My goal in this essay is to propose a theory of valuing individuals. Value theory in the philosophical sense is incredibly dense and many have written on it, there is even a whole field of study dedicated to practical value theory which we call economics. I do really love economics, if you care about the authors take I think Debt by David Graeber is the best book on it, I have read, I have a lot to say about the book and is another book I almost deify. The theory of value I want to propose is a value based on freedom. That saying that we can grade the value of an agent (any creature that can enact it’s own will, whether that be a plant, animal or human) and attribute a certain value to it. Value theory is a dangerous topic, especially when used to deferentiate quality of beings. You can imagine that this could be used as a vehicle for discrimination, ostracisation or any other way you want to say classifying an out group is bad. As with the last essay my defence is this is transcendental and near impossible to calculate, more of a thought experiment then a radical declaration of economic theory. That is quite a weak argument but let me make it first.

Under determinism, we say that all actions are necessitated, experience is pre-scripted and we are all actors. In theory then if we had perfect knowledge of the laws of nature L and the conditions of which an agent preforms an action C at a time C_t, then we can predict all action as a function of L(C_t). In addition to predication, we could recreate action (like winding back in a video) by recreate C_t. This puts freedom in a complicated place as it appears that all actions are ¬ A_a apart from the one calculated in L(C_t). That would be true if we could ever calculate it. L(C_t) is transcendental, we will never have perfect knowledge of how every atom moves - and more importantly what that means for how humans make decisions - and never have a complete picture of C_t. Computationally it is impossible and theoretically is it as well. Simulation theory says that someone might have and that is our current reality. Unsupervised learning does also offer examples of this, however we will never have the energy or compute to do this for a universe as complex as our. Thus, determinism is our of experiential reach or determinism is transcendental. We make decisions depending on our will, that is something we can begin to understand, thus the philosophical view of compatabalism (free will and determinism can operate simultaneously). Taking that into account we look at an agents actions as a matter of choosing which action in response to a cause. This reaction is what we call free will or choice.

Freedom is the set of all actions possible by an agent, or A_p = A_u - ¬A_a where A_p is actions possible by agents, A_u is all possible actions in the universe and ¬A_p is the set of actions not possible by the agent. I phrase possible action for the agent as a negation of universal action as a complete taxonomy of agential action would be impossible, via negation we can arrive at a negative value which operate as a score in and of itself. This gradation would be like golf, low score wins. The low score would algebraically mean your total set of actions is closer to the total set of actions imaginable, A_u = A_p + ¬A_p.

Had a lot more quantifiers and mathematics to support this claim but I have not built the engine to render LaTex yet. Determining ¬ A_p now becomes the focus of this enquiry. I currently imagine ¬ A_p for a human agent to be.

• Actions that break the laws of physics, ie travel faster than C in a vacuum (the speed of light)
• Action that are physically constricted by the environment, ie go to the shop if you are in prison or walking on water
• Actions outside the agents physical capabilities, ie jump into the atmosphere or walk if you have no legs
• Actions that agent has no knowledge of, ie me giving a lecture on Hegel in Swahili, or doing or thinking or things I don’t know I don’t know.
• Actions the agent does not have the technology to do, ie calculating L(C_t) or reading this article without a computer and a internet connection.
• Actions I do not have the knowledge that I do not know can not be preformed, this is kind of cheeky but do what to highlight my ignorance.

What is debatable if it is ¬ A_p are actions that are not socially/morally/culturally acceptable for the agent. In addition, action that are in-congruent with the agent’s identity in their social sphere. In theory these are under the command of the will and are reactions that can be taken by the agent, but they won’t.

Addiction is another complicated one, as it is at times elevated to the level of a biological appetite (sleep, drink, eat, sex, comfort?), but if not commendable by the will how do so many people escape for it.

All this is also specifying a certain t for this action, the available set of actions is not instantaneous and should be evaluated over a period of time. It seems that only a life time is accurate as it is impossible to predict the future, yet it is also impossible to have perfect knowledge of the past. So maybe instantaneous is the only way, but that is equally as impractical as it changed right after it is calculated. Time is a difficult concept, but this is all I have for now if you have more thoughts please email/text/dm me!