The Code of Human Principles
With this particular piece I’d like to offer something a little more concrete to the table and encourage readers to contemplate and reply with their own viewpoints/insight/criticism/critique. I’ll be honest from the outset that it’s a part of a continuing inner debate which I engage with on occasion, and not necessarily concise, though that is my ultimate aim. I finally decided that rather than have it continue to rest in complete obscurity, I’d open it to the public eye in the hope that this would inspire some discourse or inspiration to my overall project, which I’ve casually labelled “The Transparent Society”.
You see it bothers me that we have a lot of potential as a species and yet we seem to have built systems which more often than not scupper or waste that potential at almost every turning point. Frustrated by this incapacity I decided some time ago to mull over such matters, and as a part of the overall project came up with what I’ve labelled the “Code of Human Principles”. I see this as a set of principles arising from basic notions of practical Buddhism, in an effort to create a coherent framework and foundation for proper community, real education, and a right-minded and kinder civilisation. Far from fearing the notion of throwing a lot of babies out with the bath water, we ought to seriously consider the merits to scrapping a lot of the complexity which we have accrued in our systems over the years, and clear a path in much the same way as we might prune any garden. To my mind there is little better than the idea of living as uncomplicated a life as possible, nor is there perhaps any time in our history when such clarity and space was more desperately needed in people’s lives. I think the notion of a “good life” is actually quite simple to define, but rather harder to implement most of the time because of the ego. The closer you look at yourself and the reality of your existence, the more it becomes apparent that many of the real difficulties only arise because of resistance to truth — the egocentric part that tries to control life instead of embracing it as it truly is.
To form the basis of these principles I kept distilling concerns through scenarios until I was left with something relatively simple, which resembled a set of ideas you could apply to one’s daily life, and which could also inform the grander aspects of humanity. The greatest benefits which I think we stand to reap from such a simplistic approach are not only a reinforced individual confidence in our life choices and a better quality of daily experience, but also a facility for restoring some trust between cultures which are more often than not promoted as incompatible or irreconcilable. Ultimately I would wish to make it as impervious as possible to contradiction — that being the capacity for the practitioner to live authentically to their ideals and simultaneously argue and/or garner support for actions and circumstances which are unethical, harmful or otherwise undesirable. With the above in mind, here are those principles:
I. It is the right of every individual in society to live in peace, with a right to self-determination where such actions do not contravene the responsibilities of Article II.
II. It is the civic duty of every member of society to reason and act with compassion, empathy and tolerance towards oneself, other citizens and living entities (natural and artificial), and to exercise a prime duty of care to the natural environment.
III. It is the responsibility of the system of community to afford reasonable opportunity and resources for every citizen, to enable and support their natural talents, such that the individual will know a means to maintaining their personal mental and physical happiness and wellbeing, and in so doing allow that value to extend to the benefit of other citizens, with an overall beneficial impact upon the extended community.
IV. It is the right of every citizen to hold (or not) to religious and/or spiritual beliefs in accordance with Article I, free from interference from fellow citizens. In accordance with this right it is incumbent upon the practitioner to take personal responsibility for those beliefs and actions so arising in accordance with Articles I and II, respecting the rights of others as a priority of civility and peace for the extended community.
V. The fundamental choice of the individual to die should be respected as a natural function of life and consciousness, where it is clear that euthanasia is being mindfully chosen by the subject. In cases where the subject is incapacitated such a decision and action should derive from a place of right-mindedness and compassion, sanctioned under normal circumstances by the consent and agreement of no less than a minimum body of five qualified individuals, including any individuals so personally involved.
