This is a moral philosophy theory, or theory of justice, based in or on a natural construct, time, or more specifically the value theory of time. It appears to be a law common to us all and that is that we all, value our time. It in fact transcends us as a species and appears to be applicable to all conscious minds. It is the architecture that is home to  the fight or flight mechanism or recourse of last resort, it is in fact recourse as you see fit. As mentioned it appears to be applicable to all conscious minds that exist in the known universe. At the very least it appears  to apply to everyone I know as well as possibly every other living thing on this planet. So it’s a Natural law as defined in Immanuel Kants moral philosophy and his concept of the categorical imperative, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can, at the same time, will that it becomes a universal law”. So it appears, as we all value our time, it’s a maxim, that is universalizable, and can be expanded on to unlock a sound, absolute, and apparently binary, logic with universally applicable protocols, that defines our reality, or why we do what we do, or, the obvious. We can all be comfortable that the absolute ownership of our time is unversalizable. That ownership requires that you also take ownership of the consequences of that responsibility and are accountable for that ownership, and ownership your choices, and if you impact someone’s time negatively, force, or cause, them to spend time on something that they don’t want to, you need to be subjected to sanction. That sanction is imposed on you through a “reasonable” peer of your  choice. This is a moral maxim, or action, that everyone can also reasonably be expected to agree to. It’s a universal common law, we all value our time. It’s a law that appears to transcends the human experience, it extends to all conscious minds with a finite life, it appears to be the genesis, and parity, of all value. It’s the common denominator or requirement in anything and everything we do. Even when you are doing nothing you are still spending your time, a valuable finite resource to you, doing it.

It appears that ethical justice, as we have been trying to define it, is the protection and preservation of that value. Look at any just law that exists today, it prevents others wasting your time or causing you to spend time doing something that you would not normally do, without your consent, or not of your own volition, or free will. Anyhow it allows for or unlocks an interesting architecture for a social contract based on an exoteric logic. One that is fair, and just, and has a far more acceptable default social status, it encourages  everyone to at the very least respect each others time, and strangely, also culture. It’s creation is consistent with the core concepts in John Rawls “Theory of justice”, that is time is a ideal “veil of ignorance”, and is also consistent with his two principals of justice as articulated in the same theory.

(still working on it  a bit needs to be edited I’m sure.. there is a comment section on my other websites.)

My other website www.inournatureism.org sort of gets the concept across It is a social contract theory, or theory of government, that appears to be based in an exoteric logic that we all subconsciously understand. It’s in our nature to value time, hence the name, inournature-ism.  The best way to show, or demonstrate or effect, that respect of others time is to allow others the unfettered absolute ownership of their time, and in return they must respect your right to that same ownership, as long as when they exercise that right they don’t do anything that could reasonably cause someone to spend time doing something they did not choose to reasonably spend time doing of their own free will. Anyhow it’s a interesting philosophy for a social contract theory that I think needs further investigation. At the end every moral ethical person should see benefit, except of course the unjust and immoral..

Any theory of justice or social contract theory needs to allow for the protection and preservation of any culture, religion or ideology as long as it is adopted by consent of those it affects and doesn’t negatively impact others. For this reason the maxim or maxims of the global or overarching architecture cannot be based on human constructs. This architecture allows for that. Those biased maxims, or maxims based on human constructs, can be introduced at the cultural level, this architecture allows for that at its lower or sub levels.