For four hundred years, philosophers have tried to create a universal, secular, scalable, and workable system of ethics.
They have made important contributions—but none have produced a system that ordinary people can trust, use, and scale across cultures and domains. Most remain in the realm of theory, not practice.
The major attempts - utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, Rawlsian justice, and others - may be elegant on paper, but they fall apart in the real world. At best, they’re useful for niche domains like medical ethics. But they can’t handle everyday moral dilemmas. They don’t scale from personal dilemmas to international conflict. Most importantly, their conclusions often feel obviously wrong to normal people with a functioning moral compass.
That’s why these systems remain trapped in the ivory tower of academia. Real people can’t use them. An ethical system that real people can’t use is, by definition, useless.
But what if such a system did exist - one that combines the clarity of principles with the flexibility of real-world judgment?
What if there were a moral framework that was secular (and therefore universal), scalable, and workable in the real world? What if it were also accessible, transparent, and auditable, so anyone could see how it reaches its conclusions, and test them against their own conscience?
As many of my readers know, I’ve created such a system. It avoids the fatal flaws of prior secular philosophies, while preserving their best intentions. It reframes the ethical conversation from “What does the world owe me?” to “What are my obligations - to myself, my family, my community, my nation, and the world?”
To illustrate: Imagine a common moral dilemma, like a government negotiating to release 50 hostages, but only by freeing 100 convicted terrorists. Utilitarianism might say yes (more lives saved); deontology might say no (never release murderers). My system weighs competing obligations: to save life, to protect future victims, and to uphold justice. It doesn’t give an instant answer: it gives a structured moral triage to weigh priorities transparently and traceably. Small details might sway the decision: have previous such swaps resulted in more deaths? How do we weigh definitely saving lives immediately with potentially saving more in the future? All these factors can and must be weighed, but using a common framework of values and priorities. That’s the difference.
It’s built on the Jewish concept of brit - covenant. A network of promises and mutual obligations, not rights and entitlements. And while it’s inspired by the Jewish ethical system that has worked for thousands of years, it requires no belief in God to use. It is a secular system—but not a secularization of relativism. It is morally grounded, coherent, and human-centered.
This may be the first secular ethical system that proves morality without God is not just possible, but operationalizable, self-correcting, and morally superior to Enlightenment-derived rights frameworks.
Even as I've been working on this project, I've noticed that my own political thinking has changed. My tendency to trust others - even commentors I respect - has lessened, as I have a methodology and a tool to ask and help answer the real question: is this moral? Which is really the only question that we should be asking, about everything.
What follows is a high-level overview of the implications of such a framework being widely accepted. I’ve explored its structure in detail elsewhere, but here I want to focus on what changes when a system like this becomes popular.
Politics would be transformed.
Today, too many people outsource their moral thinking to political tribes. But with this framework, anyone could test a political proposal, not by asking “what does my side say?” but “is this the right thing to do?”
Politicians would face new accountability.
If they violated this shared ethical framework, they would be seen as acting immorally: not just “wrong” in the partisan sense, but wrong in a deeper, more enduring way. Arguments wouldn’t disappear, but they’d be grounded in shared moral language, not empty slogans.
Education would improve.
Schools would teach ethics alongside literacy and math. Not as abstract theory, but as a practical method for decision-making. Because the framework draws on values shared across cultures, it wouldn’t alienate anyone: it would unify. And it would raise a generation of thoughtful, reflective, morally grounded young people.
Business would change.
Corporations could still pursue profit, but they'd be expected to explain their actions in moral terms. If they exploited workers or harmed the public, they’d face moral backlash, not just PR problems. Ethical accountability would become a baseline expectation.
Even conflict would be elevated.
Nations and communities would still struggle over scarce resources. But instead of zero-sum battles or cynical diplomacy, there could be a common framework for dialogue. One that asks not “how do we win?” but “how do we win without violating our values?” and "is there a way that we can both get what we want?"
Of course, ethical systems already exist - religious traditions, human rights declarations, philosophical ideals. But they rarely function as systems in the lives of individuals. They offer values, but not structures. Or they offer laws, but not triage. My framework bridges this gap: it is morally grounded, but also operational. It doesn’t require belief, only integrity.
This wouldn’t be a utopia. But it would be a better world - more sane, more just, more fulfilling.
And it could all start with a single shift in perspective:
From “what does the world owe me?”
To “what is the best thing for me to do?”
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy