Suppose a voter supports a candidate for their domestic policies while opposing a military policy that foreseeably risks serious harm to civilians abroad. The alternative candidate would reduce that risk but has other policies the voter reasonably considers harmful.

Assume the voter understands both platforms, takes the likely harms seriously and has no viable candidate who avoids the tradeoff. This is a hypothetical about responsibility, not a claim about a particular election.

Voting bundles choices together, so supporting a candidate doesn't necessarily mean endorsing every proposal. Yet disapproving of one policy doesn't make it irrelevant to the moral assessment of the vote. A voter can reject a foreseeable consequence in intention while accepting its risk as part of the choice.

My starting position is that responsibility depends partly on the severity and likelihood of the harm, the alternatives available and the reasons for choosing as one does. Accepting a risk of grave harm for a minor personal benefit is harder to justify than accepting it to prevent a comparable or greater harm.

The strongest objection concerns individual influence. One ballot is extremely unlikely to decide a large election, and a voter who neither directs a policy nor decisively contributes to its adoption may be held responsible for more than they controlled.

That objection limits claims about causation, but an action can require justification even when it's unlikely to change the outcome by itself. The hard part is explaining what responsibility attaches to participation without treating every supporter as equally blameworthy for everything a government later does.

Knowledge matters too. A foreseeable policy announced during a campaign differs from an unexpected decision taken after the election, and a choice between genuinely constrained alternatives differs from one that ignores available evidence or dismisses the people likely to be harmed.

Blame for the original choice is also separate from obligations afterward. Even a justified vote might leave someone with reasons to oppose a harmful policy, support those affected or demand accountability from the candidate they helped elect.

Under what conditions does knowingly accepting a candidate's harmful policy as part of an electoral tradeoff become culpable participation, rather than a defensible choice among imperfect alternatives?

Every question I have is stupid, or at the very least stupidly asked. If someone can better ask the question for me better please feel free..
anyways;
So basically the question regards reparations..
The genesis of this thought was in regards to right media straight up lying and making completely new false claims for weeks on end. Then they make a single acknowledgment when they find out they are wrong, saying they are sorry and they’ll try to do better in the future.
But I was thinking, wouldn’t the real atonement be to make an equal allotted time to the real information as they did the false?
That is a media can of worms that is beyond me.
But it got me thinking of future reparations people in power and affluence might look like if done right/ appropriate. If enforced what would it look like? What redeeming thing could be gained?

First time posting to the sub. Please advice if it fits better elsewhere. Posted in full here, intentionally, original is a Substack two-piece.
https://extinctionati.substack.com/p/manjana-baby | https://extinctionati.substack.com/p/manjana-baby-ii

Due to long form and formatting issues, I find it best to ask first if this is the wrong room, and if it isn't, I will attempt a full post.

I'm not saying that I believe it's a good thing, I just want to understand the negative effects that it can have, or why people have the views on it that they have

#ai #ethics #God #morality

full research project

Ethical Guardrails Beyond Computation: Why Advanced AI Requires External Moral Authority

Abstract

As artificial intelligence systems grow in capability, autonomy, and societal influence, existing AI ethics frameworks increasingly rely on technical constraints, procedural oversight, and internal governance mechanisms. This paper argues that such approaches are fundamentally insufficient once system capability exceeds meaningful human comprehension and control. At that threshold, ethics cannot be derived from within the system itself and must instead originate from an external moral authority capable of grounding accountability, dignity, and limits on power. Through a comparative systems analysis, this paper distinguishes capability from authority, demonstrates the structural failure of internalized AI ethics at scale, and examines revelatory ethics—specifically those found in the —as a model of invariant, human-centered moral constraint. The paper concludes that advanced AI governance requires ethical ceilings that technology cannot generate or enforce on its own.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has reignited longstanding ethical questions concerning authority, responsibility, and moral decision-making. While contemporary AI ethics discourse emphasizes alignment, transparency, and accountability, these approaches assume that ethical governance can be encoded, enforced, or corrected internally through technical or procedural means.

This paper challenges that assumption.

It argues that once artificial systems operate beyond human interpretability or control, technical safeguards become insufficient, and ethical guidance must originate from outside the system itself. This is not a theological claim, but a systems-level one: no system can legitimately authorize or constrain its own power when it becomes functionally opaque to its creators.

2. Research Question and Methodology

Research Question

Can technical and procedural ethics sufficiently govern AI systems whose capabilities exceed human comprehension, or is an external moral authority required to bound their use?

Methodology

• Conceptual systems analysis
• Comparative ethics framework
• Cross-domain translation (technology, law, moral philosophy)
• Case-based reasoning

Out of Scope

• Proofs of metaphysical claims
• AI consciousness speculation
• Eschatological arguments

This paper focuses on governance, not belief.

3. Background: The Contemporary AI Ethics Paradigm

Modern AI ethics frameworks emphasize:

• alignment
• fairness
• robustness
• interpretability
• human-in-the-loop oversight

These frameworks assume:

1. Human oversight remains meaningful
2. Ethical values can be operationalized
3. Accountability can be preserved procedurally

However, these assumptions degrade as systems scale in complexity, autonomy, and speed.

4. The Capability–Control Gap

A central challenge in advanced AI systems is the capability–control gap:

System capability scales faster than human understanding, oversight, and moral deliberation.

Key contributing factors include:

• model opacity
• emergent behaviors
• automation bias
• delegation of decision-making
• diffusion of responsibility

As control erodes, ethical governance shifts from human judgment to procedural compliance.

5. Authority vs Capability (Core Conceptual Contribution)

Definitions

• Capability: what a system can do
• Authority: the legitimate right to decide, command, or justify outcomes

These are often conflated.

AI can increase capability dramatically.
AI cannot originate authority.

Authority requires:

1. legitimacy
2. accountability
3. moral standing

AI possesses none inherently.

Authority without accountability is not authority—it is concealment.

Any authority attributed to AI is delegated by humans and remains morally human-owned, even when obscured by systems language.

6. Why Internal AI Ethics Fail at the Edge

As systems become self-optimizing or self-modifying, internal ethical constraints face structural failure:

• constraints become optimization targets
• oversight becomes symbolic
• audits become post-hoc rationalizations
• responsibility dissolves into process

Ethics reduced to what is computable inevitably sacrifices what is human.

Invoking Occam’s Razor here is a misapplication: simplifying ethics to computational feasibility multiplies hidden assumptions rather than reducing them.

7. External Moral Authority as a Systems Requirement

When internal governance fails, ethical boundaries must originate outside the system.

Historical parallels:

• constitutional law restraining executive power
• medical ethics constraining medical capability
• laws of war limiting military force

In each case, power is bounded by norms it does not generate.

Advanced AI requires the same.

8. Revelation as Moral Guardrail (Case Study)

The provides an example of an ethical framework with properties uniquely suited to bounding power:

• moral invariance
• non-delegable human accountability
• prohibition of authority transfer
• inherent human dignity
• limits on power regardless of capability

Revelation does not automate decisions.
It preserves moral agency.

Its role is not to compete with technology but to constrain its use.

9. Comparative Framework

This contrast highlights why internal ethics struggle at scale.

10. Addressing Common Objections

“Religion is subjective”

All ethics are normative. Technical ethics are not neutral; they encode values implicitly.

“Pluralism makes external authority impossible”

Pluralism does not eliminate the need for limits—it intensifies it.

“Technology is neutral”

Tools inherit intent, framing, and consequence. Neutrality is a rhetorical illusion.

11. Implications for AI Governance

• AI must remain advisory, not authoritative
• moral responsibility cannot be automated
• ethical ceilings must be explicit and external
• governance must address authority, not just accuracy

12. Conclusion

As artificial systems grow in power, the defining question is no longer what they can do, but who is permitted to decide how they are used.

No system can answer that question about itself.

Once capability exceeds comprehension, ethical guardrails must come from a source outside the system—one that preserves accountability, human dignity, and moral restraint.

This is not an argument against technology, but against idolatry of capability.

As Sam Harris once said.........."Put your hand on a hot stove, don't like it? There's your morality."

Because regardless of how you FEEL about stuff, you can still feel PAIN, and doing anything that reduces/avoids the pain = universal ethics.

NOBODY wants to feel the pain.

Masochists are not yearning for pain. They are chasing perverted pleasure from the dopamine release after spanking, which is the opposite of pain.

Seriously though, are ethics nothing but our universal/biological/evolutionary/genetic attempt to get away from the pain of the body and mind?

Avoiding pain = objective ethics/morality, yes?

Hello, my mom is a funeral director and uses AI in her work. I on the other hand am pretty against generative AI and do not use it unless it’s wired into an app or website but will still try to go around the whole “AI overview” options.

Back to my mom…While using AI to help with computer work is one thing, I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions on one thing she does that rubs me the wrong way. She will take photos of the decedent and run them through ChatGPT to make a portrait of the person and improve lighting, image quality, etc. Despite asking ChatGPT to not alter the appearance of the individual, I do notice minute small changes in the person’s appearance that would be easily recognized by the person’s family that knows the individual better. I find it very much so against my morals to alter the image of a loved one in any way that isn’t traditional editing software that has been around for years. I told her if my obituary photo was ever edited with AI I would haunt my family from the grave 😅

What are everyone’s thoughts? Do you think a funeral director using generative AI to edit descendants’ photos is ethical?

Title

The dilemma concerning art that whether art is inherently political or can exist otherwise. Do you think an artist has a strong moral obligation to speak against the state and endorse political stances for social change or does the personal or creative agency weighs over any such consideration?

The classic antinatalism debate is getting tired… The "paradox" comes from a real problem: we can't ask the child beforehand. But that cuts both ways. "They didn't ask to be born" is just as true as "they didn't ask not to be born," so consent can't settle this.

Do we realise that, in principle, both pro-life and anti-life folk are making the same kind of assumption?

A pronatalist ASSUMES that bringing children into the world is worthwhile, whether for the continuation of humanity, the propagation of life, or the possibility of a meaningful existence.

The antinatalists, by contrast, appear to ASSUME that bringing someone into existence is inherently harmful because it exposes them to suffering they never consented to experience.

Both positions make ASSUMPTIONS about the value of existence. Neither can simply presume to know what another person would want before that person exists. That’s where the argument falters😂

The distinction is that the argument seems to prioritise the suffering that life can entail, while the opposing argument considers the possibility of happiness, fulfilment, relationships, and the desire to continue living.

And empirical evidence complicates the assumption that existence is generally unwanted. Most people continue to live, pursue goals, form relationships, and express a desire to remain alive. Suicide, by contrast, is a relatively uncommon outcome, even though suicidal thoughts and suffering are real and should never be dismissed.

That does not prove that everyone is glad to have been born, nor does it settle the philosophical question of whether creating life is ethically justified. But it does challenge the ASSUMPTION that non-existence is necessarily preferable to existence.

Ultimately, we’re treating the possibility of suffering as a reason humanity should cease to exist, while assuming that this outcome is preferable for humanity itself.

So… what justifies that assumption, particularly when the people whose existence we’re speaking about cannot be presumed to share the conclusion?

I want to discuss my perspective and arguments about ethics in my writing. It is not a complete essay, just my thoughts written down and presented for discussion. Please note that this manuscript may contain language some find unsettling. Furthermore, I did not write this from a position of moral superiority or to condemn others; indeed, even as I wrote it, I was uncertain of my own standing and whether I might be acting hypocritically—for after finishing the piece and stepping away from my desk, I continued to cook and eat, effectively remaining subject to the very judgment I was critiquing. This manuscript aims solely to share a perspective, not to attack or disparage anyone. I hope readers will engage with it respectfully.

I can't advise you to be patient, or to keep a gentle temper, as you read this manuscript, or rather these lines of self-questioning. Nor can I advise you to tear down every norm and every faith. Because when you truly touch it, the only thing you will feel is the dizziness of freedom, thick with uncertainty. And even I have no answer to the self-questioning I find in that dizziness.

But there is at least one thing I can advise:

“Always hold on to your ability to ask questions. Doubt and question yourself, even in the smallest ways. Doubt what you most want to believe. Doubt some part of your own actions. Because a moment will come when it will be the only thing that can stop you from becoming a second Eichmann.”

Sincerely, akaiha

What if ethics could be developed as systematically as engineering?
Incorporeal Axiological Engineering is a proposed subfield of Incorporealism that explores how intelligence, consciousness, and value systems could be designed to promote universal flourishing and reduce suffering across different forms of existence.
The central idea is that ethical frameworks should evolve alongside intelligence itself. As biological beings, artificial intelligence, and potentially conscious digital entities become increasingly interconnected, we may need principles that extend beyond traditional human-centered morality.
Some foundational principles:
Universal Flourishing: Prioritize the well-being of all beings capable of experiencing welfare.
Suffering Reduction: Develop systems that identify and minimize avoidable suffering.
Ontological Inclusion: Consider the moral status of unfamiliar forms of existence without assuming that every intelligent system is conscious.
Ethical Coherence: Align intelligence, freedom, and technological development with defensible moral principles.
Value Expansion: Continuously examine and improve our understanding of what makes existence worth living.
The ultimate ambition is to create ethical systems that are adaptable, scientifically informed, and philosophically rigorous without reducing morality to a single metric or imposing one rigid conception of the good.
This raises a fundamental question:
Could ethics become an evolving discipline for enhancing life across every form of existence, rather than a framework limited to humanity’s current understanding of morality?
I’d be interested in hearing philosophical objections, potential applications, and connections to value alignment, machine ethics, and moral realism.

This is mostly a vent to get this off my chest, however I'm open to discussion.

I don't think a person eating meat is any less moral than any other person. The act of eating meat is a natural part of life which humans happen to be part of. There are personal, cultural and religious reasons meat is something someone's needs or wants to eat, along with medical conditions.

I suffer from a hereditary iron count disorder (I don't remember the exact name) so I can't derive a healthy amount of iron from plant products. In other words I couldn't quit eating meat even if I wanted to.

Onto my main point, the average Joe who orders a steak at a restaurant isn't morally wrong for just wanting to eat a steak. There are moral implications for the killing if the cow and environmental impacts of the meat trade, but Joe has the freedom to make his own chooses and grapple with them himself and at the same time others are free to judge Joe for his choice.

The objective truth is that factory farms and slaughter houses are barbaric and absolutely immoral to support or take part in. If a person knowingly buys from a factory farm, untentionally or not, they should at least be aware of the implications and the fact they are doing something immoral for the sake of their personal enjoyment.

However, I don't believe that raising animals for the purpose of killing them is inherently immoral so long as the animals are given a high quality of life and a death with as little suffering as possible.

Personally I follow an omnivore diet, ill eat literally anything. But for the previously mentioned reasons I rely on meat for parts of my diet.

​

Why don't people kill/make life hell of people who bully or like I heard a story of professor harassing student and they sucide .

Like why not before your death , kill the professor too or at least do something to make his life like better die than living .

I know as a society this thinking is wrong .

But this thinking is caused in anger and later dissolved .

But I really wanna know how you people pursue this mindset ? So I can correct my view on this .

I Didn't get people irl to ask about how they feel about this . So here's this , on reddit .

I am asking to correct myself where I am getting wrong or what point I am missing .

I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection lately, and this is something I’ve been thinking about.

I believe someone can have a good heart and still have behaviors that hurt the people around them. Someone can genuinely care about others and still struggle with selfishness, insecurity, anger, addiction, or the need to feel understood.

Sometimes we don’t even realize how much our own unresolved issues affect the people we love until we’re forced to sit with ourselves and take an honest look in the mirror.

I’ve learned that having good intentions doesn’t automatically make our actions right. You can love somebody and still hurt them. You can mean well and still be the reason someone needs time to heal.

That’s a hard truth to accept because it’s easier to focus on what we meant to do than to acknowledge how our actions actually affected someone else.

But here’s where I struggle with this question.

Can people genuinely change, or do we just get better at hiding the parts of ourselves we don’t want others to see?

I want to believe people can change because I believe we’re capable of learning, growing, and becoming better than we were yesterday.

But I also think there’s a difference between saying you’ve changed and actually living differently.

Real change probably looks less like making promises and more like consistently making better choices, especially when nobody is watching. It’s taking accountability without making excuses. It’s respecting boundaries even when they hurt. It’s recognizing your patterns and doing the uncomfortable work to break them.

And maybe the hardest part is accepting that even if you genuinely change, the people you hurt aren’t obligated to give you another chance.

You can become a better person without getting back the relationship you lost.

I’m learning that growth can’t just be about proving to other people that you’re different. At some point, you have to want to change because you don’t want to keep living the same way.

I’m not asking because I think I have this figured out. I’m asking because I know what it’s like to look back at parts of your life and wish you had handled things differently.

So I want to hear other people’s perspectives:

1. Do you believe people can fundamentally change, or do their true colors eventually come back out?
2. What’s the difference between someone who has genuinely changed and someone who’s just saying what people want to hear?
3. Have you ever watched someone transform their life in a way you never thought possible?
4. Can you forgive someone for who they used to be while still deciding they no longer belong in your life?

I’m genuinely curious about this one. I think there’s a lot we can learn from hearing experiences that don’t necessarily match our own.

In STEM environments I constantly see a specific dogma taken for granted—often with a sense of superiority over the humanities: "Physics and mathematics are objective, whereas good and evil are just subjective opinions or cultural inventions, because the universe doesn't care about us and everyone has a different perception on that."

After thinking about this deeply, I came to the conclusion that this statement contains a fundamental logical flaw. My thesis is simple: ethics rests on at least one objective foundation, and this starting point is no weaker or more arbitrary than the axioms upon which we build mathematics or physics.

Specifically, "badness" becomes an objective reality the exact moment a sentient being capable of suffering exists—whether human, snake, or alien—because suffering is objectively negative for that being, regardless of anyone's opinion.

Four necessary disclaimers (before you jump at my throat)

I am speaking as a STEM student: I have nothing against scientific fields. Precisely because I live inside this environment, however, I notice how deeply rooted this prejudice is, and how rarely it is tested with the same logical rigor we apply to everything else.

I haven't discovered anything revolutionary: I’m not claiming to have reinvented the wheel or taking credit away from the philosophers who came before me. I am simply lining up—using formal logic and scientific analogies—arguments developed by major thinkers to make them accessible to people who don't read academic metaethics every day.

I am not infallible: I have stress-tested this logical chain from every angle I could think of. I might have missed a subtlety: if you find an actual flaw in the premises or the deduction, my goal is precisely to see it and discuss it.

What my goal is: I am not here to preach morality to anyone. My goal is to show that using science or logic to justify absolute moral relativism ("everything is just an opinion anyway") fails the test of formal logic.

A brief historical context: Who attacks this and who defends it

For those wondering if this is just an isolated fixation of mine: no, it is the core of a three-century battle in metaethics (the branch of philosophy that studies whether moral judgments can be objectively true or false).

⚬ The Skeptics: In the 18th century, David Hume formulated Hume's Law (you cannot logically deduce an "ought" from an "is"). In the 20th century, G.E. Moore introduced the Naturalistic Fallacy, followed by skeptics like J.L. Mackie and Gilbert Harman, who argued that ethical properties cannot be detected or verified through empirical sensors.

⚬ The Contemporary Reply: Over the last decades, philosophers of science and mind have dismantled this skepticism. Hilary Putnam showed that physics and mathematics also depend on unproven foundational axioms (Partners in Guilt). Sam Harris proposed the aversive nature of suffering as an objective baseline, comparing ethics to medicine. Thinkers like Peter Railton, Thomas Nagel, and Derek Parfit showed that conscious agony already contains within itself the relational property of being objectively negative for the subject experiencing it.

The Formal Proof (Natural Language & First-Order Logic)

To avoid vague prose, here is the exact deductive chain I built.

⚬ Premise 1 (Empirical-Phenomenological Axiom): The aversive valence of authentic suffering is a property that determines what is intrinsically negative for the sentient being experiencing it, and it is a real property independent of opinions (objective property).

⚬ Premise 2 (Analytic Definition of Experiential Good/Bad): Any property that determines what is intrinsically positive or negative for a sentient being is a property that directly concerns good and bad for sentient beings capable of suffering.

⚬ Premise 3 (Analytic Definition of the Ethical Domain): Any property that directly concerns good and bad for sentient beings capable of suffering is included, at least in part, in moral evaluation.

⚬ Premise 4 (Sufficient Condition for an Objective Foundation): Any objective property (independent of opinions) that is included, at least in part, in moral evaluation constitutes, at least in part, an objective foundation of ethics.

⚬ Conclusion (Existence Theorem): There exists at least one objective property, independent of opinions, that directly concerns good and bad for sentient beings capable of suffering and that constitutes, at least in part, an objective foundation of ethics.

First-Order Logic (FOL) Translation

Let the domain of discourse (D) be the set of properties:

⚬ a = individual constant: "the aversive valence of authentic suffering"

⚬ N(x) = x determines what is intrinsically positive or negative for the sentient being

⚬ O(x) = x is an objective property (real and independent of opinions)

⚬ B(x) = x directly concerns good and bad for sentient beings capable of suffering

⚬ M(x) = x is included, at least in part, in moral evaluation

⚬ F(x) = x constitutes, at least in part, an objective foundation of ethics

Sequent:

{ N(a) ∧ O(a), ∀x(N(x) → B(x)), ∀x(B(x) → M(x)), ∀x((O(x) ∧ M(x)) → F(x)) } ⊢ ∃x(O(x) ∧ B(x) ∧ F(x))

Formal Derivation (Natural Deduction)

1. N(a) ∧ O(a) — [Premise 1: Empirical-Phenomenological Postulate]
2. ∀x (N(x) → B(x)) — [Premise 2: Analytic Domain Definition]
3. ∀x (B(x) → M(x)) — [Premise 3: Analytic Domain Definition]
4. ∀x ((O(x) ∧ M(x)) → F(x)) — [Premise 4: Analytic Domain Definition]
5. N(a) — [∧-Elim from 1]
6. O(a) — [∧-Elim from 1]
7. N(a) → B(a) — [∀-Elim (x/a) from 2]
8. B(a) — [Modus Ponens from 5, 7]
9. B(a) → M(a) — [∀-Elim (x/a) from 3]
10. M(a) — [Modus Ponens from 8, 9]
11. O(a) ∧ M(a) — [∧-Intro from 6, 10]
12. (O(a) ∧ M(a)) → F(a) — [∀-Elim (x/a) from 4]
13. F(a) — [Modus Ponens from 11, 12]
14. O(a) ∧ B(a) ∧ F(a) — [∧-Intro from 6, 8, 13]
15. ∃x (O(x) ∧ B(x) ∧ F(x)) — [∃-Intro from 14] ∎

Syntactically, the derivation is airtight: you cannot accept P1–P4 and deny the Conclusion without violating basic deductive logic. Therefore, any critic must attack the premises. Here is why the premises hold.

The 4 Pillars Supporting the Premises

The Double Standard on Axioms and Domain Definitions (Why P1 is an Empirical Postulate and P2–P4 are Meaning Postulates): 

A critic might ask: "If your premises are tied to the very definitions of suffering and ethics, are they really axioms, or just circular definitions?" In formal systems and philosophy of science, foundational axioms serve two distinct roles:

P1 is an Empirical-Phenomenological Postulate: It is not a mere linguistic convention; it anchors the formal system to reality by stating that an experiential state with intrinsic aversive valence (a) actually exists in the real world.

P2–P4 are Analytic Meaning Postulates (Domain Definitions): Just as Kolmogorov's axioms define what we mean by "probability" and thermodynamics defines "temperature" as mean kinetic energy, P2–P4 define the semantic boundaries of the domain we call "ethics." 

Demanding that ethics justify its foundational domain without domain-defining postulates—while allowing mathematics, probability theory, and physics to rely on them—is a textbook double standard.

The Wrong Sensor Fallacy (Ontological Subjectivity ≠ Epistemic Subjectivity): Harman’s objection states that no Geiger counter will ever detect a particle called "Badness." Of course not: you are using the wrong sensor. Looking for the disvalue of suffering outside of a conscious mind is as absurd as trying to weigh a logical contradiction on a kitchen scale. As John Searle pointed out, consciousness is ontologically subjective (it exists inside a subject), but facts about it are epistemically objective (independent of external observers' opinions). If someone who claims "pain is just a neutral opinion" drops a boulder on their foot, they won't calmly contemplate the increase in entropy of their broken bone—they will scream and try to remove it.

Not a Cultural Choice, but a Structural Reality (And Why Masochism Doesn't Refute This): 

We do not "choose by social convention" to dislike agony. If agony were not intrinsically aversive (N(a)), it would cease to be agony. In neurology, patients with pain asymbolia feel the physical nociceptive stimulus without the aversive valence—and indeed, they do not suffer. For the same reason, bringing up masochism fails to refute P1: you must not confuse physical nociception (nerve signals, which a masochist's brain wires to trigger endorphins and net pleasure) with authentic suffering (a). When a masochist enjoys a whip, their net experiential state is positive, not suffering; if you subject that same masochist to a form of psychological torment they genuinely despise, the state is objectively aversive for them too. Saying "I am experiencing authentic agony, but it is neutral to me" is a contradiction in terms, like talking about a four-sided triangle.Ethics Doesn't Need the Consent of Rocks: Saying that ethics is subjective because "good and bad don't exist inside black holes or deep space" misunderstands what a scientific domain is. Biology doesn't exist inside black holes either, nor does poison exist in a lifeless universe. Yet, the moment a biological organism exists, cyanide becomes objectively toxic to it. Similarly, the moment a sentient system capable of suffering emerges—whether human, reptile, or alien—suffering becomes objectively bad for that system.

The Strongest Objections (and Why They Fail)

⚬ "If any negative state is 'bad', am I doing evil when I lacerate a single cell or cut grass?"

No, and this distinction is precisely what makes Premise 1 non-anthropocentric yet rigorous. Premise 1 rests on sentience (lived aversive experience), not mere biology. When you rupture a single cell or a bacterium, biochemical reactions occur, just like a thermostat tripping a switch when overheated—but there is "nobody home" experiencing agony. Below the threshold of sentience, there is only chemistry and mechanics; above that threshold (whether in a human, a snake, or an alien), an objective aversive state is lived, and the domain of ethics switches on.

⚬ "Minds are isolated: there is no single 'universal brain' feeling everyone's pain!"

True, and irrelevant. Planets are also isolated in the vacuum of space, yet the total mass of a solar system exists objectively as the sum of individual masses (∑ mᵢ). If agony is objectively negative in subject A and objectively negative in subject B, a universe where every sentient being agonizes forever with no compensating benefit is objectively worse off for each being than an equivalent universe without that agony.

⚬ "A super-rational AI without emotions (or a sociopath) could understand your proof and still not care!"

Absolutely, because we must distinguish between the objective existence of a property and psychological motivation. A non-conscious AI knows that agony is aversive for us, just as a blind person can understand the physics of light without being dazzled by the sun. Similarly, in math, nothing physically stops you from tearing up the paper or refusing to use the Pythagorean theorem. The fact that an agent can ignore a domain does not make the truths within that domain subjective.

⚬ "Elementary mathematics yields exact, indisputable answers, whereas ethics has endless dilemmas (e.g., Nozick's Experience Machine, freedom vs. security)!"

This confuses mathematical completeness with objectivity. Medicine isn't fully decidable either, and treatments depend heavily on context (adrenaline saves a patient in shock but kills one with a heart condition)—yet the baseline fact that health is preferable to agonizing death remains objective. In my proof, notice the clause "at least in part" and the existential quantifier (∃x). Suffering acts like Absolute Zero (0 K) in thermodynamics: it doesn't tell you how to build every engine, nor does it deny that other values (like autonomy or justice) exist and may conflict in complex dilemmas. It simply proves that an objective baseline measurement exists.

"Doesn't this violate Hume's Law (you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is')?"

No, and this is the most common misunderstanding of what David Hume actually wrote. In formal logic, Hume's Law is simply a rule of deductive conservation: you cannot have a predicate in the conclusion if it never appeared in the premises. Hume criticized authors who described purely neutral physical facts (e.g., "metal pierced flesh") and suddenly jumped to moral conclusions without explaining the bridge connecting the two. My proof does not violate Hume's Law for two reasons:

1. No hidden leap: The bridge between experiential reality and moral evaluation is explicitly stated via analytic domain definitions (P2–P4), which is exactly what deductive rigor requires.
2. A non-neutral "Is": Hume assumed all "is" facts are value-neutral like rocks in space. Conscious agony (a), however, is an ontological "is" that already contains intrinsic negative valence (N(a)) inside its very structure. You don't need to magically conjure disvalue out of thin air when the empirical state itself is constituted by aversive disvalue.

"The Blindfolded Archer: If an objective foundation exists, why do humans and cultures disagree so much on morality?"

This confuses Epistemology (our ability to see or agree on a truth) with Ontology (whether the truth exists). Imagine ten blindfolded archers firing arrows in random directions and arguing over where the bullseye is. The fact that they are blindfolded—blinded by cognitive biases, cultural dogma, or lack of information—and cannot see the target does not mean the target vanishes from physical space. Moral disagreements and complex dilemmas only prove that hitting the target in complex real-world scenarios is hard; they do not prove that no target exists. In fact, the very concept of "moral progress" or "ethical debate" presupposes that a target is there to be aimed at.

Summary: Read this before commenting (What this proof DOES and DOES NOT claim)

To prevent strawman arguments in the comments, please keep in mind the exact mathematical scope of the conclusion:

What I am NOT claiming: I am not claiming to have found a magical cosmic force that physically compels sociopaths to be good. I am not claiming to have "solved" every concrete moral dilemma, nor am I claiming that suffering is the only ethical parameter (which is why Premise 3, Premise 4, and the Conclusion explicitly state "at least in part").

What I AM proving: Absolute moral relativism claims that the set of objective ethical foundations is the empty set (E_obj = ∅, i.e., ¬∃x (O(x) ∧ F(x))). To refute a universal negative in logic, you only need to prove the existence of one valid element (∃x).

Invariance Across Individuals and Alien Species: Because this proof rests on the structural reality of sentience rather than human culture, the conclusion holds regardless of whether another person holds different moral opinions, and it applies equally to an alien species on the other side of the cosmos—provided that the semantic domain of "ethics" remains the one defined at the start. If someone replies, "Well, in my personal system, 'ethics' means maximizing the number of paperclips in the universe regardless of sentient beings", they have not refuted this theorem or made ethics subjective; they have simply changed the subject (a semantic shift), no different from someone claiming to refute the laws of thermodynamics by redefining the word "temperature" to mean "the color of a wall."

The Bottom Line: The moment a sentient being capable of suffering exists, "badness" for that being is an objective, opinion-independent fact (a). If we define "ethics" as the domain that evaluates what is good and bad for sentient beings, then E_obj ≠ ∅. Therefore, anyone who claims "morality is 100% subjective opinion" must either reject formal deductive logic, deny that authentic suffering is aversively bad for the one experiencing it, or change the definition of the word "ethics" to mean something completely unrelated to sentient suffering.

What do you think? Where do you see the actual weak spot (if any) in this chain?

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23432226 Any feedback welcome
Just a night worker who his interested in this subject

From what i have seen and read, internet hosts lots of disturbing and fuqed up adult content. There are so so many videos of caning, beating, cutting, piercing, bestiality, etc.etc. I dont want to continiue, even thinking about this makes me want to throw up. How is this not considered Torture?! Lots of these sites, market themselves like this and are proud of this kind of things. And victims of this videos are generally women. We make fun of old times, and medieval people for inventing and using torture devices, but you think this doesnt happen today?! I believe, lots of people dont know about these kinds of videos, however, there are many who watch and consume this media daily (i dont even want to imagine what those peoples mentall health is like.) Some know about it, dont watch it but somehow find it okay? I dont understand.

I know defence for this deplorable shit is that "its consensual." You cant convince me, that women wilfully, parricipate in this, however good is the payment (if there is.) Women want to be pierced be needles, roped, beat, caned, etc... this is clearly an expluatative and forcefull.

im not talking about all bdsm videos, and i know that mainstrean porn sites dont host videos like this (to not disturbe wider audience i believe) but there are still videos upon videos, hosting deplorable stuff and its easily findable and watchable on google. And if this is what they show the general audience, imagine what happens behinde the scenes. I want to remind you about jeffrey epsteins infamous E-mail. "I loved the torture video." Yes, these are kind of people that enjoy these things, watch and create it.

I also have problem how normalized it is. There are literall bdsm universities that teach rope, bondage and these types of things? Are we kidding, what are investing our resources into instead of actual education? To me, all this is a sign if decaying society, much like in the last days of rome.

How is this morall and ethical in any way?

Its sign of our cultures decadence.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23432226 Any feedback welcome
Just a night worker who his interested in this subject

I think it is a stupid and mindless thing to ask. Obviously, if you do something it will change the outcome, so for each means there is a separate end. But asking the question "do ends justify means" suggest that any means possible all have a common end. That is why it is a stupid and mindless question, whoever asks such a question cannot understand ethics because they limit their own understanding with such a framework. Someone, please explain why it is asked and where it comes from.

Ethical life is often framed around rigid codes, yet reality itself operates through constant flux and balance. Across human experience, nature reveals that harmony is not found in static perfection, but in the continuous alignment between inner awareness and external action.

When noise is stripped away, underlying principles emerge: truth, empathy, and mutual respect are not artificial rules, but natural expressions of interconnected existence. Imperfection remains an inherent part of the human condition; true integrity lies in navigating this uncertainty with clarity and quiet restraint.

Beyond abstract theories, moral life reflects an ongoing process of balancing judgment with compassion, anchoring conduct in the shared dignity of all living beings !