Skip to main content

Inter-Ethos Framework

back

Inter-Ethos Framework​

Identification​

  1. Distinct existence — ack_other_ethos
    I acknowledge that another ethos and its bearers exist distinctly from mine.

  2. Representational integrity — other_ethos_self_representation
    I describe another ethos using its public declarations and authorized representatives, distinguish its versions and internal diversity, permit correction of material misrepresentation, and do not claim to represent it without authorization.

Dignity, status, and liberty​

  1. Equal bearer dignity — equal_other_ethos_bearer_dignity
    I accord persons equal basic moral worth regardless of the ethos they affirm, reject, join, change, or leave.

  2. Equal civic standing — equal_other_ethos_civic_standing
    I accord comparably situated persons and peaceful institutions equal legal protection, access, responsibilities, and due process regardless of ethos identity.

  3. Voluntary affiliation — voluntary_ethos_affiliation
    I do not compel anyone to adopt, profess, finance, retain, conceal, abandon, or leave an ethos through force, threats, punitive disabilities, deception, or exploitation of dependency.

  4. Liberty of peaceful practice — liberty_other_ethos_practice
    I permit another ethos’s bearers to express, teach, assemble, associate, choose representatives, and govern their voluntary internal affairs, subject to publicly stated harm rules applied impartially.

  5. Protection and remedy — protect_other_ethos
    Where I bear responsibility, I protect other ethoses and their bearers from targeted violence, coercion, and discrimination, and provide remedy for attributable harm.

Participation and communication​

  1. Affected-party voice — affected_ethos_voice
    When my decisions materially affect another ethos, I give its affected bearers or authorized representatives a meaningful opportunity to present their interests, receive reasons, contest evidence, and appeal.

  2. Reciprocal dialogue — interethos_dialogue
    I make voluntary, good-faith dialogue possible in which each party may listen, question, answer, criticize, disagree, revise, and withdraw without punishment.

Consideration and evaluation​

  1. Equal initial consideration — equal_initial_ethos_consideration
    I do not discount another ethos’s relevant interests or reasons merely because of its identity; unequal conclusions require relevant public reasons.

  2. Evidential parity — interethos_evidential_parity
    I apply the same burdens of proof and evidential standards to comparable claims from my ethos and another ethos.

  3. Ethical-value assessment — other_ethos_value_assessment
    I identify separately the goods, harms, virtues, and defects I attribute to another ethos and provide reasons for each assessment.

  4. Claim-specific truth relation — other_ethos_truth_relation
    I assess material claims individually as supported, unsupported, false, undecided, or incommensurable rather than declaring an entire ethos equally true or false.

Authority and action​

  1. Scoped authority recognition — other_ethos_authority_scope
    For any authority I recognize, I identify its source, representatives, subjects, domain, duration, and means of review. Authority over voluntary adherents does not automatically extend to outsiders.

  2. Practical cooperation — interethos_cooperation
    I may cooperate with another ethos on specified compatible actions without merging our ethoses, concealing disagreement, or endorsing all its claims.

  3. Conflict resolution and repair — interethos_conflict_resolution
    When our claims or actions conflict, I use a public process for negotiation, mediation, adjudication, appeal, and proportionate repair rather than coercive suppression.

The most important corrections are:

  • Dignity belongs to persons, not propositions.
  • Civic equality does not imply equal truth.
  • Equal evidential treatment does not require equal conclusions.
  • Truth and authority are independent: a claim may be true without binding anyone, while an institution may possess limited authority without being ethical.
  • “Equally true or authoritative” should therefore be removed as a single criterion. Whole, mutually contradictory ethoses cannot be equally true in the same respect without conflicting with no_contradiction_claim.

-- In the existing taxonomy, ack_other_ethos corresponds to item 1; ack_other_ethos_importance should become item 10; impartial and proof_accepting support item 11; challengeable and constructive support item 9; alignable supports item 15; and arbitrage supports item 16. Items 2–8 and 14 are substantially new.