Division of labour in society

Can each individual engage in ethics to such an extent that they can work out a complete answer to each basic situation in their life by themselves?

For example, if I think electric cars are a solution, then I have to rely on information that I cannot verify myself. According to the United States Geological Survery (USGS), in 2011 there are 33 million proven tonnes of lithium reserves. According to various sources, 46 g lithium are required for a 1 kWh battery. I haven't gone on a world trip to inspect all the lithium mines myself, I haven't been in a laboratory making a battery. I have to rely on the work of others to make the statement "The electric car is the solution for sustainable transportation". This statements requires me to trust other people's statements.

But although I have to refer to a lot of previous work by other people, for after all we live in a work-sharing society, it is still more than a full-time job to be an ethics adviser for mankind.

  If everyone behaved like me

What would happen if everyone busied themselves in this way? It wouldn't work, as then no one in society would produce anything anymore. A society of philosophers - but what would they live on? A legitimate special status is therfore required to spend so much time investigating these matters. Special statuses have to be verified. What would the world look like today if my advice had been followed since 1991? A whole lot better, so in my case it is a legitimate special status.

  Trust is required

In order to live ethically, it is necessary to trust other people's statements as if is not possible to investigate everything oneself. In a society where the statements made by the meida, the government, and leading figures in society are increasingly contradictory, an ever greater part of the population is forced to invest more and more time on the 3rd central concept of ethics: Ethics forces us to verify knowledge.

Philosophy Philosophy
Long-term planning and stability have to be the guiding rules of politics. A philosophy based on the mathematic branch of games theory.


Ethics is the science of survival. Surprising analyses of what is ethical and unethical. Ethics that correspond to survival or downfall in the real world.

Ethics as the logics of survival
Survival as the target, ethics as the science of implementing this target. Of course, we must then define who, how and over what time period survival refers to in this context.

Cosmic threat for mankind: meteorites
According to game theory, the task of intelligent life is to protect the home planet from catastrophes. Let's look at the ethics related to this.

Civilization decision
Back to the simple life or on to a hightech civilization? An ethics evaluation gives a clear answer to the course that should be taken.

Knowledge brings change
Central concept 1: Knowledge is a prerequisite for ethics. Knowledge is thus able to change the bases of decisions laid by ethics.

Verifying knowledge
Central concept 2 - knowledge changes what ethical decisions are - necessarily leads to central concept 3: Ethics force us to verify knowledge

If everybody would do this
Consequences for the areas of survival family, group and mankind. An estimation of consequences always starts with the question ''If everybody did this...''.

Organisation of society
A society should be organized in such a way that the science of survival, called ethics, is in harmony with the generally accepted views of society.

Ethics for groups
The guidelines for a group should be configured in such a way that the decisions of individuals are influenced in a direction that is of benefit for the group.

Context description:  politics political