Friday, July 4, 2025
Wednesday, July 2, 2025
Monday, June 30, 2025
A system of morals and ethics for the 21st century and beyond
The Foundational Axiom
All principles must derive from a single, foundational axiom. This axiom should be as close to an objective, non-supernatural truth as possible. A strong candidate is:
To minimize involuntary suffering and maximize the potential for conscious experience to flourish.
Minimize Involuntary Suffering: This is a sophisticated form of "do no harm." It acknowledges that some suffering is necessary for growth (e.g., the pain of exercise, the grief of loss), but it targets suffering that is imposed, pointless, or destructive to well-being.
Maximize the Potential for Flourishing: This is a proactive, aspirational goal. It is not just about preventing bad things, but about creating the conditions for good things—creativity, discovery, joy, love, and the expansion of knowledge and consciousness itself. It is a declaration that existence is not a problem to be solved, but a potential to be realized.
From this axiom, four interlocking principles emerge.
The Four Core Principles
1. The Principle of Empathetic Realism
Statement: Acknowledge that your empathy is a naturally limited resource, biased toward your kin, tribe, and those who resemble you. The moral duty is to actively and rationally extend your circle of concern to all sentient beings capable of suffering, guided by evidence rather than mere intuition.
Rationale: Cognitive science confirms our tribalistic nature.
A moral code that pretends we are all naturally empathetic to outsiders is doomed to fail. This principle demands we recognize our built-in biases as a bug, not a feature. It makes compassion an act of intellectual rigor, not just a feeling. In a globally connected world facing collective threats (like pandemics or climate change), this principle is a prerequisite for survival, compelling us to see the abstract "other" as a concrete stakeholder.
2. The Principle of Informational Integrity
Statement: There is a moral obligation to seek, vet, and share information that is as close to the truth as possible. Lying is an obvious breach, but the modern duty extends to resisting and refusing to propagate misinformation, demanding intellectual honesty from oneself and one's leaders, and supporting systems that prioritize verifiable reality over narrative comfort.
Rationale: In the 21st century, reality itself is under attack. All other moral calculations are rendered meaningless if the input data is corrupt. A society that cannot agree on a shared set of facts cannot solve any significant problem. This principle establishes that polluting the informational ecosystem is a direct harm, as it cripples the collective cognitive ability required to address suffering and promote flourishing. It is the bedrock upon which all other progress must be built.
3. The Principle of Scalable Responsibility
Statement: An agent's moral responsibility to act is proportional to their knowledge, capacity, and power. The greater the ability to effect change, the greater the obligation to do so.
Rationale: This principle solves the paralysis of individual ethics in the face of systemic problems. While every individual has a duty under the other principles, this one asserts that a corporation, a nation-state, or a billionaire has a vastly greater moral obligation to address systemic suffering (like poverty or environmental degradation) than an individual with limited means. It rejects the flattening of responsibility and asserts that power is not merely a privilege but a moral burden. It demands that those with the leverage to change the system are ethically bound to use it for the common good, as defined by the Foundational Axiom.
4. The Principle of Epistemic Humility
Statement: Any moral code, including this one, must be treated as a living document, subject to revision in the face of new evidence and deeper understanding. The certainty that one's moral framework is perfect and complete is a vice, not a virtue.
Rationale: This is a meta-principle that prevents dogmatism and ensures the code can evolve. We may discover new truths about consciousness, the universe, or the long-term consequences of our actions. This principle builds in an anti-dogma, anti-fanaticism clause. It acknowledges that our "perfect" code today is likely to be seen as flawed by future generations, just as we see the moral codes of the past. It mandates a posture of intellectual humility and a commitment to perpetual learning and refinement.
Adjudication and Synthesis
This framework is not a simple checklist. When faced with a dilemma, an agent or a society would use these principles as a cognitive toolkit:
Empathy: Who are all the beings affected by this choice, especially the voiceless and those outside my tribe?
Information: What is the most accurate, rigorously vetted information available about this situation and the potential consequences of each action?
Responsibility: Given my specific power and capacity, what is my unique obligation in this scenario?
Humility: Am I open to the possibility that my current understanding is wrong? What would change my mind?
The "right" action is the one that best satisfies these inquiries in service of the Foundational Axiom. The "perfect" moral code, therefore, is not a destination. It is a process—a commitment to a rigorous, honest, and perpetually evolving method for navigating the immense challenge and privilege of conscious existence.