Universal Merit and the Innocence of Existing

Humans have confused merit with abilities. They have also confused self-responsibility with autonomy. Humans have forgotten essential things in their analysis of themselves. They prefer to tell themselves stories rather than hear truths about what they really are. It is clear that we are all innocent of existing, but this is an expression I have never read in any philosophical text, even though it is essential and should change the paradigm of life in society.

If it is easy to make a single person hear and perhaps understand this notion of innocence of existing, making it accepted by society as a whole, or even just by the Legislator and the Justice system, seems like a challenge to me.

For the needs of society, the one who serves society is deserving. Society seeks out the best (aristocracy) and rewards them according to what they do for society. But what merit is there in being able to do and actually doing it, compared to someone who is incapable and therefore cannot do, yet tries to accomplish it? Both have been fabricated and educated by society. Society fabricates individuals randomly and educates them randomly. Since the outcome is random, society waits for them to reveal themselves. It calls this “merit” when it aligns with what suits society. Society fabricates and educates social instruments (individuals) and rewards them when it has successfully carried out its own work of fabrication and education; this is, in itself, a strange concept, isn't it? It is easy to understand that a gifted person will be even more profitable in an environment that suits their talents and activities. But why should this person, already favored by chance, deserve more well-being than an ordinary human who did not ask to exist, but whom society desired to serve it?

We all deserve well-being without having to beg for it. We deserve it because we were forced into existence, because we were placed before the accomplished fact. We should not have to earn it; we deserve it simply because we are human and because we have the choice not to create children when conditions for well-being are not ensured. The child who is fabricated should not be a condition for the well-being of the one who fabricates them. Well-being must preexist before this choice is made by one who already exists and should himself exist in well-being. If you do not possess this well-being yourself, do not fabricate a child; a child cannot be an outlet. We deserve well-being because we are innocent of existing, since we were forced to exist (constraint implies innocence), we are all innocent without distinction, and because we pride ourselves on being human and not mere animals.

Existence is never the result of a personal desire or will.

We are innocent of existing because we did not come into existence by our own request, and we remain innocent of existing until the end of our existence. We are innocent of existing and of our actions throughout our lives because each of the living cells that compose us, that constitute and enact our life as multicellular beings, is innocent of existing and innocent of its actions. The sum of innocent cells, innocent of existing and of their actions, forms an innocent multicellular being, innocent of existing and of its actions. The sum of the cells does not change the nature of the mechanisms, it only changes the type of mechanism produced—it remains a mechanism. I am innocent of the activity of everything that is active within me, and therefore innocent of the actions that result from it. I cannot produce the internal activities that generate what makes me act; I am their result, and my actions are their result. I could not have produced anything without this existence, which is a constraint.

Anything that exists cannot be responsible for its own existence. There is permanent existence—the universe, for instance (since the universe is by definition Everything, whatever this Everything may be)—and there is existence induced by the mechanisms of the universe; an existence that originates from the mechanisms of the universe.

The universe is “aresponsible”. Its mechanisms are aresponsible. Matter is aresponsible. Unicellular and multicellular life are aresponsible. The universe is aresponsible for the beings it has produced, including those who call themselves intelligent. It is aresponsible for everything that exists, for everything that interacts. The beings it has produced are aresponsible, as they are constituted by its mechanisms—those who call themselves intelligent, just like all the others.

Human societies, nations, were established through territorial conquest. A leader was necessary to coordinate the nomadism of a small tribe, just as a head is necessary to coordinate the cells of a multicellular animal. Leaders proclaimed themselves kings when tribes ceased to be nomadic and occupied well-defined territories. Kings organized the defense (against other neighboring nations) of the territory that became "theirs," while the inhabitants became "their" subjects. In a tribe, everyone was an associate. In modern democracies, citizens are supposed to be equal associates "by birth" (which is impossible, physically, intellectually, culturally, financially), and the territory is supposed to belong to them (which is false and even deceitful since they must buy it to have a place to live and to feed themselves, and they must pay taxes just like a foreigner).

From a social perspective, responsibility cannot be imposed on someone who does not want it. The law is clear on this matter. Yet life is imposed, along with all the social actions necessary to live in society. Since life was not accepted through a pre-signed contract, social responsibility cannot be imposed. Parental responsibility cannot be transferred to children as some sort of genetic inheritance, as parents themselves were introduced into society without their consent, without a social contract. No one can be forced to sign this social contract through blackmail involving social protection or the so-called benefits of living in society, after having been forcibly integrated into it.

People do not earn a salary based on merit; they earn a salary based on profitability, they earn a salary based on supply and demand: people must make themselves desirable in order to survive, even though they were desired by their parents and their associates, the members of "Society."

If you speak of free will to justify the merit of a punishment or a reward, then it is up to you to demonstrate the existence of this functionality or to demand its demonstration by official science. In any case, and in all areas of law, justice, and ethics, doubt benefits the accused. Deserving punishment or reward is justified only if individual responsibility can be proven despite the innocence of existing, aresponsibility, determinism, the continuum, the impossibility of free will, as well as the notion of precursor. If someone imposes free will and responsibility on me without my consent, am I entitled to refuse them? At the very least, I should have the right to refute them. Well, I refute them...

Perhaps you believe in your own merit! Perhaps you think you deserve your very good salary, your above-average income! Perhaps you think you deserve the beautiful life you lead compared to that of others. But how do you imagine that this merit can stem from an action that is not a merit—the act of existing? Existing is not a merit; it is a fact. Your parents, with society’s approval, imposed existence upon you; they fabricated you—in fact, your mother fabricated you. You were placed before the accomplished fact of existing. This maternal fabrication is random. You are born male or female, you are born in good health or poor health. You are born disabled or less disabled. You are born with a good intellect or a lesser one. You are born into a good family or a less good one, or even without a family at all. You are born into a cultured family or a less cultured one, a rich or less rich one, or poor, or merely struggling to survive. How do you think this initial randomness can grant you the right to deserve a life superior to that of others? It is not about whether you have the right to a beautiful and long life, filled with happiness, well-being, and passion—no, the question is whether you deserve better than others. How does this initial randomness, when we consider ourselves human, humanist by principle, socially and individually ethical, equal, allow us to grant ourselves more wealth than others? Assuming that one deserves a better life is to assume that others do not deserve it.

If you want to determine who is deserving in an ethical social system in which the notion of individual responsibility would be validated despite the innocence of existing, you would need to precisely (very precisely) control the physical and intellectual potential of two individuals and then compare their performances—assuming, of course, that their respective desires are the same regarding the comparison you make between them. If this is the case, you could evaluate the merit of one relative to the other, since, having the same abilities and the same levels of desire (and, of course, all of this is impossible to measure), you could claim that the one who succeeds in the test better than the other has more merit because, undoubtedly, they worked harder to achieve what both desired with the same intensity and the same potentials.

If you do not control these values (potentials and desires), then how can you claim that one deserves more than the other? Is it not simply because one has a disadvantage compared to the other, or because their desire is not truly theirs but rather the result of parental or social "blackmail," or parental or social education—also known as societal conditioning?

We have all heard this phrase: "He does not deserve to live!"

This phrase actually means: "He does not deserve to continue living!"

But why should I have to "deserve"—that is, have "merit"—to live, when I did not ask to live? Life is not a job; it is an obligation. Life is not a request from the one who exists; it is a constraint, an imposition of an accomplished fact: you live, period. Live and stay silent! Accept life, since all you can do now is suffer social enslavement or commit suicide.

So explain to me why you fabricated me, and since it was done without asking my opinion, why should I have to deserve to continue existing? Should you not, as humans, anticipate the existence of your "fabrications"? Should you not, at the very least, invite me to exist? But then again, what is the purpose of existing when one does not yet exist—that is, as long as one has not been fabricated?

Conclusion: The social system of punishment and reward is a childish and infantile system, designed to manage children, and it stems from a misunderstanding of what human beings truly are. Not only should the death penalty obviously be abolished, but the very notion of punishment itself should be abolished.

No one should be punished by the very people who fabricated them imperfectly, educated them imperfectly, and forced them to accept their imperfect association in an imperfect society... It is an aberration. If you want to change the world, start by accepting this fact... It is undeniable.

End – E. Berlherm