🌱 1. A Positive Theory of the Good (Compatible With Imposition Ethics)

“Good” as Voluntary Alignment With One’s Own Will

​Goodness, within a non-prescriptive moral landscape, may be understood as the voluntary realization of an agent’s own will in a manner that neither imposes on others nor requires their imposition.

A “good life” is not defined by external standards but by the degree to which an agent’s chosen projects, relationships, and experiences reflect their authentic, uncoerced preferences.

This conception of goodness is descriptive rather than prescriptive: it identifies what agents tend to value when free from imposition, without generating duties or obligations.

Why this works:

• It defines “good” without creating moral duties.

• It stays descriptive.

• It aligns with the BPW horizon.
   

🔥 2. A Motivational Foundation (Without Creating Obligation)

Motivation as Voluntary Resonance With the BPW Horizon

Agents may find motivation in the recognition that reducing involuntary imposition moves the world directionally closer to the Best Possible World — a world in which every conscious agent’s will is fully respected.

This motivation is not a duty but an expression of alignment: a freely chosen orientation toward a world that better reflects the conditions under which agents themselves would prefer to exist.

Why this works:

• It explains why someone might care without saying they should care.
   

⚖️ 3. A Conflict‑Resolution Mechanism (Non‑Prescriptive)

Voluntary Arbitration Framework

When multiple agents’ wills conflict, a voluntary arbitration process may be used to identify the option that minimizes total will‑frustration without declaring any option morally justified.

Arbitration consists of: • identifying each agent’s expressed will • mapping the impositions inherent in each option • ranking options by comparative imposition • voluntarily selecting the least‑imposing option

This process guides coordination without converting the chosen option into moral rightness.

Why this works:

• It resolves conflicts procedurally, not morally.

• It preserves the non‑justification principle.
   

🏛️ 4. Institutional Ethics Layer (Non‑Authoritative)

Consent‑Preserving Institutional Design

Institutions may adopt structural features that reduce involuntary imposition over time, such as low exit costs, transparent procedures, and reversible policies.

These features do not justify institutional authority; they merely orient institutions toward minimizing the impositions they inevitably create.

Why this works:

• It adds institutional theory without moralizing coercion.