An ethical and philosophical examination of Jane's Law.

(for David)

"The measure of a law is the possible abuse of that law." -- M. Kapp

David, in a letter to me you stated the following:
> Remember Jane's Law: In order to get a person to stop doing something,
> you must first make them want to stop doing it.

An alternative statement of Jane's Law: If you want someone to do something, you must first make him want to stop doing anything else.

Example of Jane's Law in action: In order to have Valentine's body, Jane had to see to it that Valentine wanted to stop living.

Your use of Janes' Law is an example of Egoism, a philosophy which asserts that people always act in their own interests, even though they may disguise their motivation with references to helping others or doing their duty. Egoism also claims that the promotion of one's own interests is always in accordance with reason. It asserts that not only is it rational to pursue one's own interests, it is also irrational not to pursue them. So, to convince someone to do or not to do something, you must convince him or her that it is in his best interest, because it would be irrational of you not to do so if it is in your own best interest.

However, only in a world inhabited by a single being is it possible that the pursuit of self-interest is not in conflict with ethical behaviour. In complying with Egoism, the individual aims at his or her own greatest good. But what is 'one's own greatest good'? From the hedonistic point of view, the individual human being is conceived as the source of values and as himself the supreme value, and so 'good' might be defined as whatever our rational self-interest deems necessary to avoid non-essential pain while improving well-being.

Abandoning the attempt to define 'good' for the purpose of this argument, it still follows that pursuing one's own greatest good can conflict with another's pursuit, thus creating a situation of conflict. In this example, Jane is not the only being in the universe; she is the only being of her kind in the universe. Jane may see her greatest good in acquiring the body of another person in order to preserve her life. Yet it is to each individual's greatest good to continue living his own life, which makes Valentine's 'sacrifice' irrational. In Jane's case, Jane's philosophy of egoism permitted her to avail herself of Valentine's selfless anti-egoism, in disregard of Valentine's own greatest good.

Here, the Egoist may retort that each individual can recognize that their greatest interests are served more through co-operation than conflict, and yet still leave room to say that each can logically pursue their interests at the cost of others.

Yet, can personal gain logically be in one's best interests if it entails harm to another? This is the dilemma. If one accepts the principle of causing harm to others as being ethical (ie, in one's own best interests), then one must accept the end result: might is right. If one person manipulates another to further one's own interests at the cost of anothers, one eventually finds that others will do harm in return, and in this cycle it is not rationalization or morality what wins, but might.

Rather, is it best to accept that co-operation with others is a more successful approach to pursuing one's interests? This is a type of ethically conditional (or 'moral') egoism, that is, egoism is morally acceptable or right if it leads to morally acceptable ends. For example, self-interested behavior can be accepted and applauded if it leads to the betterment of society as a whole; the ultimate test rests not on acting self-interestedly but on whether society is improved as a result. Thus, if one accepts the principle of causing harm to another being acceptible if it is in pursuit if a morally superior goal, one accepts that 'the means are justified by the end.'

In the case of Jane and Valentine, the judgement of ethics is relative. If Jane's egoistic behavior lent itself to society's detriment then it ought to have been stopped. It wasn't, because her society believed that hers was a morally superior goal. In essence, Valentine's best interests, however compelling, were considered less valuable when compared to Jane's. The question as to whether or not the philosophy of Jane's Law is ethical cannot be answered definitively. However, in action it is an example of solipsistic egoism which might only be considered moral egoism when viewed in light of the results.

(Note: "Jane's Law" is from the "Ender" series of books by Orson Scott Card)