Moral Commons

An open, evolving moral framework should accompany the governance system. Its assumptions, reasoning, disagreements, and revision history must remain inspectable and open to criticism.

Candidate axioms

These are proposed starting commitments. They require justification and scrutiny; they are not scientifically proven facts.

1. Equal moral standing: Group membership alone does not justify discounting a person's interests.
2. Agency and dignity: People must not be treated merely as instruments for another's goals.
3. Protection against domination: Power over others requires justification, limits, accountability, and avenues of challenge.
4. Responsibility for harm: Decisions must account for foreseeable harm, its distribution, and duties of prevention and repair.
5. Intergenerational stewardship: Present actions should preserve and improve future people's capacity to flourish and choose.
6. Correction and pluralism: Moral authority must remain contestable, with room for dissent and alternative interpretations.

Formal and inspectable reasoning

Following the useful discipline of mathematics, distinguish axioms, definitions, inference rules, derived principles, and counterexamples.

A proof can establish that a conclusion follows from stated premises under specified rules. It cannot establish the moral truth of those premises. Real-world applications also depend on uncertain factual assumptions.

Each substantial moral argument should state:

• The axioms and definitions used.
• The empirical assumptions and supporting evidence.
• The reasoning connecting premises to conclusions.
• Competing interpretations and counterexamples.
• Conflicts with other commitments and how they are addressed.
• Conditions under which the conclusion should be revised.

Terms such as harm, coercion, exploitation, consent, agency, and flourishing need explicit definitions. Resolving conflicts between axioms remains open work; a list alone is insufficient.

Safeguards against moral capture

• Publish authorship, proposed changes, objections, and reasons for decisions.
• Include affected people and preserve minority reports.
• Apply scrutiny to those interpreting and enforcing moral principles.
• Keep factual claims, value commitments, and political interests visible.
• Protect dissent and the ability to develop alternative versions; forking a document does not authorise imposing it on others.
• Review principles and their effects regularly.
• Give no individual or group permanent status as the final interpreter.

Proposed protections against domination, exploitation, coercion, and dehumanisation form a candidate moral floor. Changes to that floor require especially explicit justification and scrutiny. The amendment process itself still needs design.

Moral change must remain possible without allowing powerful groups to quietly redefine morality for their own benefit. The project must define how its editors are appointed, challenged, and replaced.