This world is nothing but chaos. There is no God, no universal harmony, no sense…
It follows that no adult can be imposed by another based on any moral or ethical principles. Every imposition is a result of power or manipulation or both. Every imposition should be detested both by the imposed on and by the imposing party. Imposition is the most repulsive notion of all.
My world view is not as pessimistic as it may seem to some of you, who see only waste and aimlessness in chaos. A part of chaos are flukes, including the lucky flukes. It’s wonderful to be a part of a lucky fluke. Nothing lasts forever, but some lucky flukes happen to be durable, it’s all part of chaos. In a situation of many chaotic vectors canceling each other, even a small but persistent vector may make a difference, it may create a lucky fluke. Thus it is worthwhile to live for the lucky flukes. It’s worthwhile to act to create lucky flukes. We are only a particle of Nature but we may have our joys and satisfactions, we should strive at flukes.
Going back to the principle of non-imposing, the development, study and teaching of the Art of Agreeing should have the highest priority for the society. Children should be taught the Art of Agreeing from the first grade on, so that they will abhor imposition.Years of hard, creative work goes into Ph.D. dissertations. A similar advanced, hard, inventive and conceptual effort should go also into formulating agreements (laws, rules, organizational charts,…). Traditionally, and to this day, the idea that an agreement may take a creative, Ph.D. research level effort is alien to people. Instead of agreements people are used to impositions. The stronger party dictates the rules and imposes them. Then the result is inferior for each involved party, for everybody.
One may contradict my statement about the world being nothing but chaos. Indeed, there are plenty of examples, in mathematics, physics, biology, …, music, poetry, … of beauty and harmony. On the other hand one may provide even more examples of chaos. But that’s not the point. Certain statements are neither theorems nor definitions but conceptual frames, which help us to talk about the subject in a meaningful way. The Church’s Thesis is an example of this kind of a principle. Also the law of energy preservation, which is not a theorem, and not a simple conclusion from numerous experiments. As Richard Feynman wrote in the past, such a law gets violated during the development of physics, but then it gets rescued by redefining certain auxiliary notions. In other words, it makes sense to organize our knowledge along the line of the law of energy preservation. The same is true about the thesis about the world being nothing but chaos. This principle helps us to organize our thinking, our knowledge about the world. You can’t really contradict it anyway, since every counter-example can be viewed as a fluke, hence another expression of the total chaos. This time a philosopher may rightly object that a statement which cannot be tested and potentially invalidated is useless, like any tautology. However, the situation is dynamic. The precise meaning of the statement is undergoing an evolution along the evolution of our understanding. The statement actually gets invalidated, modified, rescued, invalidated, modified… In the case of this kind of statements, the idea is to organize the thinking and the knowledge along the principle. This may prompt one to prove certain special theorems, etc. Observe that the law of energy preservation actually was invalidated. But by changing certain notions it was rescued by Einstein because it was worthwhile to do so. Of course the Einstein law is different from the classical one, it includes the Einstein equality E = m*c2.
One may also try to contradict another my statement (the second part of it):
The stronger party dictates the rules and imposes them. Then the result is inferior for each involved party, for everybody.
After all, the stronger party often gets even more than it deserves. Then how come the result is inferior to that party?
One ethically obvious answer is: you should feel the lowest scum on the Earth when you take advantage of others, when you force upon them your “solution”. But there is also a more fundamental answer. You just have to accept the axiom that the agreeable solution is almost always superior also for the stronger party. Once you accept this postulate then you are ready to devote true, creative effort to finding such a solution. And then you will find it. Historically and today people prefer take a quick shortcut (an imposition) instead of committing themselves to thinking. There is a common lack of imagination, of imagination which would allow unobvious options.