used and the law of nature allows it to exist.

John Locke was also famous as a progressive Christian. He challenged against the scholar philosophy of Catholicism as well as tried to conserve teachings of the holy bible. He insisted that stories written on the bible are unreal and superstitious, but they are important to remember them as the source of our imagination. He also argued that some of the moral teachings in the bible might not be helpful and should be amended or even ignored, but these teachings have provided us with the chance to think and discuss about these issues. For example, sex outside marriage is considered as sin by means of the original bible teaching meanwhile it is largely tolerated and even encouraged in the current world. Without this bible's teaching, human-beings would even not have think and discuss about the morality concerning sexual acts. In various savage cultures where the holy bible was not introduced to the inhabitants there, these inhabitants passively commit their sexual acts without considering about the meaning of their sexual acts.

This ethical principle can be explained as shown in the graph below:



When A exists, there is A. In the logical analysis, as there are A and A, the interaction of A and A which is denoted as . Furthermore, the existence of neither A nor A which is denoted as may exist.

When the knowledge of the world is limited to only the surface of the earth, the longest distance possible to know is limited within the earth. But, when the existence of both the outer space and the cosmos is discovered, the longest distance possible to know becomes way much longer. Furthermore, when people realise that the solar system is only the part of one galaxy and there are several galaxym, the longest distance they know become further longer. Then, it is imaginable to think that there can be a further longer distance which has yet not discovered, and it may become possible to discover by inventing a new technology to measure it. Therefore, the possibility of discovery is infinite, and the infinite length is imaginable as well as maybe possible to discover.

When the knowledge of the world is limited what can be seen in an unaided eye, it is very difficult to imagine or even unimaginable to know what cannot be seen in an unaided vision. But, when the tool which enables to see very small things which can be measured by micrometre is invented, the shortest length possible to know and imagine become further shorter.

As we know that we know A=ℝ\0 and A=0 exist as true, we can infer the existence of the infinity. By means of mathematical axiom, any real number ( ℝ ) divided by zero ( 0 ) is the infinity ( ∞ ). This is inferred by the theorem that the number becomes bigger when it is dividing by smaller number. So, as we know that we know there is nothing ( 0 ) and a very long length may be possible to exist, the existence of the infinity is imaginable, and then it is plausible to denote that the infinity might exist in real. All in all, the infinity should be denoted as , the interaction between A and A.

As we know that A x A = A², the square root of A² is A. So, the square root of + (positive) A ( √A , √+A ) exists. In mathematics, there is the number called "Complex Number" which is the root of a negative real number i.e. √-A. The complex number is neither A nor A, but still composed of A and A. So, it should be denoted as .

By means of mathematical axiom, the complex number is definable, and imaginable to create the formula. However, it is very difficult to imagine and draw a picture of its existence, and it is unimaginable to figure out how it exists in our real world. So, the complex number only existed in mathematics, and there was no physical substance really existing in this natural world.

The complex number has become to be used to draw computer graphics shown on the screen, and the mathematical model indicating the wave of earth quake. The computer graphics, the technicians frequently use the complex number as a part of their mathematical formulas creating their complicated computer graphics. In order to show the graph of the complicated movement such as the waves of earth quake, it requires a unique formula composed of the complex number to model this trend. All in all, the complex number enables to draw the computer graphics showing a virtual world more real like this natural world than it used to be able to show, and then draw the mathematical models showing the trend of the scientific observations which are complicated to describe.



John Locke applied this principle to his ethics in order to claim that we should aspire to establish a fairer, more equal, and peaceful world which is imaginable as well as practically possible establish. The utopia may be impossible to become true in our natural world due to the limitation of natural resources and knowledge available for us in this natural world, and the barrier by the law of nature. However, he suggested that we should keep an utopia as our ideal world we wish if we could create. He admitted that we constantly suffer from the dilemma between what is available and what is wanted. But, he strongly insisted that we must always attempt to invent the new methodology of establishing a more ideal world than how the current real world is by using the resources available which the law of nature permits to use.

The idea of Natural Right was born of this theory. Natural Right regards that all human-beings have the naturally endowed rights which should prevail for all humans under any circumstances. It claims that the very basic right which can be protected even within a very limited availability of resources and technology must be provided for all civic individuals who can cohabit together under a consensus of social contract among them. During the time when the fathers of Natural Right, most notably John Locke and Thomas Paine, these rights for civic individuals were the equality of opportunity, freedom of choice within the limit of availability, and property right, must be provided to all human-beings. As the time passes and available technologies become more advanced, the categories of which were claimed to be considered as the natural rights increased.

There are two mainstreams of Natural Law ethical theory. The one regards of the freedom of choice and protecting the private property right as the fundamental Natural Right, and claim for a very small size or even none of government, state's authority, and any form of public sector intervention to individuals' choice and life style. Another supports for an optimum size of government, state's authority, and any form of public sector, and their intervention to individuals' private life in order to support them living well at the best possibility, and preserving the public property as well as, or even more than. the private property right. The former became the principle of Libertarianism, and the latter became the principle of Modern-Liberalism.

Ethical Principles explained by Mathematical Logic Pt1

The mathematical logic of the Western ethical principle

1. Birth of the the Western ethical principle and its mathematical logic

1. 1. Introductory to the Western ethical principle:

This chapter explains how political philosophers (Ethical theorists) have developed their ethical theory by means of mathematical logic. There are many academic writers who have described the characteristics of these theories and difference among them. However, there are not so many academic writers who have explicitly explained by means of an explicit mathematical formula. It is critically essential to mention the fundamental principle, such as their world view, basing their ethical theories. These western philosophies are very logically constructed like a mathematical formula, and there is always a sort of mathematical axiom basing their theories.

The axiom in philosophical logic is their fundamental principle which can be called their metaphysics or their world view. These Western philosophers, except majority of Postmodernists, always attempt to create their theories to be rationally constructed and objectively explaining human-characteristics and the world as though they were mathematical formulas. The mathematical formula requires an mathematical axiom in order to keep their theory consistent and being able to objectively self-contradict itself. Therefore, these Western philosophies mentioned over here also require something equivalent to the mathematical axiom.

Almost all academic writers who have written about this staff have already known this mechanism of these Western philosophical theories. But, they tend to need to write one book to explain about it. Perhaps, this is because there are not so many individuals who studied both social science and mathematics simultaneously. Only how majority of them demonstrate their knowledge is explaining with words like writing one literature. Therefore, majority of these books tend to consume a lot of pages with a huge volume of words in order to describe these characteristics and their differences.

This project attempts to explain what axiom, i.e. their world view, they had used to set their formulas within one chapter of one book. By referring to how these formulas were set up, it also explains how the theories created later were developed from the theories having existed earlier.


1.2. Birth of the first Western ethical principle:

During the antiquity, the foundation of Western philosophies was born. When Socrates started thinking about what we actually know about ourselves and our world, ethics was established. Before Socrates came into this world, knowledge about truth and social justice were not considered to be an important to think about. At this time, people hardly questioned about biased knowledge and justice existed to deserve for those who were only physically strong, wealthy, and/or good at using rhetoric to intrigue others. Socrates provoked a spiritual revolution against the world without a righteous justice! Socrates then introduced the idea of pursuing knowledge of truth, having cause and reason which make human-beings virtuous, and obtaining the skill to analyse how our physical world and our spirituality (Soul) are formed. This Socrates' contribution was the most significant event to start developing the Western philosophies such as ethics.

Plato took over the works of Socrates, his master, to develop Socrates' philosophy further. Plato succeeded in transforming Socrates' philosophy to the philosophy which provides a strong guidance for us, human-beings. His philosophy was a revolutionary concept which enabled we, human-beings, to think about how our world is formed and how we should seek to become in order to enjoy happy life. Of course, it is still debated to discuss what the way to enjoy happy life is. But, Plato was the first pioneer who started thinking about it, and attempting to discover the universally absolute way. This is the beginning of the Western ethics.

At this time period, Plato provided a method to analyse what the reality and how the reality should be. The way Plato thought of the world was dichotomic unlike the Eastern philosophies. This method succeeded in explicitly distinguishing between something existing and something not existing in reality as well as between real or unreal. For instance, when there is a substance called A, there are A and not A in reality. This can be considered as a very simple idea nowadays. But, at the ancient time period, this was a very revolutionary concept which has enabled an individual to contradict those who say "not A" as A. It also evolved individuals to start thinking what and why A really is and how A ought to be. There is a famous quite of Plato which is "If government is not how government ought to be, this is not a government". This quote helps us to understand why he put emphasis on what is, or supposed to be, A, and what is not, or suppose not to be, A. Furthermore, Plato provided us with our strong objective to live, which has spiritually strengthened us, human-beings, since then.


1.3. The mathematical logic of the Antiquity:


Aristotle, the most famous student of Plato, developed Plato's philosophy to create a furthermore systematic theorem. Aristotle's philosophy focuses more on the consistency than Plato's counterpart, and introduced an algebraic way of philosophical analysis into the Western ethics. Unlike Plato who argued about whether or not an A is really an A, Aristotle rigorously stated that when a substance A exists as A, this is how A naturally is.

For example, meanwhile Plato believed there is one universally absolute form of how government should be, Aristotle thought that each form of government has its own advantage and disadvantage. Plato claimed that there is one ideal perfect government. By contrast, Aristotle argued that there will not be any perfectly ideal government, and there are only various different optimum choices of forming government at different time periods, regions, and occasions. Thus, when a government consequently resulted in how this government now is, this is an inevitable outcome to become like it under the given circumstances.

Aristotle was also known as a mathematician who created a very discrete (clear cut) logic which leads us to clearly understand and explicitly analyse things in our world. E.g. When only A exists, there are only the component composed of A, A itself, and no A. He tried to prevent any confusing abstract concepts in order to offer clear, consistent, and imaginable analyses. He distinguished between pure mathematics studied in academia and applied mathematics frequently used in our daily life. He had already understood that the imagination and the mathematical estimation are detached from our real world. Even Plato said that the mathematical estimation is merely a tool to lead us to the idea and not quite related to our real world. Thus, if we can neither measure the infinity and complex numbers by a physical tool nor discover the real existence of infinity and complex numbers as a physical form in reality, that both the infinity and complex numbers cannot exist. So, in reality where we human-beings live, there are only A=ℝ\0 (A is any real number except for zero) and so A=0.

Since this ethical principle was formed, it has become a logical foundation of the law from the antiquity to the Renaissance and the mainstream economics. Both the law and the economics attempt to solve problems in our daily life within the limit we are facing in reality. When there is an A supplied, then the demand available for an A is an A or zero. When there is no A supplied, but there is the demand for an A, then we may eventually incur the debt to pay back for -A (Negative A). Otherwise, both the demand and the supply remain to be zero i.e. not A. When a case contains the element of A, then A implies to this case so that this cause is A. Otherwise, this cause is not A. In terms of Civil Law, an A varies across time, place, and occasion. This condition of Civil Law is determined by means of the normative in culture and law makers' interests under a prudent measure. In terms of Natural Law, an A changes overtime but always remains in our world universally regardless of different time, place, and occasion. The condition of Natural Law is determined by referring to this unremovable condition such as a universally existing fundamental morality and principle, which is frequently referred to making laws.

On Education

In fact, as same as our great Adam Smith, the father of economics said, education is one of the three sectors which cannot be merely dependent upon the market mechanism. I also believe that higher education should be a secret territory which should not be mixed up with a vulgar mass culture. I think that the education system should not be intensively related to the economic stimulus purpose. At this point, I disagree with both socialists and the current mainstream economists supporting the mixed economy. Socialists think of it as a necessity for all the mass and use it as their political tool. I also disagree with the current mainstream economists who transformed education system to a commodity. I really detest Franklin D. Roosevelt and his leading US Democratic party which contain the characteristics of both vile sides. The socialism by the US Democrats since F.D.R. is actually more influential than the USSR communism for a very deluded way in this world especially for devaluing education and culture of this world...!