The Copenhagen Trap: How the West made passivity the only safe strategy
11 days ago
- #civilizational-decay
- #agency
- #legal-asymmetry
- The legal and moral asymmetry between action and inaction in Western societies discourages intervention, making passivity the safest strategy.
- Historical legal systems like Roman law and English Common Law established doctrines that favor inaction, such as the 'no duty to rescue' rule.
- Utilitarian and deontological philosophies debate the moral equivalence of action and inaction, but legal frameworks reinforce the asymmetry.
- Modern bureaucratic institutions embed this asymmetry, incentivizing delay and inaction to avoid liability, as seen in FDA drug approvals and corporate safety audits.
- The 'Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics' describes how visibility and interaction create liability, discouraging public altruism and intervention.
- Civilizational selection pressures favor 'ombudsmen'—those who avoid decisions—over 'operators' who take action, leading to institutional decay.
- Comparative legal systems, like Continental Civil Law and Islamic law, impose affirmative duties to act, contrasting with Western passivity.
- The Peng Yu Case in China illustrates the societal collapse when helping implies guilt, reinforcing the dangers of legal asymmetry.
- The legal and social preference for inaction leads to entropy, institutional decay, and a civilization incapable of proactive defense or innovation.
- The West's architecture of passivity selects against reformers, ensuring the perpetuation of a system that prioritizes safety over agency.