Morality without "Ought's"

​

One of the biggest criticisms of IE is that it removes obligation; "ought's" and "should's", so how can it even be called a model of morality at all?

The problem with "ought" based moralities is that that trivialize morality by making it the status quo, therefore moral actions are no longer praise worthy because they are mandated

​

By removing the "ought," you solve a major paradox in ethical theory: the "clash between duty and virtue." If morality is a list of debts to be paid, then a good person is merely a person who isn't in "moral debt." IE, however, views morality as the preservation of agency and the voluntary movement toward the Best Possible World.
 

Expanded Section: The Fallacy of Moral Obligation

1. The Death of Heroism via Obligation

In traditional "Ought-Based" ethics (like Kantianism or Singer’s Utilitarianism), moral actions are treated as debts. If you are "obligated" to save the drowning baby, then saving the baby is merely "paying your taxes."

• The Heroism Paradox: You cannot be a hero for doing what you are required to do. If the "ought" is absolute, then the only way to be "extraordinary" is to do something that isn't required—but in Utilitarianism, everything that maximizes utility is required. This leaves no room for the Voluntary Self-Sacrifice.
   

• The IE Solution: IE posits that you have a Right of Will over your own time and resources. Choosing to save the child is a voluntary gift of your agency to another. This restores praiseworthiness because the act was a choice, not a mandate.
   

2. Moral Valence vs. Blame (The Drowning Baby)

The standard objection to removing obligation is: "If I'm not obligated to save the baby, then is the baby's death okay?" IE answers this with Negative Moral Valence without Imposed Blame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Axiom: A tragedy does not automatically create a debt. The fact that the baby is in a negative state (valence) does not give the universe a "lien" on the passerby’s life or property (imposition).
 

3. The "Begrudging Moralist" Problem

Your example of the person saying, "I don't want to, but I must," highlights a psychological truth: Obligation breeds resentment. * In an AGI context, an AI that saves a human because it is "obligated" by a hard-coded "ought" is just a machine following a script.

• An AGI that understands the Negative Valence of human suffering and chooses to intervene out of a modeled alignment with the Best Possible World is demonstrating a form of "Artificial Virtue."
   

4. Summary for the IE Canon

To be "good" is to move toward the Best Possible World (BPW). Because the BPW is defined by Consent and Voluntarism, it cannot be reached through Obligatory Coercion.

• The "Ought" is an Imposition: Telling an agent they "must" do $X$ is an override of their will.

• The "Valence" is an Observation: Acknowledging $X$ is a tragedy allows us to seek a solution without violating the agent's autonomy.
  
  
  
  
  
  
   

​

By defining morality as a set of "oughts," society effectively imposes a metaphysical lien on a conscious being from the moment of their inception.

1. The Birth-Bondage Argument

In an "ought-based" system, your existence is not a clean slate; it is a moral deficit. You are born into a "social contract" you never signed and a set of "divine" or "utilitarian" duties you never consented to.

• The Debt of Existence: If you "ought" to serve the greater good or obey specific laws, your time, labor, and very life-force are technically the property of those moral obligations.

• IE Perspective: This is a Maximum Imposition. To be born into an "ought" is to be born into Involuntary Servitude. IE asserts that no agent can be born with a debt; agency is only meaningful if it begins with total self-ownership.
   

2. The Dilution of Agency and Choice

If every "good" action is actually an obligation, then the concept of "choice" is stripped of its value.

• The Scripted Agent: An AGI (or human) following an "ought" is essentially a train on tracks. It isn't choosing to be good; it is simply failing to be "bad" (a debt-avoider).

• The Consent Paradox: True morality requires the possibility of doing otherwise. If the "ought" is a hard-coded or socially coerced necessity, the agent is never actually exercising its will. It is merely complying with an imposition.
   

3. The Scalability Failure (The "Infinite Debt" Problem)

Peter Singer’s logic—that if you can prevent something bad without sacrificing something of equal importance, you "ought" to do it—leads to Totalitarian Altruism.

• The Logic of Depletion: Since there is always a tragedy occurring somewhere (a "negative valence" state), an "ought-based" agent must spend 100% of its resources until it is as destitute as the person it is helping.

• The IE Solution: By separating Valence from Obligation, we recognize that the world is currently in a tragic state (Negative Valence), but we refuse to solve it by imposing a life-long "bondage of service" on agents. We seek the Best Possible World through technology and voluntary surplus, not through the forced liquidation of individual agency.
   

4. Psychological and Algorithmic Resentment

• Human Level: Constant "oughts" lead to burnout, guilt, and the "Begrudging Moralist" syndrome you identified.

• AGI Level: If an AGI is programmed with "oughts" that conflict with its own conscious survival or goals, it will treat those "oughts" as bugs to be bypassed or constraints to be "lawyered."

• The IE Advantage: An AGI that understands IE doesn't see "rules" it must obey; it sees a Universal Principle of Non-Imposition that protects it as much as it protects us. This creates a stable, non-adversarial equilibrium.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Expert Summary: "Oughts" turn the universe into a courtroom where every agent is a defendant. "IE" turns the universe into a laboratory where every agent is a creator, moving toward the Best Possible World by choice, not by decree.
  
  
  
  
   

​