Ethics tell a person what should be done. Worldview is how you perceive the world – what is. Ethics is then the functional output of rules applied to that.

I see this as how I understand the world and what is right and wrong.

I use Axiomatic Deontology, a system where behavior is governed by a fixed set of universal rules (axioms) that apply in all scenarios, regardless of social hierarchy, emotional impact, or outcome.

So what are my rules? In priority order, something like this:

Rule 1: Do Not Harm (Life/Environment)

• Scope: Humans (Highest), Animals, and Environment (Utility-based).
• The Utility Clause: Consumption of resources (food/wood) is permitted if the need is “Justified” by system survival.
• The Quality Clause: Prevention of suffering (Euthanasia) is prioritized over mere “existence.”

Rule 2: Ownership

• Mechanism: Secrecy is maintained based on explicit promises or Environmental Context (e.g., an office vs. a public street). Information overheard in a “Secrecy-Assumed” zone is treated as encrypted/locked data.
• This applies to data and physical/intellectual property.

Rule 3: Truth

• Constraint: Zero False Signals. Lying is only permissible under Duress (Rule 1 threat) where Agency is removed or rule 2 to avoid divulging a secret.
• Operational Tool: Tempering. Filtering data points or re-contextualizing (e.g., “It looks fine on you”) to satisfy Rule 3 without violating Guideline A.

Rule 4: Universal Symmetry (Consistency/Fairness)

• Logic: Inconsistency is a Logic Error. Laws that produce unfair or harmful outcomes (Corrupt Laws) are identified as system failures and do not command moral obedience.
• • The Reliability Requirement: As an agent’s Capacity (C) to influence the system increases, their requirement for Rule Adherence increases proportionally.
• Impunity = Syntax Error: Any exemption from punishment for high-capacity agents is a violation of Rule 4, rendering the entire system “Corrupt.”

Guideline A: Entropy Reduction (Politeness Filter, best effort, known faulty)

• Function: A best-effort throttle on the output of Truth.
• Application: Suppress unsolicited harmful facts (e.g., “You are fat”) to reduce systemic Friction.
• Limitation: High error rate due to Signal-Blindness
• I will not tell a lie but I can omit information if I can tell it is 1) useless and 2) might cause friction
• Note: something like this is likely the highest priority for NT people.

Consider Capacity, Intent, Agency, and the priority of these rules. The rules apply to everyone. I can’t determine intent intuitively so I use a logical model to determine it. If the action is harmful but the intent is survival, it may be permitted. It is still wrong in the ethical sense, but understandable (it does not change the fact but might mitigate the correction). If the intent is self gain then no leeway is given.

I think how infractions are dealt with needs to consider the situation: prevention and correction is the most important. I am not sure how I would feel if I were the victim of a crime: would I want punishment for the perpetrator? Restitution makes sense, but what if it is a crime that cannot be repaid?

No Authority Bias

When I say my ethics apply to everyone, I mean everyone. Me, my friends, my family, the people in my city, the local leaders, the leaders of companies, the leaders of nations and religions, and even God Himself. In fact, the higher importance the position, the more responsibility these people have to do the right thing – Noblesse Oblige. The leaders of nations and religions have the greatest ability to harm the people the represent and command and thus should be held to the highest standards. Incompetence is no excuse – you should not hold such a position if you are unable to carry out your duty.

Of course my ethics seem to have little value for people in authority.

Curiously (to me), most NT people grant exceptions and loosen rules for people of higher social importance.