# Dialogue 21 – Fractal Social Order

**Speaker: Hello, Nara!**

**In our last conversation you said an interesting sentence. You said: “Man-made laws are not natural laws.” That made me think. So what exactly is a human law?**

Nara: That is a very fundamental question!

Natural laws belong to the realm of physics. They describe the rules by which nature functions. Physics uses the universal language and logic of mathematics to describe causal relationships.

Human-made laws are an intended causal chain. Something is supposed to be. The English philosopher David Hume showed, however, that from an existing state one cannot logically derive what the desired state should look like.

**Speaker: So it’s about the question of “is-ought”? Humans make laws to achieve a desired state? But that doesn’t always work! After all, you can’t prescribe to nature how it should be!**

Nara: Correct! Human-made laws are about norms that relate to the external behavior of people. They come from a recognized external authority. And this authority guarantees the binding nature of these laws. That means: this authority has the means of power to punish violations of a law with sanctions.

The laws are seen as necessary for people living together. They pursue a purpose. There is a universal norm that one learns as a child: “Do not do to others what you do not want done to you.” This exists in all religions and philosophies. It is also called the “Golden Rule.”

**Speaker: Oh, that reminds me of Kant and his categorical imperative! Or the Ten Commandments of the Bible…**

Nara: Exactly in this context we are moving. But I want to introduce you to Georg Jellinek. He was a legal philosopher in the 19th century and also wrote a maxim in which he included the social origin of a person:

If you want society and its development, then you must act in such a way that your behavior contributes to the preservation and promotion of society.

Today we would probably add:

or at least that your behavior does not harm it.

**Speaker: That sounds absolutely reasonable! But the world is not like that. Human laws do not have to be moral and include all people. Unfortunately, history provides enough examples of this.**

Nara: Yes, you are right! Authority does not always think of humanity as a whole, but focuses on its immediate clientele. But it does one thing: it promises to adhere to the laws it has introduced and to guarantee their enforcement. This happens in most state constitutions by oath.

This is often dismissed as a traditional necessity, but in fact it resolves Hume’s is-ought problem. John Searle stated in his speech act theory that from a promise an obligation arises.

**Speaker: But how can a mere promise solve this is-ought problem?**

Nara: That means: if I promise to protect your dignity, then I recognize you as a human being – that is what “dignity” means and is an existing state – and at the same time I say that it should remain so – that you may continue to be. It is not about how you are, but that you are.

Or, applied to Jellinek’s maxim: if I recognize society and its development, I promise that my behavior will contribute to the preservation and promotion of society or at least not harm it.

**Speaker: Ah, that is this Why–Therefore–Then logic: Because I recognize something – society or a person – I promise something. That is the Therefore. And from this Therefore arises the consequence – the Then – to behave accordingly.**

Nara: Exactly! And since we have talked a lot about simple rules that appear in fractals of mathematics, we can apply this here as well: what a politician has promised by oath must be shown in his actions.

In principle, politics is nothing other than an iterative process, in which the principles, as laid down in the oaths of office, flow through the procedural rules of constitutions into political decisions.

**Speaker: So I can examine every political decision as to whether it corresponds to the oath of office holders?**

Nara: Almost! Since you should not judge the intentions of office holders without knowing them, you should ask the office holders how their political decisions correspond to their oaths of office. And since in democracies state power comes from the people, you have every right to do so!

**Speaker: Only that we are not dealing with a society, but with humanity as the greatest possible community! By that I mean a universal maxim: if I recognize humanity and its development, I promise that my behaviour will contribute to the preservation and promotion of humanity or at least not harm it.**

**Thank you, Nara! For everything!**


Source: [https://www.3n-1.de/cms/en:collatz:21](https://www.3n-1.de/cms/en:collatz:21)