The method of reflective equilibrium starts with a set of initial judgments about some subject matter and refines that set to arrive at an improved philosophical worldview. However, the method faces two, trenchant objections. The Garbage-In, Garbage-Out Objection argues that reflective equilibrium fails because it has no principled reason to rely on some inputs to the method rather than others and putting garbage-in assures you of getting garbage-out. The Circularity Objection argues that reflective equilibrium (...) fails because it has no principled, non-circular way of sorting whatever is put into the method. The moves required to avoid both objections are instructive. Reflective equilibrium requires a meta-justification, and we offer one that appeals to the epistemic goods that underwrite a view known as phenomenal conservatism. Reflective equilibrium calls on us to start with what seems most likely to be true and to alter that collection of judgments in the ways that seem most likely to get us to the truth. Proceeding in this way is epistemically defensible and unavoidable. Hence, reflective equilibrium is not just good, it’s phenomenal. (shrink)

We provide a Camusian/Peircean notion of inquiry that emphasises an attitude of fallibilism and sustained epistemic dissonance as a conceptual framework for a theory of classroom practice founded on Deep Reflective Thinking (DTR), in which the cultivation of collective doubt, reflective evaluation and how these relate to the phenomenological aspects of inquiry are central to communities of inquiry. In a study by Fynes-Clinton, preliminary evidence demonstrates that if students engage in DRT, they more frequently experience cognitive dissonance (...) and as a result improve their ability to engage in further and more frequent DRT. Sustained intellectual progress occurs when the inquiry reaches a point whereby students can thoughtfully move between the position of disequilibrium (doubt) and equilibrium (belief) whilst understanding the impermanency of any fixed belief, which, in turn, enables reconstruction of thinking and appropriation of learning in the context of collaborative philosophical inquiry. (shrink)

How can we figure out what’s right or wrong, if moral truths are neither self-evident nor something we can perceive? Very roughly, the method of reflective equilibrium (RE) says that we should begin moral inquiry from what we already confidently think, seeking to find a a match between our initial convictions and general principles that are well-supported by background theories, mutually adjusting both until we reach a coherent outlook in which our beliefs are in harmony (the equilibrium (...) part) and we know why and how they support each other (the reflective part). It has been central to the self-understanding of normative ethics and other branches of philosophy in the last half a century. In this chapter, we examine the history of the idea of RE and introduce a schema for generating 256 variants. We explain why RE is subject to serious objections insofar as it purports to yield epistemic justification in virtue of achieving coherence. However, we also develop a new argument to the effect that RE is the best feasible method for us to achieve moral understanding and the ability to justify our judgments to others. It may thus be crucial for responsible moral inquiry, even if coherence among considered judgments and principles is neither sufficient nor necessary for justified moral belief. (shrink)

This article examines the method of reflective equilibrium (RE) and its role in philosophical inquiry. It begins with an overview of RE before discussing some of the subtleties involved in its interpretation, including challenges to the standard assumption that RE is a form of coherentism. It then evaluates some of the main objections to RE, in particular, the criticism that this method generates unreasonable beliefs. It concludes by considering how RE relates to recent debates about the role of (...) intuitions in philosophy. (shrink)

This paper proposes a Rawlsian conception of moral justification as a social activity. Through a close reading, Rawls’ view of ethical justification is shown to be significantly more dialogical and deliberative than is commonly appreciated. The result is a view that emphasizes the social nature of ethical justification and identifies information sharing between persons as the crux of justification in metaethics, in contrast to normative ethics. I call it Rawlsian reflective equilibrium to distinguish it from other varieties.

I distinguish two ways of developing anti-exceptionalist approaches to logical revision. The first emphasizes comparing the theoretical virtuousness of developed bodies of logical theories, such as classical and intuitionistic logic. I'll call this whole theory comparison. The second attempts local repairs to problematic bits of our logical theories, such as dropping excluded middle to deal with intuitions about vagueness. I'll call this the piecemeal approach. I then briefly discuss a problem I've developed elsewhere for comparisons of logical theories. Essentially, the (...) problem is that a pair of logics may each evaluate the alternative as superior to themselves, resulting in oscillation between logical options. The piecemeal approach offers a way out of this problem andthereby might seem a preferable to whole theory comparisons. I go on to show that reflective equilibrium, the best known piecemeal method, has deep problems of its own when applied to logic. (shrink)

This paper aims to flesh out the celebrated notion of reflective equilibrium within a probabilistic framework for epistemic rationality. On the account developed here, an agent's attitudes are in reflective equilibrium when there is a certain sort of harmony between the agent's credences, on the one hand, and what the agent accepts, on the other hand. Somewhat more precisely, reflective equilibrium is taken to consist in the agent accepting, or being prepared to accept, all (...) and only claims that follow from a maximally comprehensive theory that is more probable than any other such theory. Drawing on previous work, the paper shows that when an agent is in reflective equilibrium in this sense, the set of claims they accept or are prepared to accept is bound to be logically consistent and closed under logical implication. The paper also argues that this account can explain various features of philosophical argumentation in which the notion of reflective equilibrium features centrally, such as the emphasis on evaluating philosophical theories holistically rather than in a piecemeal fashion. (shrink)

The method of reflective equilibrium focuses on the relationship between principles and judgments. Principles are relatively general rules for comprehending the area of enquiry. Judgments are our intuitions or commitments, ‘at all levels of generality’ (Rawls 1975: 8), regarding the subject matter. The basic idea of reflective equilibrium is to bring principles and judgments into accord. This can be achieved by revising the principles and/or the judgments. -/- I first look at normative political judgments (Section 2) (...) before considering the role of principles, arguments, devices of representation and background theory in wide reflective equilibrium (Section 3). I then consider two of the main challenges to the method (Section 4), and show how to use it to deliberate about substantive political principles (Section 5). I conclude with an extended example of the method in action (Section 6). (shrink)

In this paper, we focus on one controversial element of the method of reflective equilibrium, namely Rawls’s idea that the commitments that enter the justificatory procedure should be pre-selected or filtered: According to him, only considered judgements should be taken into account in moral philosophy. There are two camps of critics of this filtering process: 1) Critics of reflective equilibrium: They reject the Rawlsian filtering process as too weak and seek a more reliable one, which would (...) actually constitute a distinct epistemic method. 2) Proponents of reflective equilibrium: They reject the Rawlsian filtering process as too exclusionary. We defend RE against its critics, arguing that the method can secure reasonable commitments without depending on a strong external filtering process. However, we side with the critical proponents of reflective equilibrium and argue that without the Rawlsian weak filtering process, RE is more plausible both as a general method as well as in the context of moral philosophy. (shrink)

In this paper, I present a problem for regarding the reflective equilibrium and original position methods as consistent. I do not prove that there is an inconsistency, but there is a puzzle of how the two methods can be made consistent. The concern about inconsistency is because the former method allows for a kind of historical bias, as noted by T.H. Irwin, whereas the latter method seeks to guard against historical bias.

I address the worry that reflective equilibrium is too weak as an account of justification because it fails to let differing views converge. I take up informal aspects of convergence and operationalise them in a formal model of reflective equilibrium. This allows for exploration by the means of computer simulation. Findings show that the formal model does not yield unique outputs, but still boosts agreement. I conclude from this that reflective equilibrium is best seen (...) as a pluralist account of justification that cannot be accused of resulting in an “anything goes” relativism. (shrink)

During the coronavirus pandemic, communities have faced shortages of important healthcare resources such as COVID-19 vaccines, medical staff, ICU beds and ventilators. Public health officials in the U.S. have had to make decisions about two major issues: which infected patients should be treated first, and which people who are at risk of infection should be inoculated first. Following Beauchamp and Childress’s principlism, adopted guidelines have tended to value both whole lives and life-years. This process of collective moral reasoning has (...) revealed our common commitment to both Kantian and utilitarian principles. For Kant, respecting people’s rights entails that we ought to value whole lives equally. Therefore we ought to allocate resources so as to maximise the number of patients who survive to discharge. By contrast, the principle of utility has us maximise life-years so that people can satisfy more of their considered preferences. Although people are treated impartially in the utilitarian calculus, it does not recognise their equal worth. Subjecting Kantian ethics and utilitarianism to the process of reflective equilibrium lends support to the idea that we need a pluralistic approach that would accommodate our moral intuitions regarding both the equal value of whole lives and the additive value of life-years. (shrink)

John Rawls’ method of reflective equilibrium is the most influential methodology in contemporary ethics.This paper argues that this influence is undeserved, for two reasons. First, reflective equilibrium fails to accomplish two tasks that give us reason to care about methodology. On the one hand, it fails to explain how (or whether) moral knowledge is possible.This is because the method is explicitly oriented towards the distinct (and less interesting) task of characterizing our moral sensibilities. On the other (...) hand, the method fails to provide an informative way of adjudicating central methodological debates in ethics. Second, where Rawls’ method –and the background methodology he uses to motivate it –do have substance, that substance is implausible. The role of dispositions in the method entails that it endorses obviously irrational inferences. Further, the method makes substantively implausible distinctions between the dispositions that are allowed to play a methodological role. Rawls' background methodology appeals to the idea of a psychology in ‘wide reflective equilibrium’. However, both formal and empirical path-dependence considerations strongly suggest that there is nothing even minimally determinate that is someone’s psychology in ‘wide reflective equilibrium’. I close by exploring salient attempts to salvage the spirit of reflective equilibrium by abandoning elements of Rawls’ approach. I argue that none of these attempts succeed. I conclude that appeal to the method of reflective equilibrium is not a helpful means of addressing pressing methodological questions in ethics. In a slogan, reflective equilibrium is methodologically irrelevant. (shrink)

I argue against the claim that it is trivial to state that Sidgwick used the method of wide reflective equilibrium. This claim is based on what could be called the Triviality Charge, which is pressed against the method of wide reflective equilibrium by Peter Singer. According to this charge, there is no alternative to using the method if it is interpreted as involving all relevant philosophical background arguments. The main argument against the Triviality Charge is that (...) although the method of wide reflective equilibrium is compatible with coherentism (understood as a form of weak foundationalism) as well as moderate foundationalism, it is not compatible with strong foundationalism. Hence, the claim that a philosopher uses the method of wide reflective equilibrium is informative. In particular, this is true with regard to Sidgwick. (shrink)

In previous work, I have sought to show that the basic argument for epistemic relativism derives from the problem of the criterion that stems from ancient Pyrrhonian scepticism. Because epistemic relativism depends upon a sceptical strategy, it is possible to respond to relativism on the basis of an anti-sceptical strategy. I argue that the particularist response to scepticism proposed by Roderick Chisholm may be combined with a naturalistic and reliabilist conception of epistemic warrant as the basis for a satisfactory response (...) to epistemic relativism. In this paper, I outline this particularist response to relativism, and provide further commentary on the relationship between naturalism and particularism. In addition, I set the approach in contrast with reflective equilibrium approaches in epistemology. I also briefly explore the connection between the particularist response to relativism and G. E. Moore’s defense of an external world. (shrink)

Kant repeatedly stresses that moral philosophy shall find completion in the shape of a system. The present chapter focuses on three main aspects that characterise his view of the need of a system of ethics, suggesting that Kant's view should be construed in contrast with the current assumptions on the role of a system in moral philosophy. First, I argue that, in Kant’s view, the system of ethics does not pursue the coherentist project of systematising moral beliefs. Systematicity in ethics (...) is, for him, about unfolding the obligations that are justified by the fundamental principle, according to a Pufendorfian paradigm widespread in the eighteenth century. Second, I show that, in contrast not only to current assumptions, but also to the Pufendorfian paradigm, Kant’s systematic treatment of ethics is neither a logically consistent arrangement of demands, nor a complete collection of ethical duties, but a system of ends that yields an open-ended system of duty types. Third, I suggest that in Kant’s view a systematic treatment of ethics is supposed to provide orientation to moral thinking through a broader perspective from which perplexing cases should be considered by emphasizing the holistic character of ethical demands and clarifying their connections. (shrink)

John Rawls recommends a reflective equilibrium method for evaluating which principles institutions should abide by. In this paper, I identify and challenge three assumptions that he makes.

The goal of this paper is to re-assess reflective equilibrium (“RE”). We ask whether there is a conception of RE that can be defended against the various objections that have been raised against RE in the literature. To answer this question, we provide a systematic overview of the main objections, and for each objection, we investigate why it looks plausible, on what standard or expectation it is based, how it can be answered and which features RE must have (...) to meet the objection. We find that there is a conception of RE that promises to withstand all objections. However, this conception has some features that may be unexpected: it aims at a justification that is tailored to understanding and it is neither tied to intuitions nor does it imply coherentism. We conclude by pointing out a cluster of questions we think RE theorists should pay more attention to. (shrink)

This is a handout identifying twenty objections that have been made to the reflective equilibrium method.

The method of reflective equilibrium (MRE) is a method of justification popularized by John Rawls and further developed by Norman Daniels, Michael DePaul, Folke Tersman, and Catherine Z. Elgin, among others. The basic idea is that epistemic agents have justified beliefs if they have succeeded in forming their beliefs into a harmonious system of beliefs which they reflectively judge to be the most plausible. Despite the common reference to MRE as a method, its mechanisms or rules are typically (...) expressed in a metaphorical or simplified manner and are therefore criticized as too vague. Recent efforts to counter this criticism have been directed towards the attempt to provide formal explications of MRE. This paper aims to supplement these efforts by providing an informal working definition of MRE. This approach challenges the view that MRE can adequately be characterized only in the negative as a set of anti-essentialisms. I argue that epistemic agents follow MRE iff they follow four interconnected rules, which are concerned with a minimalistic form of foundationalism, a minimalistic form of fallibilism, a moderate form of holism, and a minimalistic form of rationality. In the critical spirit of MRE, the corresponding working definition is, of course, provisional and revisable. In general, the aim is to contribute to a reflective equilibrium (RE) concerning MRE. If it is successful, this working definition provides a better grasp of the most basic elements of the method and thereby enhances our understanding of it. (shrink)

T.H. Irwin characterizes the reflective equilibrium procedure as one which should not involve ruthless surgery, in a metaphorical sense. I argue that many people will find avoiding this difficult, because they do not conceive or go in for subtle options.

I consider Timothy Williamson’s objection that we do not have any reason to regard reflective equilibrium as a philosophical method. I present what I think a Rawlsian advocate of the method would say, or could say.

John Rawls’ “reflective equilibrium” ranges amongst the most popular conceptions in contemporary ethics when it comes to the basic methodological question of how to justify and trade off different normative positions and attitudes. Even where Rawls’ specific contractualist account is not adhered to, “reflective equilibrium” is readily adopted as the guiding idea of coherentist approaches, seeking moral justification not in a purely deductive or inductive manner, but in some balancing procedure that will eventually procure a stable (...) adjustment of relevant doctrines and standpoints. However, it appears that the widespread use of this idea has led to some considerable deviations from its meaning within Rawls’ original framework and to a critical loss of conceptual cogency as an ethico-hermeneutical tool. This contribution identifies three kinds of “balancing” constellations that are frequently, but inadequately brought forth under the heading of Rawlsian “reflective equilibrium”: (a) balancing theoretical accounts against intuitive convictions; (b) balancing general principles against particular judgements; (c) balancing opposite ethical conceptions or divergent moral statements, respectively. It is argued that each of these applications departs from Rawls’ original construction of “reflective equilibrium” and also deprives the idea of its reliability in clarifying and weighing moral stances. (shrink)

In Being Realistic About Reasons,T.M. Scanlon develops a non-naturalistic realist account of normative reasons. A crucial part of that account is Scanlon’s contention that there is no deep epistemological problem for non-naturalistic realists, and that the method of reflective equilibrium suffices to explain the possibility of normative knowledge. In this critical notice we argue that this is not so: on a realist picture, normative knowledge presupposes a significant correlation between distinct entities, namely between normative beliefs and normative facts. (...) This correlation calls for an explanation. We show that Scanlon does not have the resources to offer such an explanation. (shrink)

In this paper it is argued that functional role semantics can be saved from criticisms, such as those raised by Putnam and Fodor and Lepore, by indicating which beliefs and inferences are more constitutive in determining mental content. The Scylla is not to use vague expressions; the Charybdis is not to endorse the analytic/synthetic distinction. The core idea is to use reflective equilibrium as a strategy to pinpoint which are the beliefs and the inferences that constitute the content (...) of a mental state. The beliefs and the inferences that are constitutive are those that are in reflective equilibrium in the process of attributing mental states to others. (shrink)

All societies have to balance privacy claims with other moral concerns. However, while some concern for privacy appears to be a common feature of social life, the definition, extent and moral justifications for privacy differ widely. Are there better and worse ways of conceptualising, justifying, and managing privacy? These are the questions that lie in the background of this thesis. -/- My particular concern is with the ethical issues around privacy that are tied to the rise of new information and (...) communication technologies (henceforth “ICT”). The focus here is on technologies involved in processing personal data in its broadest sense, including “any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction.” The issue of moral concern is commonly designated as that of 'data privacy'. -/- The first step is to consider why privacy matters, or ought to matter, in the first place. And here we run into our first difficulty, since both the conceptualisation of privacy and the justification for the right to privacy are matters for contention. On the one hand, we are animated by a moral concern for privacy in some sense; on the other, we lack the conceptual and moral resources for making sense of this concern or for promoting particular social policies and criticising others. This often-cited dichotomy and its ensuing confusion have been the central motivation for most of the philosophical literature on privacy – including this thesis. -/- In what follows, I will suggest a way out of the confusion that pervades the current debate on data privacy. I will essentially argue two claims: one, that the concept of (data) privacy is uniquely characterised by a particular context within which we exchange information; two, that because (data) privacy constitutes an intrinsic value, its moral concerns and justifications ought to be deliberated as such. -/- The first chapter sketches the current data privacy landscape by introducing a number of concepts and arguing the unique nature of the landscape. I argue that the traditional distinction between four kinds of privacy (physical, mental, decisional and informational) is no longer accurate, given the technological context that reduces, unifies and processes all aspects of people’s lives by means of digital data. In fact, to hold on to the distinction leads to a fundamental misconception of data privacy. I further argue that today’s distinction between data protection and data privacy runs the risk of ignoring the fact that the former is an inherent aspect of the latter. These arguments allow me to settle on a (provisional) definition of data privacy: controlling how data about identifiable people is processed by ICT. -/- Next, I draw a line between descriptive and normative accounts of data privacy, and explain why this book belongs to the latter category. After a brief discussion of the coherence and distinctiveness theses, and of the difference between instrumental and intrinsic theories of privacy, I introduce the problem of data privacy as a distinct, coherent, and intrinsic moral concern. Three arguments support this position: one, data privacy is a coherent moral concern because it is motivated by a singular moral concept; two, data privacy is a distinct moral concern because the privacy challenges we face today are of a fundamentally new nature – distinct from any moral concerns we’ve faced in the past; and three, data privacy is an intrinsic moral concern that is predominantly justified, not by what it instrumentally protects us from, but by what it intrinsically constitutes. -/- Chapter Two makes the case against a harm-based, consequentialist approach to data privacy. After a brief introduction to the basic tenets of consequentialism I discuss harm-based arguments in favour as well as against privacy. I explain how privacy may protect us against psychological distress, but at the same time constitute the source of that distress; how privacy may be necessary for the proper functioning of democratic societies, but at the same time provide a cloak for anti-social and immoral behaviour; and how privacy protects us against the improper use of our personal data by others, but at the same enables us to conceal information or spread false information about ourselves in ways that are harmful to others. Next, I argue that consequentialism essentially relies on two flawed presumptions – that we know what harm is, and that we know how to predict it – and discuss the controversies surrounding definitions and predictions of harm. This argument becomes especially pertinent in today’s rapidly changing technological context: we may guess, and make assumptions, perhaps even find correlations, but don’t really know or understand (yet) with any degree of certainty the harmful consequences today’s data privacy violations are causing or will eventually cause – if any. -/- I illustrate this with examples of recent data privacy violations, and with a brief overview of consequentialist arguments for and against data privacy. Those who invoke consequentialist arguments against data privacy claim that personal data is nothing more than a raw material that can be turned into something useful and valuable without harming anyone. Choosing to move fast and break things – a popular mantra that promotes the benefits of technological “permissionless innovation” over and above its risks and costs – they draw our attention to the many benefits free data flows generate. Those who rely on consequentialist arguments in favour of data privacy, on the other hand, insist on actual and potential misuse of personal data. Rather careful than sorry, they draw our attention to the urgent need to take back control and protect ourselves against data privacy violations – precisely because we don’t know which harm they may cause in the future. Others go one step further and argue that these violations are part of a broader ideology of power. -/- What Chapter Two demonstrates is that vague definitions, unreliable predictions and inconclusive allegations of harm from both sides of the debate perpetuate a stalemate that fails to produce morally defensible answers to our growing data privacy concerns. Deliberating about data privacy from a consequentialist perspective is a dead end. -/- Chapter Three proposes an alternative to the harm-based approach, namely that privacy is an intrinsic value that deserves moral protection for its own sake. After a brief account of what I take values to be, and why we have a need to protect them, I introduce the foundational value of respect for persons, and lay out my main argument in two steps. The conceptual component of my argument returns to the definition of data privacy I had temporarily settled on in Chapter One, but now with the added consideration of the particular context, and particular circumstances and attitudes, within which information is exchanged. This addition is crucial, as it reveals the fundamental value that is at stake in our data privacy concerns, namely the inherent value of each and every person, which we protect by upholding an ethical principle commonly known as the principle of respect for persons. It is for this reason that the violation of privacy cannot (only) be expressed in terms of harm. I further argue that the principle of respect for persons is consistent with, and in fact unthinkable without, some degree of privacy. -/- I reply to potential challenges to a value-based approach to data privacy by showing that (i) values and value trade-offs are fundamentally different from consequential benefits and cost-benefit analyses; (ii) the suspension of one value in favour of another is not inherently contradictory; what matters is morally defensible deliberation about values and valid individual consent; (iii) data privacy concerns cannot be reduced to other moral concerns and therefore deserve a specific, distinct protection. -/- Finally, because this is a thesis in applied ethics, I attempt an answer to the question as to how we ought to apply a value-based approach to practical data privacy concerns. I argue that a revised, three-pronged version of John Rawls’ reflective equilibrium, founded on the non-negotiable principle of respect for persons, is the best possible procedure to deliberate data privacy concerns in relation to other moral values. (shrink)

THIS PAPER IS THE CO-WINNER OF THE FRED BERGER PRIZE IN PHILOSOPHY OF LAW FOR THE 1999 AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE BEST PUBLISHED PAPER IN THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS. -/- The conflict between liberal legal theory and critical legal studies (CLS) is often framed as a matter of whether there is a theory of justice that the law should embody which all rational people could or must accept. In a divided society, the CLS critique of this view is overwhelming: (...) there is no such justice that can command universal assent. But the liberal critique of CLS, that it degenerates into an unpalatable moral relativism on which there is no non-arbitrary basis between a justice that underwrites forms of domination such as slavery and a justice that condemns such forms of domination is equally powerful and compelling. I show that there is a way to harmonize both views that is subject to empirical test. -/- First I show that the most widely accepted and influential formulation of liberal justice, John Rawls' Justice as Fairness, in. e.g, A Theory of Justice, cannot avoid the relativistic challenge because it would not be accepted, as a matter of sociological fact, by real people in a divided society once the "veil of Ignorance" is removed and real people step out from the Original Position. To put it differently, different reflective equilibria are inevitable in a divided society. Given the weight that Rawls properly puts on the realizability of a conception of justice and its stability in practice, this is a fatal objection. There can be no divided society that is "well ordered" in Rawls' sense, governed by a shared conception of justice and known to be so governed. -/- I then turn to the most powerful statement of the CLS view, Milton's Fisk's relativistic account in The State and Justice. For Fisk, justice is a compromise between what the dominant groups can compel and what the the subordinate groups will acquiesce to., There is no one such compromise in any given situation, so the account is in that sense relativistic, but more deeply, it is relativistic in that it offers no non-arbitrary, non-question begging way to choose between the official justice of, e.g., a slaveholding society and and the radical justice of the slaves, which has no place for slaveholders as a group or slavery as an institution.All that Fisk can offer is an arbitrary existential choice: I'm with the slaves. (Or the slaveowners.) Most of us would find this disconcerting or even unacceptable. -/- I show that Fisk's general sort of account can be modified to allow for an non-arbitrary choice. Given general facts about human nature, societies based on domination will produce resistance that over the long run will diminish or eliminate various forms of domination. Through a sort of ratchet effect, rights won will be hard if not impossible to reverse. Societies embodying forms of domination can therefore be compared on dimensions of stability: the more domination, the more resistance, and the less stability. Such societies are inferior on the dimension of justice to more emancipatory society on the terms of both kinds of justice, official and radical. -/- This is not question begging because regimes of domination incorporate stability no less than more emancipatory social orders. The choice between official justice embodying domination and radical justice that does not is not arbitrary because it is based on a shared commitment to long term stability. This offers an empirical test of which social orders are more justice, and a prediction that over time, domination will tend to decrease. (shrink)

This article argues that, suitably modified, the method of reflective equilibrium is a plausible way of selecting moral principles. The appropriate conception of the method is wide and radical, admitting consideration of a full range of moral principles and arguments, and requiring the enquiring individual to consider others' views and undergo experiences that may offset any formative biases. The individual is not bound by his initial considered judgments, and may revise his view in any way whatsoever. It is (...) appropriate to describe the method as a balance between coherentism and fallibilist foundationalism. With these points in mind, various criticisms, including the claims that considered judgments are not initially credible and are shaped by prejudice, and that the method itself fails to determine principle selection, are challenged. (shrink)

Which moral judgments should one pay attention to in building a moral philosophy? Thomas Kelly and Sarah McGrath object to John Rawls’s suggestion to not rely on judgments heavily bound up with one’s own interests. I propose a solution in response to the objection.

Social scientists, political scientists and philosophers debate key concepts such as democracy, power and autonomy. Contested concepts like these pose questions: Are terms such as “democracy” hopelessly ambiguous? How can two theorists defend alternative accounts of democracy without talking past each other? How can we understand debates in which theorists disagree about what democracy is? This paper first discusses the popular strategy to answer these questions by appealing to Rawls’s distinction between concepts and conceptions. According to this approach, defenders of (...) rival conceptions of, e.g. justice can disagree without talking past each other because they share the concept of justice. It is argued that this idea is attractive but limited in application and that it fails to do justice to the dynamic and normative aspects of concept formation. Reflective equilibrium is then suggested as an alternative approach. It replaces the static contrast between a conceptual ‘core’ and competing conceptions by a dynamic perspective of concept formation as a partly normative undertaking: pre-theoretic language use and commitments can provide a shared starting point for developing alternative accounts which yield different concepts of, e.g. justice. This perspective provides a new understanding of how it is possible that different theorists defend rival accounts of, e.g. justice, without talking past each other. (shrink)

Cornell realism (CR), a prominent meta-ethical position that has emerged since the last decades of the twentieth century, proposes a non-reductionist naturalistic account of moral properties and facts. This paper argues that the best version of CR’s chosen methodology for arriving at justified moral beliefs must be seen as a variant of reflective equilibrium. In comparison to the traditional versions, our proposal offers a ‘social’ reinterpretation of reflective equilibrium in delineating CR’s epistemology. We argue that it (...) satisfactorily accounts for objectivity and calls for the inclusion of the social nature of both moral and scientific inquiries. Emphasising the social dimension of their epistemological account also nudges debates in metaethics into incorporating the much-needed social dimension while dealing with questions of moral beliefs and facts that have been of CR’s concern. (shrink)

This paper responds to Thomas Kelly and Sarah McGrath’s worry that there can be evil reflective equilibrium. I propose that some of John Rawls’s restrictions on moral judgments we can enter into the procedure serve to protect against evil reflective equilibrium.

Cancel culture is a form of societal self-defense that becomes prominent particularly during periods of substantial moral upheaval. It can lead to the polarization of incompatible viewpoints if it is indiscriminately demonized. In this brief editorial letter, I consider framing cancel culture as an essentially contested concept (ECC), according to the theory of Walter B. Gallie, with the aim of establishing a groundwork for a more productive discourse on it. In particular, I propose that intermediate agreements and principles of reasonableness (...) can help refocus the debate on cancel culture towards democratic discourse, without blanket justification for every instance. In this context, asserting that cancel culture is an ECC does not dismiss the potential of achieving consensus on its shared core meaning or societal role. Like other similar ECCs, such as democracy or rule of law, it highlights the importance of contestations in shaping our collective understanding of the concept. (shrink)

In this paper, I present an objection to the reflective equilibrium method based on land purchases and trespassing. I then propose a solution, which involves a change to how we regard the method.

It seems that intuitions are indispensable in philosophical theorizing. Yet, there is evidence that our intuitions are heavily influenced by biases. This generates a puzzle: we must use our intuitions, but we seemingly cannot fully trust those very intuitions. In this paper, I develop a methodology for philosophical theorizing which attempts to avoid this puzzle. Specifically, I develop and defend a methodology that I call Extra-Wide Reflective Equilibrium. I argue that this method allows us to use intuitions, while (...) also providing a mechanism to check the influence of bias on our intuitions. In section I, defend the claim that intuitions are indispensable in philosophical theorizing. In section II, I outline recent arguments against the reliability of intuitions. In section III, I explain and defend my account of Extra-Wide Reflective Equilibrium. (shrink)

In this paper, I attempt to synthesize the two most influential contemporary ethical approaches that appeal to moral intuitions, viz., Rawlsian reflective equilibrium and Audi’s moderate intuitionism. This paper has two parts. First, building upon the work of Audi and Gaut, I provide a more detailed and nuanced account of how these two approaches are compatible. Second, I show how this novel synthesis can both (1) fully address the main objections to reflective equilibrium, viz., that it (...) provides neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for the justification of our moral beliefs and (2) help ethical intuitionism to deal with the fundamental problem of peer disagreement over our basic moral intuitions. In doing so, I sketch out a novel and attractive diachronic way of thinking about peer disagreement more generally. (shrink)

H.L.A. Hart objects to John Rawls’s liberty principle by drawing attention to how our legal system accepts the restriction of liberty to protect against other harms than liberty-deprivation, such as by laws against slander, libel, and publications which grossly infringe privacy. What is the solution for John Rawls, faced with this criticism? One solution is, by the reflective equilibrium method, to justify abandoning the judgment that these actions are immoral.

Are John Rawls’s most noticeable methodological contributions, reflective equilibrium and the original position, consistent with each other? I draw attention to a worry that they stand in inconsistent relationships to the claim that ought implies can: it can only be the case that we ought to do something if we can do it.

The Evolution and Purpose of Positive and Negative Human Emotions as a Balancing Mechanism of the Mind -/- Angelito Malicse’s universal formula emphasizes the universal law of balance in nature, which governs all systems, including the human mind. By this understanding, emotions—both positive and negative—are not random phenomena but integral components of the mind’s natural balancing mechanism. They have evolved to ensure that human decision-making remains aligned with the law of balance, both internally (within the individual) and externally (in relation (...) to the environment). -/- The Evolution of Emotions -/- Throughout evolutionary history, emotions have developed as adaptive responses to the challenges of survival and reproduction. Positive emotions, such as joy, love, and contentment, likely emerged to encourage behaviors that promote well-being, social bonding, and cooperation. These emotions reward actions that sustain life and harmony, ensuring the continuation of the individual and the group. -/- Conversely, negative emotions, such as fear, anger, and sadness, evolved as warning signals to protect individuals from harm or to signal when something in the external or internal environment is out of balance. For example, fear alerts individuals to potential dangers, anger arises when boundaries are crossed or injustice is perceived, and sadness serves as a mechanism for processing loss and recalibrating goals. -/- Emotions as a Balancing Mechanism -/- Under the universal formula’s framework, human emotions act as feedback mechanisms that maintain the mind’s equilibrium. Positive emotions arise when the mind aligns with its natural and social environment, indicating that balance is achieved. Negative emotions, on the other hand, are more complex: while they evolved to signal imbalance and encourage corrective action, they can also create further imbalance if left unchecked. -/- Positive Emotions: Reinforcing Balance -/- Positive emotions foster behaviors that align with the universal law of balance. For instance: -/- Gratitude encourages appreciation for resources and relationships, promoting sustainable interactions with the environment and others. -/- Happiness serves as a reward for achieving goals that satisfy personal and collective needs, reinforcing balanced decision-making. -/- Compassion drives individuals to care for others, maintaining social harmony and collective well-being. -/- Negative Emotions: Signaling or Creating Imbalance -/- Negative emotions serve two roles: they can either act as signals to address imbalance or become sources of imbalance themselves. For example: -/- Fear may warn of potential danger and guide protective behavior, but excessive or irrational fear creates anxiety, disrupting the internal mind and external interactions. -/- Anger may highlight injustice, prompting corrective action, but unchecked anger can lead to destructive behaviors that harm relationships and social cohesion. -/- Moreover, some negative emotions inherently create imbalances, both internally and externally, when they dominate the mind: -/- Greediness fosters excessive accumulation of resources, often at the expense of others, disrupting external societal balance while breeding internal dissatisfaction. -/- Stinginess reflects an inability to share, creating friction in relationships and disrupting the natural flow of give-and-take in human interactions. -/- Jealousy breeds discontent and mistrust, harming social bonds and disrupting personal peace of mind. -/- Hatred leads to destructive behaviors, creating divisions in society and poisoning the individual’s emotional state. -/- Lustfulness focuses on excessive or unbalanced desires, leading to actions that can harm relationships and diminish long-term well-being. -/- These negative emotions, when not properly understood or managed, not only disturb the individual’s internal reality but also ripple outward to disrupt external realities, affecting relationships, communities, and even societal structures. -/- The Interplay of Emotions in Decision-Making -/- The law of karma, as described in the universal formula, emphasizes cause and effect within interconnected systems. Emotions play a crucial role in this process by guiding decision-making in accordance with natural laws. Positive emotions encourage actions that generate beneficial outcomes, while unmanaged or excessive negative emotions often drive harmful behaviors that disrupt balance. -/- For instance, greed and jealousy may lead to unethical actions in pursuit of material wealth, creating societal inequality and environmental degradation. Similarly, unchecked anger or hatred can lead to conflicts that destabilize communities and perpetuate suffering. Conversely, when individuals act with emotional awareness and align their decisions with positive emotions like compassion and gratitude, they contribute to internal peace and external harmony. -/- Emotions in Modern Contexts -/- In today’s complex world, emotions remain vital in navigating challenges, although societal and cultural influences can distort their function. Ignorance, false beliefs, and misinformation can exacerbate the imbalance caused by negative emotions. For example, modern consumerism often exploits greed and jealousy, leading to overconsumption and environmental damage. -/- This highlights the need for education and emotional intelligence. By understanding the purpose of emotions within the framework of the universal formula, individuals can recognize and manage negative emotions, ensuring they do not become sources of imbalance. -/- Conclusion -/- Positive and negative emotions are essential components of the mind’s natural balancing mechanism. Evolving over millennia, they have ensured humanity’s survival and adaptation by guiding decision-making in accordance with the universal law of balance. However, unchecked negative emotions—such as greediness, stinginess, jealousy, hatred, and lustfulness—create imbalances in both internal and external realities, leading to personal suffering and societal problems. -/- Within the context of Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, understanding and managing emotions is crucial to aligning human behavior with natural laws. By fostering positive emotions and addressing the root causes of negative emotions, humanity can minimize imbalances and create a more harmonious and balanced world. Through proper education and self-awareness, emotions can serve their true purpose as a guiding force for balance in both the individual and collective mind. -/- . (shrink)

The ongoing global pandemic of Covid-19 has exposed SARS-CoV-2 as a potent non-human actant that resists the joint scientific, public health and socio-political efforts to contain and understand both the virus and the illness. Yet, such a narrative appears to conceal more than it reveals. The seeming agentiality of the novel coronavirus is itself but one manifestation of the continuous destruction of biodiversity, climate change, socio-economic inequalities, neocolonialism, overconsumption and the anthropogenic degradation of nature. Furthermore, focusing on the virus – (...) an entity that holds an ambiguous status between the ‘living’ and ‘non-living’ – brings into question the issue of the agentiality of non/living matter. While the story of viral potency seems to get centre stage, overshadowing the complex and perverse entanglement of processes and phenomena which activated these potentials in the first place, the Covid-19 pandemic also becomes a prism that sheds light on the issues of environmental violence; social and environmental injustices; more-than-human agentiality; and ethico-political responses that the present situation may mobilise. -/- This article serves as a written record of joint conversations between artists and researchers in the working group ‘Non/Living Queerings’ that formed part of the online series of events ‘Braiding Friction’ organised by the research project Biofriction. The article strives to capture the collective effort of braiding and weaving a variety of situated perspectives, theoretical toolboxes, knowledges and experiences against the background of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, the text focuses on the issues of crisis, ‘amplification effect’, viral agency and the changing notions of humanity. (shrink)

Nature of Consciousness in relation to my Universal Formula -/- By : Angelito Enriquez Malicse -/- The functioning of consciousness is a complex and debated topic that spans neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology. While there is no universally agreed-upon explanation, several frameworks attempt to describe how consciousness functions. Here are key aspects: -/- 1. Perception and Awareness -/- Consciousness allows us to be aware of our environment and ourselves. -/- Sensory Input: Consciousness integrates information from our senses (sight, sound, touch, etc.) (...) to create a unified experience. -/- Selective Attention: It filters out irrelevant stimuli, focusing on specific inputs while ignoring others. -/- 2. Integration of Information -/- Consciousness functions as an integrative system. -/- Global Workspace Theory: Information from different parts of the brain (e.g., memory, perception, emotion) is integrated into a “global workspace,” where it becomes accessible to different cognitive processes. -/- Binding: Consciousness combines sensory inputs, emotions, and thoughts into a coherent experience. -/- 3. Decision-Making and Intentionality -/- Consciousness enables deliberate action. -/- Executive Functions: It allows for planning, reasoning, and decision-making. -/- Free Will: Many argue that consciousness gives the perception of free will, though decisions may be influenced by subconscious processes. -/- 4. Self-Awareness -/- Consciousness involves recognizing oneself as distinct from the environment. -/- Theory of Mind: Understanding that others have thoughts, feelings, and intentions separate from our own. -/- Introspection: Reflecting on one’s own thoughts, emotions, and actions. -/- 5. Dynamic States -/- Consciousness operates in varying levels of alertness. -/- Wakefulness: Fully alert, capable of complex thought and sensory interaction. -/- Altered States: Dreaming, hypnosis, or meditation involve different patterns of brain activity. -/- Unconscious/Subconscious Processes: Much of brain activity occurs outside conscious awareness but influences behavior. -/- 6. Neurobiological Basis -/- Consciousness arises from complex interactions in the brain. -/- Neural Correlates: Specific brain regions, such as the prefrontal cortex and thalamus, are essential for conscious thought. -/- Synchronization: Brain waves (e.g., gamma waves) synchronize neural activity to support awareness. -/- Feedback Loops: Consciousness involves ongoing feedback between the brain and the body (e.g., through the nervous system). -/- 7. Feedback Mechanism (Relating to Your Ideas) -/- Consciousness can be viewed as a feedback mechanism, continuously processing and adjusting based on internal and external inputs. -/- Decisions and behaviors create effects that, in turn, provide new inputs for further conscious processing, following natural laws of balance. -/- Let’s integrate the understanding of consciousness with your universal formula, emphasizing how it aligns with your principles, particularly the universal law of balance in nature, the law of karma (cause and effect), and the interconnectedness of systems. -/- 1. Consciousness and Perception: Awareness of Internal and External Realities -/- Consciousness processes sensory inputs and integrates them into a coherent experience, allowing individuals to interact with their surroundings. -/- Relation to the Law of Balance: Consciousness acts as a balancing system, constantly assessing internal (bodily needs, emotions) and external (environmental changes) realities to maintain equilibrium. For example: -/- Hunger (internal imbalance) leads to actions (seeking food) that restore balance. -/- Overexposure to external stress triggers adaptive behaviors (e.g., rest or problem-solving) to re-establish harmony. -/- Feedback Mechanisms: The mind processes inputs from both the organic (physical body) and inorganic (external environment) systems, which aligns with your principle that consciousness operates through feedback loops to maintain balance. -/- 2. Integration of Information: Coherence and Systems Thinking -/- Consciousness combines information from various sources—sensory data, memories, emotions—into a unified experience. This reflects the interconnectedness of systems you emphasize in the universal formula. -/- Relation to the Law of Karma (Cause and Effect): Just as systems must function without defects to produce correct outputs, consciousness must integrate accurate and balanced information for effective decision-making. -/- Example: False beliefs or distorted perceptions create internal imbalance, leading to flawed decisions, which result in external consequences. -/- Balance in Systems: Consciousness integrates diverse inputs while ensuring no single element dominates disproportionately, promoting functional harmony. -/- 3. Decision-Making: Consciousness as a Balancing Force -/- Consciousness evaluates options, predicts outcomes, and selects actions. It bridges the gap between external conditions and internal motivations. -/- Adherence to the Law of Balance: Decisions that align with natural laws of balance maintain harmony, while those that disrupt balance (e.g., overconsumption, neglecting emotional health) create systemic imbalances. -/- Example: Overexploitation of resources results in ecological imbalance, mirroring how neglecting feedback in decision-making causes disruption. -/- Law of Karma in Action: Decisions carry consequences, and the effects feedback into consciousness, influencing future decisions. This cyclic cause-and-effect process illustrates the operation of karma within the mind’s framework. -/- 4. Self-Awareness and Feedback Mechanism -/- Consciousness includes the ability to reflect on oneself, recognizing internal states and adjusting behavior accordingly. -/- Relation to Balance in Nature: Self-awareness allows individuals to evaluate whether their thoughts, emotions, and actions align with the universal law of balance. For instance: -/- Reflecting on stress levels and adapting behaviors (e.g., practicing mindfulness) helps restore mental equilibrium. -/- Feedback in Collective Systems: When conscious minds interact in social systems, they create feedback loops that shape group decisions. Leadership, for example, must remain self-aware to ensure decisions maintain societal balance. -/- 5. Dynamic States of Consciousness: Adaptability and Natural Balance -/- Consciousness operates in dynamic states, such as wakefulness, dreaming, and meditation. These states allow flexibility and adaptability to shifting conditions. -/- Law of Balance Applied to States: Dynamic shifts in consciousness maintain balance between activity and rest, or between rational thought and creative insight. Imbalance, such as chronic wakefulness or suppressed introspection, disrupts this harmony. -/- Altered States and Feedback: States like meditation enhance self-regulation, improving feedback between internal and external realities, aligning the individual with natural laws. -/- 6. Neurobiological Basis: Consciousness as a System -/- Consciousness emerges from neural interactions and feedback loops in the brain, reflecting your idea that all systems must operate free of defects to function effectively. -/- Defects and Imbalances: Defective brain processes (e.g., misinformation, trauma) disrupt the feedback mechanism, leading to imbalanced behaviors or decisions. Addressing these “defects” through education or corrective experiences restores balance. -/- Holistic Nature of Consciousness: The brain’s integration of information mirrors the universal principle of interconnectedness. Damage to one area affects the entire system, just as disrupting one part of a natural system creates widespread imbalance. -/- 7. Consciousness in Leadership and Education -/- Your universal formula aims to teach individuals how to make decisions that align with natural laws, ensuring societal balance. -/- Feedback in Collective Consciousness: Leaders’ decisions influence collective consciousness, creating societal feedback loops. Teaching leaders to align their decisions with the universal law of balance can minimize societal problems. -/- Holistic Education: Teaching students how consciousness functions—including its feedback mechanisms, its alignment with the law of balance, and the role of accurate inputs—enables critical thinking and informed decision-making. -/- 8. Consciousness as the Medium for Universal Formula Application -/- Ultimately, consciousness is the medium through which your universal formula operates. By understanding and aligning conscious processes with natural laws: -/- Individuals maintain personal balance. -/- Groups and societies achieve collective harmony. -/- Decision-making respects the interconnectedness of all systems, reducing errors and defects in outcomes. -/- . (shrink)

Creativity and Intelligence: Emergent Properties of the Brain as a Balancing Mechanism for Overpopulation, Natural Disasters, and Diseases -/- The human brain is an extraordinary organ, capable of producing creativity and intelligence as emergent properties that allow humanity to address complex challenges. These traits are not merely tools for individual survival; they function as collective mechanisms to adapt to large-scale issues that threaten humanity’s balance with the environment. Overpopulation, natural disasters, and the prevalence of diseases and illnesses represent some (...) of the most significant pressures on human societies. Through the brain’s capacity for problem-solving and innovation, humanity has developed strategies to mitigate these challenges and maintain equilibrium within the universal law of balance. -/- The Brain as a Balancing Mechanism -/- At its essence, the brain operates as a dynamic system that processes external stimuli and generates adaptive responses. Creativity and intelligence arise from this system as tools to predict, analyze, and address challenges that disrupt balance. Overpopulation, natural disasters, and diseases disrupt human life on social, economic, and environmental levels, testing the brain’s ability to create solutions. -/- Creativity in Addressing Overpopulation -/- Overpopulation places immense strain on resources, ecosystems, and social structures, often leading to food shortages, environmental degradation, and urban overcrowding. The brain’s creative capacity has allowed humans to develop innovations to address these issues. Urban agriculture, such as vertical farming, is an example of how creativity has transformed food production in densely populated areas, reducing dependence on traditional farmland and conserving resources. Similarly, advancements in renewable energy technologies, such as solar and wind power, reduce the ecological footprint of growing populations, providing sustainable solutions to energy needs. -/- Creativity also plays a critical role in social policies and education. Family planning programs and reproductive health education have empowered individuals, particularly women, to make informed decisions, reducing population growth rates in many regions. These initiatives reflect the brain’s ability to create holistic solutions that align societal needs with the preservation of natural balance. -/- Intelligence in Managing Natural Disasters -/- Natural disasters, unpredictable and often catastrophic, require intelligent strategies to mitigate their impact. Intelligence enables humans to analyze data, predict disasters, and prepare for their consequences. Early warning systems for tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes exemplify this, providing communities with critical time to evacuate and take protective measures. -/- Furthermore, intelligence drives the design of resilient infrastructure that can withstand disasters. For instance, earthquake-resistant buildings and flood mitigation systems demonstrate the brain’s capacity to transform scientific knowledge into practical solutions. These innovations save lives, reduce economic losses, and facilitate faster recovery after disasters, ensuring that human societies maintain their balance despite nature’s unpredictability. -/- Creativity and Intelligence in Combating Diseases and Illnesses -/- Diseases and illnesses have long been among humanity’s greatest challenges, especially in the context of overpopulation, which facilitates the rapid spread of infectious diseases. The brain’s emergent properties of creativity and intelligence have been critical in combating these threats through advancements in medicine, public health, and technology. -/- The development of vaccines, antibiotics, and antiviral drugs highlights humanity’s creative response to disease. For example, the eradication of smallpox and the near-elimination of polio are milestones achieved through creative and intelligent applications of medical science. During the COVID-19 pandemic, intelligence and creativity led to the rapid development of vaccines using mRNA technology, showcasing the brain’s ability to adapt to new challenges at an unprecedented pace. -/- Public health strategies, such as sanitation systems, clean water initiatives, and disease surveillance networks, also reflect the brain’s ability to create systemic solutions. These measures have significantly reduced the burden of communicable diseases, particularly in densely populated areas. Moreover, advancements in artificial intelligence and biotechnology continue to enhance humanity’s ability to detect, prevent, and treat illnesses. -/- The Interplay of Creativity, Intelligence, and Feedback Mechanisms -/- Creativity and intelligence act as feedback mechanisms that enable humans to respond to disruptions while maintaining balance within the universal law of nature. Overpopulation, natural disasters, and diseases disrupt this balance, prompting the brain to generate solutions that restore harmony. -/- For instance, urban planning that incorporates green spaces and sustainable infrastructure addresses the environmental strain caused by overpopulation. Similarly, the integration of traditional knowledge with modern technologies enhances disaster resilience. In the context of diseases, the collaboration of global institutions and local communities reflects the brain’s capacity to balance innovation with cultural and social considerations. -/- Challenges and Ethical Considerations -/- While creativity and intelligence empower humanity to address these challenges, they also carry significant ethical responsibilities. Technological advancements must align with principles of sustainability and equity. For example, while vaccines have saved millions of lives, unequal access to these innovations highlights the need for ethical distribution systems. Similarly, urban development projects must prioritize environmental conservation and community well-being to avoid exacerbating existing imbalances. -/- Additionally, the misuse of intelligence and creativity—such as the development of biological weapons or unsustainable industrial practices—can worsen the effects of overpopulation, natural disasters, and diseases. Ensuring that human ingenuity aligns with the principles of balance and harmony is essential to avoid unintended consequences. -/- Conclusion -/- Creativity and intelligence are emergent properties of the human brain that have enabled humanity to adapt to and mitigate the negative effects of overpopulation, natural disasters, and diseases. These traits function as balancing mechanisms, allowing humans to innovate and maintain harmony within the framework of natural laws. However, the application of these capabilities must be guided by ethical considerations and a commitment to sustainability. By aligning human creativity and intelligence with the universal law of balance, humanity can navigate its most pressing challenges and build a more resilient and equitable future. -/- . (shrink)

Why All Mathematical Equations Have an Equal Sign in the Middle (Including Deviations and Applications Across All Fields of Mathematics) -/- Mathematics is a universal tool used to express relationships, patterns, and structures in both abstract and real-world settings. At the heart of this tool is the equal sign, which symbolizes balance and equivalence between two ideas. The equal sign ensures that what is expressed on one side of an equation corresponds directly to the other. However, in practical applications, perfect (...) balance is often disrupted, leading to deviations that reflect real-world imperfections. These deviations, whether positive or negative, help make mathematical models more applicable to reality. This essay explores the importance of the equal sign, the concept of deviations, and how they apply across various fields of mathematics. -/- The Equal Sign: A Symbol of Balance -/- The equal sign serves as a bridge, showing that two expressions, ideas, or quantities are equivalent. It represents the foundational principle of balance in mathematics, allowing relationships to be defined and analyzed logically. For example, when describing physical, economic, or biological systems, the equal sign provides clarity, ensuring that all components of the system interact in harmony. -/- In theory, the equal sign represents perfect balance. However, real-world scenarios rarely follow such exactitude. External factors, approximations, or errors often create deviations from this balance. These deviations allow us to account for variability and adjust our models accordingly, making mathematics a flexible tool for solving practical problems. -/- Deviations from Equality -/- While the equal sign represents the ideal state of balance, deviations account for the imperfections and complexities of reality. -/- 1. Positive Deviations: These occur when one side of a relationship exceeds the other, reflecting surplus or unexpected growth. For example, this might happen when actual outcomes surpass predictions, such as higher-than-expected profits in business. -/- 2. Negative Deviations: These arise when one side falls short, representing a deficit or shortfall. For instance, in weather modeling, negative deviations might occur when observed rainfall is less than forecasted. -/- These deviations are crucial for refining mathematical models, especially in fields where variability is unavoidable, such as physics, economics, and biology. -/- Applications in Various Fields of Mathematics -/- 1. Arithmetic and Number Theory -/- The equal sign ensures balance when performing basic operations, such as addition, subtraction, or multiplication. However, in practical applications, rounding errors or approximations often introduce deviations. For example, when adding measurements with decimals, the result might be slightly adjusted due to rounding. -/- In number theory, the equal sign represents equivalence in concepts like divisibility or patterns among numbers. Deviations can highlight remainders or shifts in these relationships, as seen in practical uses like cryptography. -/- 2. Algebra -/- Algebra explores relationships between variables and constants, often solving for unknowns. The equal sign is central to defining and solving these relationships. However, real-world algebraic problems often involve constraints or uncertainties, such as production limits in business. Deviations in algebra can account for these irregularities, making it a critical tool for optimization and resource allocation. -/- 3. Geometry -/- In geometry, the equal sign helps define relationships like the congruence of shapes, the proportions of angles, or the equivalence of areas. Deviations arise in practical applications, such as construction or design, where imperfect measurements lead to slight discrepancies. For instance, a building’s dimensions might not align perfectly with theoretical calculations due to material constraints or human error. -/- 4. Trigonometry -/- Trigonometry studies relationships in triangles and periodic phenomena, such as waves. The equal sign ensures that relationships between angles and sides are consistent. However, in fields like engineering or physics, deviations occur due to inaccuracies in measurements or environmental factors. These deviations are essential for improving real-world applications, such as signal processing or sound wave analysis. -/- 5. Calculus -/- Calculus deals with changes and accumulations. The equal sign helps express how quantities evolve or grow over time, such as the speed of an object or the amount of water collected in a tank. -/- In differential calculus, deviations reflect changes in rates caused by external influences, like friction affecting the motion of an object. -/- In integral calculus, deviations occur when real-world accumulations, such as population growth or fuel consumption, differ from idealized predictions. These adjustments make calculus more effective for analyzing and predicting real-world behavior. -/- 6. Linear Algebra -/- Linear algebra examines relationships in systems involving multiple variables, such as equations describing supply and demand. The equal sign is used to establish balance within these systems. Deviations, such as noise or inaccuracies in data, play a significant role in real-world applications like machine learning, where adjustments improve predictive accuracy. -/- 7. Probability and Statistics -/- Probability and statistics analyze uncertainty and variation. The equal sign represents theoretical models, such as the average outcome of a random event. However, deviations from these models, often referred to as errors or residuals, highlight differences between predictions and observed results. These deviations are essential for refining models, whether in weather forecasting, market analysis, or medical research. -/- 8. Real-World Modeling Across Disciplines -/- Physics: In physics, the equal sign links relationships like force and motion. Deviations arise when real-world conditions, such as air resistance, alter the ideal balance predicted by equations. -/- Economics: The concept of equilibrium in supply and demand relies on the equal sign, but market fluctuations often introduce deviations, leading to surpluses or shortages. -/- Biology: Growth models in biology, such as the spread of a population or a virus, use the equal sign to describe ideal patterns. Deviations account for environmental factors, resource limitations, or mutations. -/- Conclusion -/- The equal sign is the foundation of all mathematical equations, symbolizing balance and equivalence. It ensures that relationships are clearly defined, making mathematical reasoning precise and reliable. However, deviations play an equally important role, accounting for imperfections and variability in the real world. Across all fields of mathematics—arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus, and beyond—the interplay between balance and deviation enhances our ability to model, analyze, and solve complex problems. Together, the equal sign and deviations allow mathematics to bridge the gap between idealized theory and the complexities of real-world phenomena. -/- . (shrink)

The State of Nirvana Explained Through the Universal Formula -/- Nirvana, a concept often associated with Buddhism, represents a state of ultimate peace, liberation, and detachment from suffering. Traditionally, it is understood as the cessation of desires and the end of the cycle of birth and rebirth. However, using my universal formula, Nirvana can be understood more precisely as a state of perfect balance, where the system of human consciousness operates free from defects and external disturbances. By examining Nirvana through (...) the universal law of balance in nature, the law of karma as a system principle, and the feedback mechanism of conscious minds, we can explain it as the highest achievable state of homeostasis in human decision-making and awareness. -/- Nirvana as Perfect Balance in Nature -/- According to the universal law of balance in nature, all systems—whether they are physical, biological, or cognitive—must maintain equilibrium to function optimally. Any deviation from balance results in dysfunction, suffering, or destruction. In this context, the state of Nirvana is the ultimate form of equilibrium in the human mind, where all forms of psychological and emotional turbulence have been neutralized. -/- Human suffering often arises from internal imbalances caused by uncontrolled desires, false beliefs, and external influences. When a person reaches Nirvana, their mind no longer fluctuates between extremes such as attachment and aversion, pleasure and pain, or hope and fear. Instead, they attain a stable and self-regulating mental state that is in perfect harmony with the natural laws governing reality. -/- Karma and the System of Consciousness -/- The law of karma, as understood in my universal formula, does not merely refer to the traditional idea of moral cause and effect but extends to the principle of systems functioning without defects. Any system, whether mechanical, biological, or cognitive, must be free of errors to operate effectively. If an engine has faulty components, it will not run efficiently; if the human body accumulates toxins, it will suffer disease. Similarly, if the mind is filled with ignorance, false assumptions, or emotional disturbances, it will create suffering. -/- Nirvana, in this sense, is the final correction of the system of consciousness. It is a state where all mental defects—such as irrational fears, harmful attachments, and misperceptions—have been eliminated. The individual no longer reacts to external influences in a way that creates further imbalance or suffering. They achieve a fully optimized and self-sustaining mental state, free from unnecessary disturbances. -/- Is Nirvana a Permanent or Dynamic State? -/- From the perspective of the universal law of balance in nature, Nirvana is a dynamic state rather than a fixed or permanent one. No system in nature remains absolutely static; instead, it continuously adjusts to maintain balance in response to external and internal influences. Even though Nirvana is often described as the cessation of suffering, it does not mean the individual mind ceases to function or engage with reality. Rather, it reaches a level of self-correction and adaptability, where it can maintain balance despite changing conditions. -/- A person in Nirvana does not freeze in a single state but dynamically interacts with reality while ensuring that no imbalance disturbs their equilibrium. Just as homeostasis in the human body requires constant regulation to maintain stability, the state of Nirvana involves continuous awareness and adjustment to preserve its balance. Therefore, rather than being a fixed endpoint, Nirvana can be understood as a sustained and dynamic process of perfect self-regulation. -/- The Feedback Mechanism of Conscious Minds -/- Beyond the individual, all conscious beings exist in a collective feedback system, where their decisions and emotions continuously influence one another. Human society operates as an interconnected web of minds, shaping each other’s beliefs, actions, and responses. Most people remain trapped in this cycle, where external influences trigger internal disturbances, leading to suffering and further imbalance. -/- However, a person who has reached Nirvana no longer contributes to this cycle of mental disturbances. Instead, they exist as a neutral force within the feedback loop, unaffected by external pressures and incapable of generating suffering for themselves or others. Their dynamic state of equilibrium allows them to respond to the world without being influenced by negative forces, ensuring that they do not create further disturbances in the system of human consciousness. -/- How to Achieve and Regulate the State of Nirvana -/- Since Nirvana is a dynamic state, it is not achieved in a single moment but rather through a continuous process of self-regulation. Based on the universal law of balance in nature and the law of karma, an individual must take specific steps to eliminate mental defects and maintain an optimized state of consciousness. -/- 1. Understanding the Nature of Imbalance – The first step is recognizing how ignorance, false beliefs, and uncontrolled desires create internal imbalances. This requires deep introspection and an awareness that suffering is the result of flawed decision-making processes. -/- 2. Eliminating False Systems of Thought – Mental defects arise from incorrect assumptions about reality. An individual must adopt rational thinking based on natural laws, ensuring that their thoughts align with objective truth rather than societal conditioning, superstitions, or emotional biases. -/- 3. Regulating Desires and Attachments – Desires create imbalance when they control the individual, leading to continuous dissatisfaction. To maintain Nirvana, one must learn to regulate desires, keeping them within a balanced framework where they do not dominate decision-making. -/- 4. Practicing Continuous Feedback Adjustment – Since all minds exist within a collective feedback system, an individual must remain conscious of how external influences affect their state of balance. This means developing a high level of self-awareness to prevent unnecessary emotional reactions to external events. -/- 5. Achieving Self-Correcting Homeostasis – Just as a healthy body automatically corrects imbalances (such as regulating temperature and pH levels), the mind in Nirvana must develop a self-correcting mechanism. This means consistently checking whether one’s thoughts, emotions, and actions remain in harmony with the natural law of balance. -/- 6. Avoiding Sources of Mental Disturbance – External influences such as misinformation, emotional manipulation, and toxic environments can disrupt mental balance. A person striving for Nirvana must carefully filter external inputs to ensure that their internal equilibrium remains undisturbed. -/- 7. Integrating Nirvana into Daily Life – Achieving Nirvana is not about retreating from reality but about engaging with it in a state of complete balance. This means making decisions based on reason, clarity, and natural law, ensuring that every action contributes to a stable and harmonious existence. -/- The Balance Between Social Interaction and Privacy -/- While privacy plays an important role in maintaining Nirvana, it is also essential to strike a balance between privacy and social interaction. A person striving for Nirvana must recognize that while solitude and self-reflection are necessary for maintaining mental equilibrium, human beings are inherently social creatures. Healthy social interaction can be a source of joy, support, and growth, and should not be completely avoided in the pursuit of Nirvana. -/- The key to maintaining Nirvana in social settings lies in setting boundaries and choosing relationships that foster peace and balance. Too much social interaction, especially in environments filled with conflict, negativity, or manipulation, can lead to disturbances in mental stability. On the other hand, complete isolation can lead to a lack of social harmony and neglect of collective well-being. -/- Therefore, an individual in Nirvana must be able to navigate between these two aspects of life—engaging in meaningful social interactions while protecting their personal space when needed. This balance is vital in maintaining the mental clarity and emotional stability required to preserve Nirvana in an ever-changing world. By carefully choosing social environments and establishing healthy boundaries, an individual can prevent external disturbances from disturbing their equilibrium. -/- The Importance of Privacy in Maintaining the State of Nirvana -/- In the pursuit of Nirvana, privacy plays a crucial role in preserving mental balance and maintaining the integrity of the individual’s self-regulation process. In a world filled with external pressures, distractions, and unsolicited influences, privacy serves as a protective barrier that allows an individual to maintain personal space and autonomy. -/- Without privacy, the individual is subject to constant interference from external sources—be it through social media, public scrutiny, or external judgments. These external influences can create mental disturbances that disrupt the equilibrium necessary for Nirvana. Privacy allows individuals to maintain their mental clarity, free from the noise of others’ expectations, and to reflect deeply on their own thoughts and feelings without being swayed by outside opinions. -/- By protecting their privacy, an individual can control the flow of information they are exposed to, ensuring that their mental state is not disturbed by harmful or irrelevant stimuli. Privacy enables one to determine their own internal environment, cultivating a space where personal growth and introspection can occur without interference. -/- Furthermore, privacy is integral to emotional regulation. It allows individuals to process their emotions and experiences in a safe environment, enabling them to reach the state of Nirvana without the pressure of external forces. This protection helps avoid unnecessary emotional reactions and preserve mental peace, ensuring that one remains in a state of dynamic balance amidst the complexities of daily life. -/- Nirvana as the Ultimate State of Homeostasis -/- In conclusion, Nirvana, when analyzed through my universal formula, can be understood as the highest state of homeostasis in human consciousness. It is the point at which a person has fully optimized their decision-making process, eliminated all mental defects, and achieved perfect balance with their internal and external reality. However, rather than being a permanent, unchanging state, Nirvana is a dynamic equilibrium, requiring continuous self-regulation to maintain balance. -/- The role of privacy in achieving and maintaining Nirvana cannot be overstated. In a world filled with external distractions and emotional disturbances, privacy is a key factor in preserving mental equilibrium and allowing the individual to maintain the dynamic self-regulation needed to stay in Nirvana. -/- By understanding the steps to achieve and regulate Nirvana, individuals can cultivate mental stability, rational decision-making, and emotional resilience. This explanation provides a scientific and systematic approach to Nirvana, making it not only a spiritual ideal but a practical model for individual and societal well-being. The path to Nirvana is not just a personal journey but a necessary step toward achieving universal equilibrium in human civilization. -/- . (shrink)

-/- The Universal Formula as a Perfect Information Field: A Guiding Framework for Nature, Society, and AI -/- Introduction -/- Throughout history, human beings have sought to understand the fundamental laws governing nature, society, and consciousness. The discovery of these laws is a result of conscious intelligence, which refines knowledge over time. Some speculative theories, such as Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance, suggest that nature has a kind of memory field that guides the behavior of organisms and systems. However, without empirical (...) validation, such ideas remain hypothetical. -/- A more concrete and rational approach to understanding the structure of natural laws is through a universal formula—a framework that captures the principles governing decision-making and systemic balance in all aspects of life. If such a formula exists, it would function as a “perfect information field,” ensuring that human behavior, governance, and artificial intelligence operate in harmony with nature’s fundamental laws. This essay explores how a universal formula based on the law of balance in nature could serve as a perfect guide for all intelligent systems. -/- The Nature of a Perfect Information Field -/- A “perfect information field” would contain all necessary knowledge to guide decision-making and ensure the proper functioning of all systems, whether they are biological, societal, or technological. In contrast to speculative fields like morphic resonance, a perfect information field must be based on universal principles that are observable, testable, and applicable across different domains. -/- If decision-making and all human behavior follow natural laws, then a universal formula governing this process would act as a foundational guide. This means that any individual, society, or artificial system that aligns with this formula would be operating in accordance with the natural order, avoiding destructive imbalances. -/- The Universal Formula and the Law of Balance in Nature -/- The key principle behind a universal formula is the law of balance in nature. This law asserts that all decision-making, whether on an individual or collective level, must maintain equilibrium to prevent dysfunction and suffering. Any deviation from this balance—whether through ignorance, false beliefs, or misguided actions—results in systemic breakdowns, much like defects in a machine cause it to malfunction. -/- This perspective aligns with the first law of the universal formula: the law of karma as a system-based principle, where every action and decision creates consequences within a larger interconnected system. If a system, such as a government, an economy, or even an AI, does not adhere to error-free functioning, it leads to unintended negative effects. Therefore, for a system to be self-sustaining and effective, it must operate in accordance with the law of balance. -/- Education as the Key to Implementing the Universal Formula -/- For the universal formula to function as a guiding framework for human society, it must be deeply embedded in the education system. This means that students at all levels should be taught how to think critically, recognize natural balance, and make decisions that align with these principles. By integrating this knowledge into the foundational structure of education, individuals will develop a rational and scientific understanding of how to navigate their lives without relying on superstitions or dogmatic beliefs. -/- A holistic education system would also serve to neutralize misinformation, prevent societal conflicts, and promote ethical leadership. Leaders who understand the universal formula would make policies that reflect the natural balance of population growth, resource distribution, and environmental sustainability, rather than following flawed economic and political ideologies. -/- The R”le of AI in Implementing the Universal Formula -/- Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) has the potential to become a key tool in maintaining natural balance—if it is programmed according to the universal formula. Unlike human minds, which are susceptible to biases, errors, and irrational beliefs, AGI could be designed to follow pure rationality and objective decision-making based on the laws of nature. -/- For AGI to function properly, it must have a complete sensor system that allows it to perceive and analyze all relevant factors in real time. This ensures that it does not operate on incomplete or flawed data, which could lead to errors in decision-making. If AGI adheres to the principles of the universal formula, it could assist in solving major societal problems such as economic instability, political corruption, and environmental destruction. -/- However, for AGI to be successful, humans must first fully understand and accept the universal formula themselves. Without widespread human comprehension of the natural laws guiding decision-making, AI could be misused or misinterpreted, leading to unintended consequences. -/- Conclusion -/- The search for a perfect information field has long been a goal of human intelligence. While speculative theories like morphic resonance attempt to explain systemic memory in nature, they lack empirical validation. Instead, a more concrete approach is to recognize that the universal formula—grounded in the law of balance in nature—already provides a guiding framework for all decision-making and systemic functions. -/- By embedding this understanding into education and programming AI according to its principles, humanity can align itself with the fundamental laws of nature. This would lead to a more balanced and sustainable world, where ignorance, misinformation, and destructive decisions are minimized. If properly implemented, the universal formula could indeed serve as the closest thing to a “perfect information field,” guiding the future of human civilization and artificial intelligence alike. -/- . (shrink)

In the brain the relations between free neurons and the conditioned ones establish the constraints for the informational neural processes. These constraints reflect the systemenvironment state, i.e. the dynamics of homeocognitive activities. The constraints allow us to define the cost function in the phase space of free neurons so as to trace the trajectories of the possible configurations at minimal cost while respecting the constraints imposed. Since the space of the free states is a manifold or a non orthogonal space, (...) the minimum distance is not a straight line but a geodesic. The minimum condition is expressed by a set of ordinary differential equation ( ODE ) that in general are not linear. In the brain there is not an algorithm or a physical field that regulates the computation, then we must consider an emergent process coming out of the neural collective behavior triggered by synaptic variability. We define the neural computation as the study of the classes of trajectories on a manifold geometry defined under suitable constraints. The cost function supervises pseudo equilibrium thermodynamics effects that manage the computational activities from beginning to end and realizes an optimal control through constraints and geodetics. The task of this work is to establish a connection between the geometry of neural computation and cost functions. To illustrate the essential mathematical aspects we will use as toy model a Network Resistor with Adaptive Memory (Memristors).The information geometry here defined is an analog computation, therefore it does not suffer the limits of the Turing computation and it seems to respond to the demand for a greater biological plausibility. The model of brain optimal control proposed here can be a good foundation for implementing the concept of "intentionality",according to the suggestion of W. Freeman. Indeed, the geodesic in the brain states can produce suitable behavior to realize wanted functions and invariants as neural expressionsof cognitive intentions. (shrink)

The Exact Solution to the Free Will Problem: The Three Universal Laws of Nature -/- The problem of free will has persisted for thousands of years, captivating philosophers, scientists, theologians, and scholars across generations. The fundamental question has always been whether human beings truly have the freedom to make decisions or whether all actions are predetermined by external forces such as biology, environment, and societal influence. Traditional philosophical and scientific frameworks have struggled to provide a definitive answer. However, this long-standing (...) intellectual puzzle can now be conclusively solved through the application of Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, which consists of three fundamental laws of nature. These laws— the law of karma, the law of balance, and the law of systems integration—demonstrate how human decision-making follows natural, predictable patterns governed by universal principles. By understanding and applying these laws, we can definitively resolve the free will problem and transform the way we approach morality, justice, science, and societal development. -/- The Enduring Mystery of Free Will -/- The free will problem arises from the tension between two opposing perspectives: determinism and libertarian free will. Determinism argues that every human decision is the Inevita”le result of preceding causes, governed by the immutable laws of nature. In contrast, libertarian free will claims that individuals possess genuine autonomy in making choices. The lack of consensus between these positions has led to confusion in fields ranging from ethics to neuroscience. If this problem remains unsolved, humanity risks ethical uncertainty, legal inconsistency, scientific stagnation, and societal discord. -/- Without a clear understanding of free will, moral responsibility becomes ambiguous. If individuals are merely products of deterministic forces, how can we hold them accountable for their actions? Similarly, justice systems, predicated on the notion of personal responsibility, might face challenges in maintaining fairness and consistency. Scientifically, unresolved questions about free will could hinder progress in fields like psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence. Socially, the absence of a solution might foster fatalism, diminishing people’s sense of agency and responsibility. -/- However, these concerns are no longer insurmountable. Angelito Malicse’s universal formula offers a clear, exact solution to the free will problem by demonstrating that human decisions follow natural, law-governed patterns. The three universal laws of nature provide the key to understanding decision-making as a systematic process rather than a metaphysical abstraction. -/- The First Law: The Law of Karma (Cause and Effect in Systems) -/- The first of the three universal laws is the law of karma, which extends beyond its traditional spiritual context to encompass the fundamental principle of cause and effect within any system. According to this law, all human decisions are outcomes of interconnected causes within biological, psychological, and social systems. Just as a machine functions only when its components work in accordance with mechanical principles, human decision-making follows natural patterns driven by internal and external causes. -/- For instance, when an individual decides to act with kindness, this decision does not emerge from an isolated act of free will. Instead, it results from accumulated experiences, moral teachings, biological predispositions, and environmental factors. The decision is part of a complex cause-and-effect chain that can be analyzed and understood within the framework of natural laws. -/- The law of karma demonstrates that human actions are neither random nor wholly autonomous. They are systematic responses to the internal and external stimuli interacting with the mind. Therefore, free will is not a supernatural or metaphysical phenomenon but a natural process governed by the principle of cause and effect. -/- The Second Law: The Universal Law of Balance -/- The second law in the universal formula is the law of balance, which states that all natural systems, including human consciousness, strive for equilibrium. This principle is observable in physical phenomena such as thermodynamics and ecological systems, but it also applies to human decision-making. Every decision seeks to restore or maintain a certain internal and external balance. -/- When individuals are exposed to misinformation, cognitive dissonance, or emotional disturbances, this balance is disrupted, leading to irrational or harmful decisions. For example, societal problems such as overpopulation, economic inequality, and environmental degradation often stem from decisions that violate the law of balance. Ignorance of this law results in societal imbalances that manifest as conflict, suffering, and systemic dysfunction. -/- In the context of free will, the law of balance reveals that decisions are influenced by the mind’s constant effort to restore equilibrium. When individuals are educated to understand this principle, they become more capable of making rational, well-informed decisions aligned with natural balance. The apparent freedom in decision-making is, therefore, a reflection of the mind’s adaptive response to external and internal conditions, not a mysterious, ungoverned phenomenon. -/- The Third Law: The Law of Systems Integration -/- The third universal law, the law of systems integration, explains that for any decision-making process to function correctly, the underlying system must be free of critical errors or distortions. Just as a computer cannot operate properly if its software is corrupted, human decisions become flawed when misinformation, irrational beliefs, or cognitive biases infiltrate the mental system. -/- Human decision-making does not occur in isolation; it is part of an integrated system involving sensory input, memory, reasoning, and external environmental feedback. If any component of this system is compromised, decisions will deviate from rational, balanced outcomes. For example, societies that rely heavily on dogma or misinformation struggle to make sound collective decisions, resulting in persistent social and economic problems. -/- By understanding the law of systems integration, we recognize that the integrity of decisions depends on the quality and accuracy of the information being processed. Free will, therefore, is not a matter of pure autonomy but a system-dependent phenomenon that requires reliable, unbiased inputs and well-functioning cognitive processes. -/- The Resolution of the Free Will Problem -/- The application of these three universal laws of nature provides the exact solution to the free will problem. Human decisions are neither random nor unbounded acts of personal freedom; they are outcomes of natural processes governed by cause and effect, the drive for balance, and the need for system integrity. Free will, as traditionally conceived, is an illusion rooted in a misunderstanding of these underlying natural laws. -/- By accepting the universal formula, society can move beyond the philosophical deadlock that has hindered intellectual and practical progress for centuries. This formula does not negate human responsibility; instead, it clarifies it by illustrating how decisions follow natural patterns that can be understood, predicted, and influenced through education, societal reforms, and scientific advancements. -/- Implications for Ethics, Justice, Science, and Society -/- The exact resolution of the free will problem through the universal formula has profound implications across multiple domains: -/- 1. Ethics and Moral Responsibility: Ethical frameworks must shift from abstract notions of free will to a system-based understanding of decision-making. Moral responsibility remains intact but is grounded in the recognition that actions result from natural causes. Education should focus on teaching individuals how to align their decisions with the law of balance, promoting rational, ethical behavior. -/- 2. Justice System Reform: Legal systems traditionally assume that individuals act with free will. The universal formula shows that actions stem from natural causes and systemic factors. Justice systems must, therefore, prioritize rehabilitation, education, and preventive measures rather than retribution. Understanding the natural laws of decision-making helps create more effective and fair legal practices. -/- 3. Scientific Advancement and AI Development: The universal formula offers a solid foundation for research in neuroscience, psychology, and artificial intelligence. By programming AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) to adhere to these natural laws, future AI systems can make more reliable, human-like decisions while avoiding cognitive distortions and biases. -/- 4. Educational Reforms: Education systems worldwide must integrate the universal formula to teach students about the natural laws governing human behavior. A holistic, science-based curriculum that emphasizes cause and effect, balance, and systems integration can combat misinformation, dogmatic thinking, and societal discord. -/- 5. Societal Progress and Global Harmony: Societies that understand and apply these universal laws can address complex challenges like overpopulation, environmental degradation, and social inequality. Decisions based on natural balance, rather than short-term economic or ideological gains, lead to sustainable, harmonious development. -/- Conclusion -/- The free will problem, once deemed an unsolvable philosophical puzzle, can be definitively resolved through Angelito Malicse’s three universal laws of nature. The law of karma reveals that decisions follow cause-and-effect relationships; the law of balance shows that choices aim to restore or maintain equilibrium; and the law of systems integration demonstrates the importance of accurate, unbiased information in decision-making. Together, these laws provide an exact, scientific explanation of human behavior, eliminating the need for metaphysical assumptions about free will. -/- By understanding and applying these natural laws, humanity can foster a more rational, ethical, and balanced society. This formula is not a theory—it is a complete, exact solution grounded in observable natural principles. The challenge now lies in implementing these insights within educational, legal, and societal frameworks to address the root causes of human suffering and societal dysfunction. The free will problem is solved; the task ahead is to ensure that this understanding becomes part of our collective knowledge and practice. -/- . (shrink)

A quick look at the concept of reflective equilibrium in philosophy.

We discuss the social-epistemic aspects of Catherine Elgin’s theory of reflective equilibrium and understanding and argue that it yields an argument for the view that a crucial social-epistemic function of epistemic authorities is to foster understanding in their communities. We explore the competences that enable epistemic authorities to fulfil this role and argue that among them is an epistemic virtue we call “epistemic empathy”.