The Philosophy

The presuppositions underpinning this philosophy are as follows.

It assumes that the physical world, or reality, objectively exists.
It assumes that consciousness exists and can experience this objective physical world, or reality, subjectively through its embodiment’s unique sensory perspective.
That time is the mechanism that allows consciousness to experience this reality. It is in effect a universal constant. It starts when that being becomes conscious and ends when that being dies. That consciousness then possibly goes on to wherever that that beings beliefs dictate.

The fact the every conscious mind or being values time is an irreducible normative truth that has interesting emergent properties that define morality and ethics and by extension justice as we intuitively perceive it. In layman’s terms it is a fact that every conscious being values spending time, doing what it places value in, or on, and doing that in as pleasant manner as possible, even if that means doing nothing or relaxing or reflecting. It’s the mechanism a violent criminal relies on to ply his trade, he appropriates your will by threatening to make your experience of time going forward unpleasant or worse, remove your ability to experience it at all, nothing like a loaded gun to your head to appropriate your will. It resolves the naturalistic fallacy in that it is a moral fact that every conscious mind values time, a natural construct, or condition.

From Wikipedia… The fact–value distinction is a fundamental epistemological distinction described between:

Statements of fact (positive or descriptive statements), based upon reason and physical observation, and which are examined via the empirical method.
Statements of value (normative or prescriptive statements), which encompass ethics and aesthetics, and are studied via axiology.

This barrier between fact and value, as construed in epistemology, implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments, or to defend the former using the latter.

However it appears to be a fact that every conscious being values time. So time, used for what we have subconsciously been using it for bridges that distinction. It also resolves Humes is aught problem and as mentioned renders the naturalistic fallacy as a fallacy itself.

Any social contract has a hierarchical structure and at its apex a “authority or being” as perceived by that culture or group informing its structure and constitution, be it a god in the case of a religion, usually a patriarch or matriarch in the case of a family unit, or a leader in the form of a chief or king or emperor in the case of larger groups, or as in our case a document, the constitution. That apex by nature has emergent properties that then define morality or justice for the members of that social contract. It appears that immorality or injustice is when one conscious being appropriates the will or time of another conscious being, when this is done without consent it is the genesis of criminal law and when it is done with consent it is the genesis of contract law.

The same way that these apex structures have the requisite emergent properties to define the protocols for interaction between its members to aide the the functioning of that community, the fact that we value time has all the emergent properties that define a ideal social contract. Time as mention has no biases and it is equally accessible to all, and its absolute value to an individual is incalculable by others but you do know how much their time is worth to you.

This appears to be a metaphysical or possibly ontological claim that we all value time. If true, as it appears to be it unlocks a espistimalogical architecture or body of knowledge, that already exists subconsciously, and is bound by a logical system, inherent to our relationship with time, that defines morality in a objective way. In other words it attaches a absolute logic to justice as consciousness or sentience naturally or by default perceives it. Time appears to be our connection or link to this reality or existence and as we value our existence we value what allows it to “exist” and that would be time along with space.

This builds on, or considers, the social contract theory of philosophers of the 16th and 17th centuries or what was considered the “Age of Enlightenment”, as well as the ancient Greek social contract philosophers. They would be Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and Immanuel Kant (1797) as well as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. None of them however, could or tried to, define the state of nature in a way that made logical sense. This philosophy attempts to define the state of nature or “law of nature” in a way that is acceptable to all, as that is a default state that exists for all conscious minds and uses that as a template or foundation. The state of nature is very basal it would appear that its core maxim is to assume that time is a asset we all have, and a second maxim is that we all value that time, it defines value for every conscious mind as well as provide a parity for value, a third maxim is that justice is the protection and preservation of that value, this is where the social contract provides the rules of engagement. The very basic default rules are defined by nature, “state of nature” or the “law of nature”. It appears the default for that protection of that value, in that contract is, as you see fit. It’s also the genesis of the default “fight or flight” reaction that is inherent to every conscious mind when subjected to an imminent threat, that would be the threat to make the experience of time going forward unpleasant or worse, not to be able to experience it at all. Hobbes was incorrect we didn’t escape the “state of nature” we just created another boundary within the state of nature that defines our state because we hadn’t defined the state of nature and it appears as he said brutal and always in a continual state of war.

Any social contact should be structured in such a way that the person most adversely affected or disadvantaged by the core postulate or axiom will still choose it, then it starts to look like what this concept is, is a possible logical natural procedural progression of the categorical imperative. Because if the person most disadvantaged will choose it over the going alternative then presumably, or logically, everyone else then also would. That is a universaliasable principle very Kantian. It’s more libertarian and far better and more just than utilitarianism where only the majority benefit at the possible expense of, or injustice against the minority. As Kant said if a choice or action is moral, or ethical, it is universaliasable and it can’t bring about a contradiction. As far as egalitarianism goes in a convoluted way this appears to be it’s ideal without including the unjust portions, or provisions, and avoiding it’s obvious pitfalls, the main one being no incentive to put in more effort as in socialism.

As Rawls mentioned any social contract needs to be designed from behind a veil of ignorance. Time appears to be the ideal veil of ignorance, it has no biases, no race, religion, culture. We all have it in equal measure by default, one lifetime, we all spend it or pass through it at the same rate by default, all conscious minds ultimately value it the same as you value yours, it’s your life, no one cannot acquire more by definition, you only live once, once it’s up, it’s up. All characteristics of an ideal veil of ignorance. This philosophy also aligns with Rawls concept of the difference principal, in that even the worst off sees improvement in his conditions or state of affairs. The only ones who won’t benefit are those who currently immorally extract undue value. It removes the ability for them to do that. It also goes along way to realizing the first principle of basic liberties, the ownership of one’s time, as well both the first and second parts of his second principle of his theory of justice. The first part of his second principle is the “fair equality of opportunity” or the right to spend your time as you choose. And then as mentioned above the second part or the difference principle.

The following is an extract from Wikipedia.

“Social Agreement” redirects here. For the Greek political party, see Social Agreement (Greece). For Rousseau’s 1762 treatise on the concept, see The Social Contract. For other uses, see Social Contract (disambiguation).

The original cover of Thomas Hobbes‘s work Leviathan (1651), in which he discusses the concept of the social contract theory

In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.^[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.^[2][3] The relation between natural and legal rights is often a topic of social contract theory. The term takes its name from The Social Contract (French: Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that discussed this concept. Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy.

The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent of any political order (termed the “state of nature” by Thomas Hobbes).^[4] In this condition, individuals’ actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate why rational individuals would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order. Prominent 17th- and 18th-century theorists of social contract and natural rights include Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and Immanuel Kant (1797), each approaching the concept of political authority differently. Grotius posited that individual humans had natural rights. Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a “state of nature”, human life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the “right to all things” and thus the freedom to plunder, rape and murder; there would be an endless “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (civil society) through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign, one man or an assembly of men. Though the sovereign’s edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature. Hobbes asserted that humans consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchical or parliamentary). Alternatively, Locke and Rousseau argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so.

The central assertion that social contract theory approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that government is not a party to the original contract and citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest. According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called the “general will” by Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey, or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence. Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and therefore the rule of God superseded government authority, while Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way to ensure welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the 19th century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism and Marxism; they were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.^[5]

Some more interesting reading from Wikipedia on political philosophy the section on the European Enlightenment gives one a good indication of the issues in trying to define a right and justice, John Stuart Mill and others attempted with moderate success. The harm principal by John Stuart Mill is interesting he just didn’t connect the dots to define justice and rights.

Time has some very interesting properties that allow it to define certain things or to be the parity or calibration mechanism for many aspects of life.

It is the common denominator in everything everyone and anyone does, this is applicable to all conscious minds not just our species. Even when you do nothing you still spend or invest time doing it, the one thing it still costs is time.
You, along with everyone else, always have to spend your time on something. So in a abstract way you don’t have free will, you cannot not spend time. However you should have the freedom to spend your time as you see fit or free will in that context. As long as you don’t infringe on others rights to do the same.
You, along with everyone else, get it for free, it’s the only thing that doesn’t costs you anything, apart from what others give you of their own volition that they legitimately own, yet….
You cannot acquire more no matter how much value or money you have or your status in society, as justice is supposed to be blind, time is blind.
It has no bias it’s a natural construct.
It appears to be what defines natural justice in a unbiased (although what may appear to be brutal at times as Hobbs points out) way. This is only because the protocols are not understood or documented.
It ties in well with Rawls “Theory of Justice” and his concept of a veil of ignorance, time is a ideal veil of ignorance. It also meshes well with the maxims of Kant’s categorical imperative at its highest level, a law of nature. This concept appears to be the natural logical procedural progression of the categorical imperative, or a better understanding the reality we exist in. A law of nature. It also resonates or ties in well with Mills harm theory of justice.

Some other interesting reading are the philosophy of ethics and morality as in the Britannica or Wikipedia.