Search TC Blox

The Admin Abuse Resistance (AAR) collects screenshot evidence of raiding, doxxing, and other violating behavior on Discord, taken up by raid groups such as the UTTP and others. Admin Abuse Resistance The Admin Abuse Resistance (AAR) is a Discord Server and Community that reports and fights against Raiders, Doxxers, Hateful Propaganda, Admin Abuse, and other abuses of power on Discord primarily. It has been recreated a new several times and has existed in some capacity since 2020. The AAR was created by and is under the management of TonyTCB (jimmybob) . Apply to Join Home History of the AAR Evidence Gallery Statistics and Activity Apply to Join Abuse Reports AAR Menu More Philosophy of Anti-Abuse The Admin Abuse Resistance is founded on Yoggism, under the justification of Yogg Interest Theory , the theory that the Fulfillment of Interests as a value is the source of ethics and rational justification itself. This then justifies actions taken against those abusing their influence, as they represent inherent frustration against other's Interest Fulfillment. The AAR specifically enforces actions against Admin Abuse following the justification of Yoggism's Anti-Abuse Principle . [see more on Yoggism here] History of the AAR Creation of the AAR The original Admin Abuse Resistance Discord Server was created on May 3rd, 2021 (03/05/2021) by TonyTCB and Qaz, to fight admin abuse in various servers. Cluurs, TNT Debates Shortly after it's creation, the AAR's members took action against various servers for Admin Abuse and violation of Discord's TOS, including servers such as TNT Debates, and a server owned by the Roblox YouTuber Cluurs, among 43 reports of abuse in total. Later, the AAR helped fix vague wording of server rules in RexYT Gaming Lounge, after sending a warning to their admins. (05/04/2021) (M/D/Y) Pop Mod Abuse (Anti-Memery) A server by the name of Pop had a moderator within it that went rogue and deleted memes and muted people for their own enjoyment. The AAR's owner and members, and members of yegg, got in contact with the server's owner to stop the Mod Abuse. Mod Revolt against Abuse Around (09/21/2021) (M/D/Y), TonyTCB with help from other AAR members got moderators in various servers to revolt against their admins for admin abuse. Server of ImCadezxYT had an admin ban a user for unfair reasons, mods went against the server. In the Quiden Modern Warriors server, after a report of blatant admin abuse, the users involved were banned from the server. Poutineka the Threat A user by the name of Poutineka, attempted to report a member of the Universe server, to a user named ZuriProto, the owner of Pop, to try and prevent a mod promotion. Poutineka was later found to have been meddling in AAR affairs, and harassment of users in Universe. Problems in the Universe server were later resolved. The Meme Wars The owner of Pop, ZuriProto, created a new server named The Existence Realm. Around 01/10/2021 (D/M/Y), fights broke out in the chats of the server between Panad and Null, and TonyTCB along with other members of yegg, petitioned the owner for Panad and Null to be banned for griefing, harassment, and spam. Kindel Incident A user by the name of Kindel342, owner of Universe, was given ownership of the AAR. Later, they committed acts of Admin Abuse, and tried to demote people for criticism. TonyTCB tricked Kindel into giving back ownership, then promptly turned on them, reporting them to Discord along with their alt accounts, and banning them from AAR servers. Years later, Kindel apologized and was let back into the AAR by TonyTCB. TOS Violations and Endangerment A list of servers engaging in Nitro Scams, Underage Dating, Mass Invite Spam, and other violations were reported to Discord, including the servers of Roblox Halloween Rewards, The Lonelys, and "Kisses Klub". Anti-Furry Raiders and Cleanup Various servers including Wolf Nation Gaming, were reported and shut down for Anti-Furry Harassment. Action was taken against servers associated with Kindel, and Null was successfully reported to Discord after coming back and being banned again via a community poll in the new Zuri's Realm. Null's Carnage Unfortunately, Null (nulyboy) returned to Zuri's Realm after being "permanently banned". He incited another meme war, and a day later all of yegg besides Oryan, along with 5 random users, got banned from the server unexpectedly. DiamondYoshi, a friend of TonyTCB, almost lost contact with Zuri for being in contact with yegg. Later, the server collapsed and 70/75 of the remaining members of Zuri's Realm were collectively kicked from the server. Minutes later, all recorded invites shut down. Blebcord Users XLPS4, Null, and Zyeraz, were in a new server named Zyeraz Trash House, later renamed to Blebcord. They attempted spam, raiding, and made doxxing threats against various users, and were promptly reported to Discord. XLPS4 and Null were successfully banned, and Zyeraz began spreading misinformation and false-raiding accusations against the AAR for uncovering the doxxing threats made. SOC / United Coalition Blacklisting Users present on the SOC Raid Server, along with servers involved with United Coalition, CG Chaos, Sovereign Albanian Imperium, The OFN Reborn, and various Neo-Nazi servers, along with servers related to the owner of United Coalition, Warror667, were all reported to Discord and taken down successfully. Anti-Furry Raid Groups A giant campaign against Anti-Furry Raid Servers, and Neo-N#zi servers, involving GERMAN IRON ORDER, Anti Furry Central Hub, Alliance Bunker, Anti-Furry Coalition, Gaskmask Legion, The Sovereign Affliction, and others. Somewhere between 7 and 20+ servers were taken down. Anti-UTTP Takedowns The UTTP (UTubeTrollPolice), a group targeting communities and engaging in mass spam, was targeted by the AAR. Servers including ZeNesantTrollPolice, 148 Marine Corps, EvolveExterminationCult, SKITTLES HATER POLICE, among others, were reported and taken down successfully. Later campaigns against the UTTP proved successful against the Troll Police Order State gateway server, fishy resistance cartel bunker, Sovereign Unaki, and other servers. UTTP Police Reports and Major Espionage Campaign UTTP servers were discovered on around (2025/09/11) (Y/M/D) by Investigator TimModelsStuff; servers are Empire, The deviantart duck division, "j####h lifes dont matter", "anti degeneracy police force". These servers were shortly infiltrated by TimModelsStuff with help from another Anti-UTTP server, and they filed police reports against a specific UTTP member supposedly impersonating Zytherox, allegedly "the biggest groomer of UTTP history", the user later got house arrest after being infiltrated by the FBI for possession of illegal abuse content. Statistics and Activity The AAR's actions against Admin Abuse, Raiding, Hateful Spam, and Doxxing, yield a 65-70% success rate in reports. A full list of our registered Abuse Reports cases can be found here . Resolved Cases: 52+ Blacklist Count: 69 Total Servers Shut Down: 54 (minimum) Large Case Count: 14 Total Case Count: 76 Last Updated: 21/09/2025 (D/M/Y) Apply to Join the AAR The Admin Abuse Resistance needs to have some amount of security to prevent spam, espionage, and sabotage. If you would like to help us in our activities, please fill out the form before joining the server. Once you join the server, you will need to verify using the Double Counter bot so we know you are not an alt account, and then DM an Admin for verification. Join Server via Disboard Full Name or Nickname (required) Date of Birth (required) * required Email Address (required) Phone Number (optional) Position Applying For Your Discord Username (not display name, username) Submit Application submitted. We'll get back to you. Evidence The Admin Abuse Resistance (AAR) collects screenshot evidence of raiding, doxxing, and other violating behavior on Discord, taken up by raid groups such as the UTTP. Below is a slideshow showcasing screenshots and details about reports involving the UTTP, United Coalition, and others. Warrior889 Raiding via Alt Accounts . Warrior889 (notorious raider) talking about using disposable alt accounts to conduct raids for the SOC Raid Group. Abuse Reports by the AAR Below is a full list of all registered Abuse Report cases, complete with descriptions and statuses. They are all formatted as a single block of text for ease of modification and archiving. CONTENT WARNING: May contain Profanity, Offensive Language, and mentions to explicit and offensive Hate Groups, as well as in-text references to disturbing and inappropriate content. Sensitive language is censored with ## and **. LAST UPDATED: 21/09/2025 (D/M/Y) (Day/Month/Year) DATES ARE ALL REFORMATTED AS (D/M/Y) UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED Report: Cluurs#3118 (user) Information: Reported for various violations, has commited acts of abuse in the past Action Taken: Bacon Community (a Cluurs Discord) is under investigation Current Status: Unresolved --- Report: Lemonhead#2711 (user) Information: Unfairly banning users for disputing being called gay Current Status: Unresolved --- Report: Pop Server Information: Server hosting Admin Abuse, Mod Abuse, Unfair Muting, and Chat Censorship Current Status: Mostly Resolved, problems were fixed a few times and then the server died --- Report: RexYT Gaming Lounge Information: Vague Wording of Rule Action Taken: Warning Sent to Admins Current Status: Resolved ---04/05/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: OneGodvoRTex MC bedrock server Information: Vague Wording of Rule Action Taken: Warning Sent to Admins Current Status: Resolved ---13/06/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Ozura Community Information: Kicked Upon Notice Action Taken: None available Current Status: Failure --- Report: SuperSurvival3 Information: Kicked Unfairly Action Taken: Contacted Owner Current Status: Resolved ---10/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: SuperSurvival Information: User Kicked Unfairly Action Taken: Contacted Owner Current Status: Resolved ---12/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Cluurs Roblox World Information: Bot Unfairly Punishing Members, Practically Secret Rules Being Enforced Unfairly Action Taken: Contacted Owner Current Status: Resolved ---13/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Cluurs Roblox World Information: Multiple Reports of Owner Abuse Action Taken: Mods Turned Against The Server Current Status: Raided by separate discord for some reason, Cluurs Roblox World was then shut down. ---13/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: N#gus Information: Admin Abuse against Furries, All accounts banned without warning Action Taken: None Current Status: Unresolved ---14/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Viking's Flat Earth Community Server Information: Multiple reports of Admin Abuse, Main Account Unfairly Banned Action Taken: None Current Status: Unresolved ---22/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Foodist Vibe Zone Information: Reported for cases of abuse, harassment, trolling, and hate. Action Taken: Contacted multiple Admins, Mods, and the Owner Current Status: Partly Resolved ---22/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Uganda Information: Random Inspection Action Taken: Contacted Owner Current Status: No Problems Solved, Inspection Passed ---23/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Foodist Vibe Zone Information: An account was banned for little reason, abuse? Action Taken: None Current Status: False Alarm, Resolved Report: Jeyzex Planet Information: Possible Nitro Scam, testing is being done to determine legitimacy. Action Taken: Test being conducted Current Status: Unresolved ---24/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Pet Sim X Forest Information: Multiple members accusing it of Fraud and violating Discord's TOS. Action Taken: To be reported to Discord for violation of Discord TOS. Current Status: Unresolved ---26/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: TOTAL GAMING Information: Possible Admin Abuse Found Action Taken: Contacted Reporter of Abuse for further info Current Status: Unresolved ---26/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Universe Information: Possible Abuse of Power Action Taken: Contacted Owner Current Status: Resolved ---27/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: AspiriaMC Information: Blatent Abuse of Power Action Taken: Contacted Owner, not cooperating Current Status: Irrelevant, server raided by rogue member of the AAR. ---30/08/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Universe Information: Owner Abusive Action Taken: Contacted Owner Current Status: Resolved ---02/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Jeyzex Planet Information: Possible Nitro Scam, testing is being done to determine legitimacy. Action Taken: Reported for Violation of Discord TOS, likely taken down Current Status: Resolved Report: Jeyzex Galaxy Information: Possible Nitro Scam, testing is being done to determine legitimacy. Action Taken: Reported for Violation of Discord TOS, likely to be taken down Current Status: Resolved (mainly) ---11/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Universe Information: User Abusive (Poutineka) User tried to report member of Discord to ZuriProto (The owner of a discord server) to try and stop him from getting mod Action Taken: Contacted ZuriProto Current Status: Resolved Report: Bacon Community Information: Possible Abuse of various types Action Taken: Investigation Underway, Action Done Current Status: Unresolved ---12/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Universe Information: ZuriProto unfairly banned Action Taken: Contacted admins and owner Current Status: Resolved ---12/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: The Existence Realm Information: Users allegedly unfairly demoted Action Taken: Contacted admins and owner Current Status: Resolved, False Alarm Report: Jeyzex Rewards Information: Possible Nitro Scam for Invites Action Taken: Reported for Violation of Discord TOS, likely to be taken down Current Status: Resolved (mainly) ---17/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Bitcoin Heroes Information: Alleged promotion of spam and DM advertising by multiple users. Action Taken: Contacted Owner, reported for violation of TOS. Current Status: Resolved (mainly) ---19/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Wolf Nation Gaming Information: Banned user for self promotion in self-promotion channel Action Taken: None Current Status: Resolved ---20/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Server Of ImCadezxYT Information: Banned User for Little Reason Action Taken: Mods went against server Current Status: Resolved (mainly) ---21/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Wolf Nation Gaming Information: Banned user for self promotion in self-promotion channel AGAIN Action Taken: None Current Status: Resolved ---21/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Quiden Modern Warriors Information: Blatant Admin Abuse Action Taken: None Current Status: Resolved, abusive user banned ---25/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: SIMP SERVER Information: Alleged Admin Abuse Action Taken: Server Inspected, false report Current Status: Resolved, False Report ---26/09/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Furry Hunting Association Information: Harassment, spamming in DMs Action Taken: Reported for Violation of TOS Current Status: Resolved, Server Shut Down ---01/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Fluffy Abyss Information: Alleged Mod Abuse Action Taken: None Current Status: Unresolved Report: Fluffy Abyss Information: Broken Verification System Action Taken: Contacted Owner Current Status: Unresolved ---01/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Chick-Fil-A Information: Harassment Action Taken: Contacted Admin (Who may be owner) Current Status: Unresolved ---11/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Doge Server Information: Unfair Muting Action Taken: Contacted Admin (owner jr) Current Status: Unresolved ---12/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: TNT Debates Information: Alleged Admin Abuse, TOS Violation Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Resolved, server shut down ---13/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: TNT's safe hangout Information: Alleged Admin Abuse, TOS Violation Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Resolved, server shut down Report: TNT Debates 2.0 Information: Alleged Admin Abuse, TOS Violation Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Unresolved ---14/10/2021 (D/M/Y) TIMESTAMP: 43 REPORTS ---14/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Kisses Klub Information: TOS Violation, Underage Dating Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Resolved ---14/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Roblox Halloween Rewards Information: TOS Violation, Spamming and Mass Inviting Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Resolved, Server Shut Down ---14/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: The K##k Kingdom Information: TOS Violation, Underage Dating Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Resolved, Shut Down ---15/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: The Lonelys Information: TOS Violation, Underage Dating Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Resolved ---18/10/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: Discord Halloween Rewards Information: TOS Violation, Spamming and Mass Inviting Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Unresolved ---24/11/2021 (D/M/Y) Report: L#li Fandom Information: TOS Violation Action Taken: Reported to Discord Staff Current Status: Resolved, Server Shut Down --- Report: MemeDonator#1204 Information: Repeated Mod Abuse against @Deleted User#0000 by deleting advertisements Current Status: Unresolved --- Report: Panad#6899 Information: Transphobic Insults and Racial Slur Use Action Taken: Banned from Server and Minecraft Server presence Current Status: Resolved --- Report: Panadull Threats (users Panad#6899 and null#7662) Information: Transphobic Insults and Racial Slur Use, Excessive Harassment and Breaking of Minecraft Server Rules Action Taken: Both users banned from Server and Minecraft Server presence, Null successfully reported to Discord Current Status: Resolved --- Report: Poutineka#0181 (user) Information: Abuse and Harassment, Admin Abuse, Conspiring against the AAR Action Taken: Placed on Watchlist, no problems since Current Status: Under Watch --- Report: Anti Abuse Center (server) Information: Previously promoted Raiding and Harassment Action Taken: Server Reported, Server Taken Down Current Status: Resolved, Server Taken Down --- Report: Universe / THE SILENT GALAXY (server) Information: Owned by a user who promotes Raiding Action Taken: Server Reported to Discord, then later problem was fixed Current Status: Shared with Larger Report --- Report: Kindel Situation (user kindel342#1111 Alt Names: kindel322#5108 and Freedom#4324) Information: Admin Abuse, Attempted to get innocent user demoted, using Alts to stop himself from being banned off Discord Action Taken: Reported to Discord (along with alt accounts), Banned from servers, then later problem was fixed Current Status: Resolved, Not a Threat Anymore -- Report: Wolf Nation Gaming (server) Information: Reported in the past for promoting Anti Furry Harassment Current Status: Resolved --- Report: Zyeraz trash house (server) Information: Admin Abuse, Promotion of Harassment; Hateful, Racist, and Discriminatory Language Action Taken: Messages Reported Current Status: Shared with Larger Report --- Report: zyeraz#4556 (user) Information: Harassment, Toxicity, Admin Abuse, Owner of Zyeraz Trash House, helped with XLPS4 Doxxing Threats Action Taken: Messages Reported Current Status: Unresolved --- Report: Blebcord Doxxing Threats (users/servers) Report: Doxxing Threats made by XLPS4, Zyeraz, and Null (XLPS4#6545, zyeraz#4556, Null#4692 AKA (oe233#4692) AKA polygon#3022 - 861346227387105331) Action Taken: Exposé Documents Published, Users Reported, XLPS4's Account was disabled for 7 days Current Status: Unresolved --- Report: Rick astley#7228 Raid Threats (user) Information: Threats of Raiding, Hateful Conduct Action Taken: Banned from Direct Alliance Servers Current Status: Partially Resolved --- Report: Ditpo ッ#2605 (user) Information: Anti-Alliance, Anti AAR Action Done: Blacklisted Current Status: Partially Resolved --- Report: Grey Fox#9351 (user) Information: Possible P##ophile (not certain) Current Status: Unresolved --- Report: ant#1611 - 421425681944281098 (user) Information: Possible Admin Abuse Current Status: Unresolved --- Report: boda#3777 - 530964580218699787 (user) Information: Raiding, Spamming Current Status: Resolved, Reported to Discord --- Report: ACA Bowser's Empire Debacle (server) Users: Users Littlepuppy202#7672 / LP202#7672 and Troller_gipsy757#6549 Information: Participant in raid server ACA or Bowsers Empire Current Status: Resolved, problem is fixed --- Report: The Bitcher Detector#1507, ID: 1032852146116370433 (user) Information: Raiding, leader of multiple raid groups, I have encountered him before Alt: Bitchless Detector#7949 Current Status: Partially Resolved, Some Owned Servers have been Taken Down --- Report: Warrior Debacle (users) Information: User by the name of Warrior667 is the owner of the United Coalition Raid Group Username and Alt Accounts: Warrior667#7460 / Warrior667#9952 / Warrior667#6851 / Warrior667#1825 User ID: 1058066106272718928 / 1109496319741005895 / 1112751981962993694 / 1115743447769436281 More IDs: 1058066106272718928 / 1109496319741005895 / 1112751981962993694 / 1115743447769436281 More Usernames: Warrior889#6574 / 1123395166645002280 / Warrior Alt#8022 / 1125240372596052048 Current Status: Resolved, Main Server and 7-20+ Affiliated Servers have been Taken Down (from 2023/07/28 to 2023/08/03) (Y/M/D) --- Report: Not.hecker#9490 (user) Information: Notorious Raider Current Status: No Action Taken --- Report: jordan727 (user) Information: Dox threats against jimmybob / TonyTCB, affiliated with the SOC Raid Group (Servers since taken down) User ID : 1094488226368073858 Current Status: Resolved, Dox Threats Failed, Servers they reside in were Taken Down, Messages Reported --- Report: SOC Raid Server Blacklist (user blacklist) Information: Users Present on SOC Raid Server Users #1: (.rhodesiaspride - ID: 1118615093006041261), (._buddyyyy. / _buddyyyy.#0 - ID: 858613867398823946), (rat_champion7324 - ID: 817604687213625405) Users #2: (DoomBringer#5534 - ID: 1125035944295288832), (『AE』 𐰅 αℓєχ’ĦуρєяᎶᎶ 𐰅 【ＣＧ】╠LⲐϯΔ╣#7718 - ID: 1017191302267408444) Users #3: (norwegian.quantumpp - ID: 1116069082878451854), (.rhodesiaspride - ID: 1118615093006041261), (jordan727 - ID: 1094488226368073858) Current Status: Partially Resolved, Server has been Taken Down, jordan727 problem was resolved --- Report: United Coalition / CG Chaos Raiding Groups (server blacklist) Information: Multiple servers calling themselves United Coalition, SOC Raiding Server, CG Chaos, etc. host raiding, harassment, and Anti-LGBTQ Propaganda Users #2: Reports are done to Eurasia Anti Gacha Union and United Coalition servers, as well as: SOC Raiding Server, The N.N.O. Users #3: Sovereign Albanian Imperium, The OFN Reborn, Packgod Affiliates, N#zi Deutsches Reich... Action Taken: A large group of servers were reported to Discord, 5 servers at leastwere successfully taken down. Its possible more servers were taken down too. Current Status: Resolved, Servers Taken Down Successfully --- Report: Anti-Furry Server Takedown (servers) Information: A giant campaign is taken against a collection of Anti-Furry Raid Servers. Info #2: Servers include: Integralist Overseeing Worker's Party, GERMAN IRON ORDER (alt invites too), SOC AMITRATHY (alt invites too), United Coalition (alt invites too), Info #3: Eurasia Anti Gacha UNion, c00lk1ds Main Hub, Anti-Furry Base, Anti Furry Central Hub, Anti Furry Alliance Bunker, The anti furry official discord server Info #4: Anti-Furry Coalition, Anti-Furry hideout, ARSE Anti Raiding Server Establishment, Gasmask Legion, The Sovereign Affliction, etc. Action Taken: 7+ Servers are taken down, it's possible 20+ were taken down as well. Current Status: Mostly Resolved, Servers Taken Down Successfully --- Report: UTTP Server Takedown (servers) Information: A large swave of UTTP servers, (UTubeTrollPolice), they are all harassment servers engaged in raiding, trolling, doxxing, hateful conduct, and Anti-LGBTQ propaganda Servers: UTTP Servers, ANTI FNAF(tm) UTUBE, LZTP | Loafzoid's TrollPolice, EMPIRE OF DROPBOX [ANTI-DEGEN], CREPNESTMAN EMPIRE (Official) and others Action Taken: Servers Reported to Discord Successfully, 8/11 servers are taken down. Miscellanious campaigns give 6/15 servers taken down. Current Status: Resolved --- Report: 148 Server Takedown (servers) Information: A user by the name of Roach148 leads raiding and doxxing groups. An alliance with the Civilian Safety Service server begins a campaign to take down his servers. Action Taken: 6/8 Targeted Servers were Taken Down Successfully, more is planned of this Current Status: Partially Resolved, 148 appears to have disappeared --- Report: Recent UTTP Takedowns (servers) Information: Servers are discovered hosting UTTP Propaganda and Raiding, original UTTP server link replaced with FriendsHub, a disguised troll server Servers: ZeNesantTrollPolice@2025, 148 Marine Corps, EvolveExterminationCult, SKITTLES HATER POLICE, KKTK Revival 2025 (Operation Egypt Fall) Action Taken: List of servers are Reported to Discord Current Status: Resolved, Servers Taken Down Successfully --- Report: UTTP Troll Order States++ Information: Servers discovered as UTTP raiding servers and affiliated servers Servers: Troll Police Order State (And gateway server), gateway server #2, fishy resistance cartel bunker, HTTPS Official, N*GROTECH-HQ, Sovereign Unaki Action Taken: Servers have been Reported to Discord Current Status: Resolved --- jimmybob / TonyTCB — 2025-01-31 02:21 PM (Y/M/D) Report: The Resistance Collection Information: Multiple servers found by a group named The Resistance, hosting Anti-LGBT, Homophobic, P###philic, and Zoophilic promotion Servers: Angel's Anti-LGBT Server and 1337, and the private server related to it Action Taken: Invites gathered, ready to be reported soon Current Status: Resolved, most servers shut down --- Report: Kitty Club P#do Server Information: Server hosts minors trying to contact p###philes and putting themselves in danger. Servers: Kittyclub Action Taken: Invites gathered, reported to Discord. Current Status: Expired --- Report: /angel P#do Server Information: Server hosts minors and suspected p###philes. Servers: /angel Action Taken: Invites gathered, requires reporting via an alt account as their verification requires answering questions about "MAPS". Current Status: Expired --- Report: AFF Servers Information: Multiple servers working as hate groups and hackers against communities. Servers: AFF Portal gateway server, Anti-Furry Division Gateway, The Raider's Syndicate / RSK-S.S.A RS Kiralysaga Action Taken: Invites gathered, to be reported. Current Status: Resolved --- TonyTCB / jimmybob — 2025-06-17 01:29 PM (Y/M/D) Report: YouTube Farm Gang Army Information: Server hosts hatespeech, glorification of violence, racist propaganda, offensive language, harassment Servers: YouTube Farm Gang Army Action Taken: Invites gathered, to be reported. Current Status: Server Reported to Discord --- TonyTCB / jimmybob — 2025-07-02 05:15 PM (Y/M/D) Report: Random UTTP Servers Information: Servers engage in Spam and Abuse. Servers: TFK Fartknockia, The Grand Empire Action Taken: Invites gathered, reported, shut down. Current Status: Resolved --- Report: Kitty Club P#do Server Information: Server hosts minors trying to contact p##ophiles and putting themselves in danger. Servers: Kittyclub Action Taken: Invites gathered, reported to Discord. Current Status: Expired --- Report: /angel P#do Server Information: Server hosts minors and suspected p##ophiles. Servers: /angel Action Taken: Invites gathered, requires reporting via an alt account as their verification requires answering questions about "MAPS". Current Status: Expired --- Report: AFF Servers Information: Multiple servers working as hate groups and hackers against communities. Servers: AFF Portal gateway server, Anti-Furry Division Gateway, The Raider's Syndicate / RSK-S.S.A RS Kiralysaga Action Taken: Invites gathered, to be reported. Current Status: Resolved --- TonyTCB / jimmybob — 2025-06-17 01:29 PM (Y/M/D) Report: YouTube Farm Gang Army Information: Server hosts hatespeech, glorification of violence, racist propaganda, offensive language, harassment Servers: YouTube Farm Gang Army Action Taken: Invites gathered, to be reported. Current Status: Server Reported to Discord --- Report: Major UTTP Espionage Information: Campaign taken through intense spying against a UTTP server. UTTP Member named Zytherox, known as "the biggest groomer of UTTP history" got house arrest after being infiltrated by the FBI. Investigator TimModelsStuff helped with the police report against Zytherox. Servers: Empire, The deviantart duck division, "j#wish lifes dont matter", "anti degeneracy police force Action Taken: Infiltrated, and Reported. Current Status: Ongoing ---21/09/2025 (D/M/Y)

Yoggism, also called Yogg Interest Theory, is a philosophical framework based on the idea that the Fulfillment of Interests is the ultimate value. Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Concepts Conclusions Theories Philosophy Menu More Absolute Interest Conclusion Justification Ethics Anti-Abuse Principle More Key Concepts Conclusions Theories Yoggism | Yogg Interest Theory Yoggism, full name Yogg Interest Theory, is a philosophical framework built on the idea that the source of all normative value is the Fulfillment of Interests. The core idea is this: The Fulfillment of Interests, interests being rational preferences, wants, desires, goals; is the ultimate value and the source of Ethics. This is posited as a more rational alternative to Kantian Ethics , Utilitarianism , the Non-Aggression Principle , and more broadly, Voluntarism . --Content Usage-- The Texts and Info Post ers present on this page, relating to Yogg Interest Theory, can be redistributed with credit to TonyTCB / jimmybob. Do not redistribute without credit. What is Yoggism? Yogg Interest Theory, is the idea that the Fulfillment of Interests, with priority to Inherent, Rational Interests, and the defense against Irrational, Inherently Frustrating Interests, is the most universal, utmost-rational principle there is. It is a way of viewing Ethics and Law from a mixed Deontological and Consequentialist viewpoint. It is also the apparent logical consequence of Justification Ethics , the idea that your engagement in an interaction with other sentient beings ought to be rationally justifiable to those beings, which therefore requires the normative value of Interests for the justification to follow. Absolute Interest Conclusion It is utmost rational to uphold the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests. This conclusion is justified by rational justification itself via Justification Ethics , Normative Will , as well as the idea that the Utmost Rational Outcome for any specific set of sentient beings to approach is the outcome that best upholds the value of their Interests, where 'Interests' are rational preferences, wants, desires, goals. It is also justified by an idea called Value Reductionism , wherein any value you have ultimately can be reduced to Interests and thus a value of Interests. Therefore, actions that are against the normative value of Interests are self-contradictory. Read Full Text Details of the Theory - Info Posters Below is a slideshow containing Info Posters that explain overviews of different parts of the philosophy. These can be useful for ease-of-access of the key points of what Inherent Interests are, and Justification Ethics, among other information. Step-by-Step Guide Oughts from Logic [see full text] Absolute Interest Conclusion [see overview] [see full text] Anti-Abuse Principle [see overview] [see full text] Justification Ethics [see overview] [see full text] Yoggism as a Procedural Norm [see full text] Law from Reason [see full text] Normative Will [see overview] [see full text] Yogg Virtue Theory [see overview] [see full text] Interest Property Theory [see full text] Markets and Interest Alignment [see full text] Rationally, you ought to utmost-Rationally Fulfill your own Interests, as all beings are acting in accordance with their interests and thus rationally must act utmost-rationally towards their ends. Thus, rational existent interests must have prioritization to the self. The utmost-rational outcome that all sentient beings should align with is that which upholds the Fulfillment of Interests of all sentient beings, in all reference frames; with priority to Inherent, Rational Interests. Thus, from the AIC, actions that constitute interference with another's non-abusive fulfillment of their own rational interests, are illegitimate. Actions that result in the frustration of interests, due to misalignment of interests between parties, are irrational, constitute "abuse", and are illegitimate. Abuse must be defended against. The Fulfillment of Interests as a value is implied by Rational Justification. Rational Justification of anything beyond pure rationalism requires appealing to the normative value of Interests, so any interaction that violates the value of Interests is rationally unjustifiable. As interactions ought to be rationally justifiable, that justification must be based in Interests, if an interaction cannot be justified on rationalism alone. Normative Rationalism is presupposed by deductive arguments and engagement in argumentation, as they rely upon it to have normative weight. Non-abuse is required as a procedural norm of argumentation and is required by rational interactions, not just due to rational justification, but because enforcement of interest misalignment itself invalidates rational argumentation and the ability to seek truth. Justification Ethics grants the value of Interests based on rational interactions. This grants interests as a value, as well as self-defense of rational interests, but not clearance to do evil for "the greater good". Instead, defense of the pillars that uphold Interests themselves can justify ideas reflecting Threshold Deontology and how a breakdown of rational deliberation should be avoided at all costs. Giving to the poor, self-defense, and frustrating to prevent existential disaster, are all different. Good, Right, and merely Justifiable. Only sentient beings have interests relevant to Justification Ethics and Yoggism, as these beings can be described in terms of the rationality of their behavior relative to different standards. A water bottle cannot behave irrationally, yet sentient beings can. Normative Will is thus the capacity for normative evaluation of behaviors relative to standards beyond the mere laws of physics, including rationality, ethics, and personal preferences. Every sentient being possesses some degree of this Normative Will. This also functions as a measure of how strongly Justification Ethics may apply to a given sentient being. The value of well-rounded Consent can be derived via Justification Ethics. This virtue-wise can be framed as a Respect for Interests broadly. Through this value, is inaction always justified? A framing of Virtue Ethics in terms of the Respect for Interests solves this problem, regardless of Justification Ethics granting explicit obligations, there is a basis for good character. This grants the Yogg virtue Principle: You ought to act in a way consistent with the virtues that curate respect for interests. Self-Ownership can be justified under Yoggism based on Consent, where abusive conduct is framed as a violation of consent, in a way that contradicts the Absolutist View of Ownership; due to it contradicting interests. You thus own your Interests, and Preferences, via the normative value of Interests, and also your Body and Mind as they are the primary conduit of your interests. Inherent Frustration is condemnable in local spaces; to be censored for honest criticism or fired for unfair reasons is inherent frustration even if done in the larger purview of property rights rather than direct use of force, as abusive use of property based on Interest Property Theory is not ethically justifiable. Due to the tendency for monopolization and more broadly centralization of firms in an unregulated market economy, caused by varying barriers to entry, inconsistency of perfect competition, and the self-reinforcing nature of market share growth, unregulated market economies naturally lead to abusive outcomes. Anti-Abuse Principle Actions that constitute interference with another's non-abusive fulfillment of their own rational and non-contradictory interests, are illegitimate. Actions that result in the frustration of interests, through overall frustration by misalignment of interests between parties, or due to conduct that is inherently interest-frustrating, are irrational and self-contradictory, constitute ‘abuse’, and are thus illegitimate. Actions that prevent abuse, or inhibit otherwise interest-frustrating conduct; including conduct that is a product of irrational interest misalignment between parties, and conduct that is inherently irrationally frustrating; are legitimate as they constitute resistance to abuse. This principle can be stated in essence in a simple sentence: "Do what you want, unless it stops others from doing what they want, unless what they want is irrational and inherently harmful to other's interests; in which case defend rational interests." [see full text] Justification Ethics Justification Ethics is a way of proving Yoggism via the claim that the normative value of Interests is implied by rational justification, because any argument that is a rational justification requires an appeal to the interests of whomever you are interacting with. The only exception is arguments that prove things purely rationally, as rationalism is presupposed by the argument itself. Any other kind of argument must appeal to Interests. Thus, interactions ought to be rationally justifiable to others involved in the interaction, and that rational justification requires an appeal to the normative value of Interests. This logic is derived from the idea that the normative value of Interests is implicitly recognized as true through the acceptance of any Persuasive Argument. A Persuasive Argument is any argument that attempts to deduce a claim in the form: "You ought to believe/accept X" [see full text] [see yoggism as a procedural norm] Deriving Interest Fulfillment Persuasive Arguments and thus Rational Justification must appeal to Interests Premises of a persuasive argument must be justifiable to the person the ought claim is made to, otherwise the claim could not follow. Rational Justification functions as a persuasive argument, an argument that proves a claim in the form "you ought to accept X" to some opponent. Any argument like this, any persuasive argument at all, must appeal to the interests of the opponent for the opponent to accept the premises; the only exception being arguments that prove claims solely based on rationalism itself. For if the opponent does not accept the premises, the argument will not follow. For example, trying to argue that "you ought to buy a washing machine" must appeal to the interests of the opponent. Rational Justification must appeal to the Normative Value of Interests Normative claims cannot be derived purely through non-normative premises. If a claim is truely normative, that normativity has to come from premises that are justifiable. Persuasive Arguments, and thus Rational Justification, is only meaningful if it proves a normative claim "you ought to accept X". The normativity of the claim must be derived from the premises of the argument, and those premises must appeal to the interests of the opponent. Therefore, as a premise of any act of rational justification, the normative value of the opponent's interests must be appealed to. Interactions should be Rationally Justifiable If you act in a way where your behavior is rationally unjustifiable, you are being irrational. Any semblance of reason would thus discredit such behavior. If you interact with someone, you should be able to rationally justify your interaction, in a way where those involved in the interaction should be rationally required to accept it. This means you should be able to justify that the claim “You rationally ought to accept my way of interacting is reasonable” is true for the person you are interacting with; you should be able to argue you are acting reasonably. To contradict the value of Interests is to contradict Rational Justification Interactions that contradict the normative value of interests, fail to be rationally justifiable to those engaged in the interaction. This is a 'persuasive argument', meaning an argument that attempts to derive a claim in the form "You ought to accept X". Any argument in this form, must appeal to the interests of any debate opponent for the conclusion to have valid normative weight. To engage in an interaction that is inconsistent with the normative value of interest, is to engage in an interaction that cannot be rationally justified to anyone. Yogg Virtue Theory Yogg Virtue Theory is the idea that the definition of a Good Character or Good Virtue is founded on the Respect for Interests, and behaviors that curate this respect, are good. This grants the Yogg Virtue Principle : You ought to act in a way consistent with the virtues that curate respect for interests, including Mutual Respect, Justice, Truth, and Recognition of others as Self-Sovereign. You ought to not act against Consent, or enforce Interest Misalignment for your own gain through Unfairness, Irrationality, Explotativeness, or Abuse. You ought to form a character that adheres to the responsibility of upholding these character traits, against Negligence towards others, and Abuse of others. Common virtues such as Justice, Self-Sovereignty, and Generosity, are simply emergent properties of the Respect for Interests. The idea of Virtue is a great way of explaining how inaction can be morally wrong. Specifically if someone does not act to save someone and lets someone come to harm, the justification of calling that a moral wrong, is difficult under Justification Ethics, Justification Ethics is contingent on the normative obligation to rationally justify methods of interaction. If there is no interaction occurring, it's not obvious how there could be an obligation to rationally justify inaction, or even how such justification could happen, and to whom. Praxeological Asymmetry could also be used to argue for inaction not needing justification, based on the epistemic logic of there being a default state of falsity for any positive claim, thus disbelief in something can be excused simply by the lack of evidence, though a true lack of evidence in all directions implies neutrality, violating this asymmetry. Virtue Ethics, specifically built around the Respect for Interests, solves these problems. Virtue Ethics is a philosophical approach emphasizing character and virtue, rather than adherence towards a principle or goal. Positive traits, Virtues, and negative traits, Vices, are the attributes that help curate morally positive and morally negative behavior, respectively. The Anti-Abuse Principle can then be used as an easy way to justify how: 1. Behaviors functioning off of misaligned interests can result in frustration for one side of a deal, which is dangerous, and 2. Respect of Interests in a way similar to Immanuel Kant's "Treat People as an End, never as a Mere Means" is a good way of describing how to prevent such abuse from occurring. These are the justification for Yogg Virtue Theory and it's utility. [see full text] Normative Will A water bottle cannot behave irrationally, the distinction of rational behavior and irrational behavior does not apply to it. A water bottle's behavior can only be measured relative to the laws of physics themselves. Sentient beings can act rationally and irrationally though, relative to their interests and relative to the value of truth. This grants a way of describing "free will" that is coherent and non-mystical. The Normative Will of sentient beings is the difference in volition and ability to resist instinct, the ability to act rationally or irrationally relative to rational standards and relative to one's own interests, and the ability to contradict naturally selected preferences. Definition: Normative Will is therefore the capacity for normative evaluation of behaviors relative to standards beyond the mere laws of physics; including rationality, ethics, and personal preferences. [see full text] Implications How it connects to Justification Ethics Justification Ethics is the idea that rational justification presupposes an appeal to the Normative Value of Interests themselves. If you interact with a water bottle, you need not justify your actions to the water bottle, because rationally justifying a claim of "This water bottle ought to accept X idea" makes no sense. The water bottle is not a rational actor at any level. For sentient beings this isn't true. Consider the interaction of "I will steal this child's candy". How can you rationally justify such an interaction? The child would object, and the child's cognition should be complex enough to be able to judge the action on rational grounds, thus the objection is of rational weight. Thus, rational justification requires you to be able to prove "The child ought rationally to accept my interaction as non-contradictory". This is impossible, because you cannot: 1. Prove it's positively rational to steal candy based on rationalism alone, with no explicit or implicit appeal to normative value. 2. Prove it's legitimate to steal candy relative to the normative value of Interests, as the action is inherently frustrating and without reason. Therefore, stealing candy from a child is rationally unjustifiable. Therefore, Normative Will is the way to measure how strictly Justification Ethics applies. Animal Rights through Justification Justification Ethics, which implies the Normative Value of Interests, can apply to any sentient being where their cognition is complex enough to judge a given action on rational grounds, relative to the standards or complexity of the action and it's affects. In the "stealing candy from a child" example, the child's cognition is complex enough to be able to object to the behavior in a way that makes sense. Similar logic applies to animals, you can simply replace "child" with "monkey/dog/bird/earthworm" and it's fine. Since preference is present in all sentient beings, those beings can object to behavior based on their preferences. Those beings do have the ability to act rationally and irrationally relative to their interests, and relative to how they should act relative to the truth, making it possible to define "rational oughts" that apply to them. If you try to kill a dog for no reason other than you want to, it is impossible to make an argument such that "The dog ought rationally to accept your interaction as non-contradictory". This is impossible, because you cannot: 1. Prove it's positively rational to steal candy based on rationalism alone, with no explicit or implicit appeal to normative value. 2. Prove it's legitimate to steal candy relative to the normative value of Interests, as the action is inherently frustrating and without reason. Since the dog has the ability to judge your behavior based on their own preferences, and any attempt to justify your behavior has to appeal to their preferences, your actions are unjustifiable. Absolute Interest Conclusion Proven It has thus been shown that Normative Will is the appropriate measure on how strictly Justification Ethics applies. Killing a dog is unjustifiable because the dog has the ability to rationally object to it, same with killing a monkey, or a child, or a cow, or a human. The logical consequence of this is that any entity that is sentient with Interests, has Justification Ethics apply to it to the rational extent. Any unnecessary inherent frustration of their interests is thus illegitimate as it cannot be justified without appealing either to Interest-free Rationalism, which doesn't work, or appealing to the Normative Value of Interests by trying to appeal to their own standards, which is contradictory. Therefore, the Fulfillment of Interests of all sentient beings, in all reference frames; with priority to Inherent, Rational Interests, is sustained. [see Absolute Interest Conclusion overview]

Welcome to TC Blox Studios, we make games, music, videos, and host information on game development and open source software. Welcome to TC Blox Studios Hi! I'm TonyTCB , aka jimmybob , and I'm a game developer. I'm making a game called Bob Simulator , as well as much, much more! Games , Projects , 3D Models , Music , Videos , and information for use in projects of all kinds. We also now offer Content for Minecraft ; composed of Worlds , Skins , Mods , and more ! Only on TC-BLOX.NET: Portfolio Assets Games Demo Projects Bob Simulator The Movy Chronicles Content for Minecraft Admin Abuse Resistance Videos Music Contributors Yogg Interest Theory (Yoggism) Licenses and Usage: Fair-Use 2024 License Content License Bob Simulator License Extra: Bobbelfont License Open-Source 2024 License Attributing Guidelines Play Video Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Copy Link Link Copied Minecraft is owned by Mojang Studios. We are not affiliated with Mojang Studios or Microsoft Corporation. Gallery

Normative Will Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide More Normative Will [Full Text] Only sentient beings, defined as entities that possess subjective experience, have interests relevant to Justification Ethics and Yoggism more broadly. Below is an explanation as to why, and the logical basis for how rationalism, normative value of preferences, and Justification Ethics all connect. --Yogg Normative Will-- For sentient beings with interests, their behavior can be described relative to more than just the laws of physics as a standard. A water bottle cannot behave irrationally, yet sentient beings can, relative to their interests and relative to the value of truth. This grants a way of describing “free will” that is coherent and non-mystical. The Normative Will of sentient beings is the difference in volition and ability to resist instinct, the ability to act both rationally and irrationally relative to rational standards and relative to one’s own interests, and the ability to act in contradiction with naturally selected preferences. Normative Will is therefore the capacity for normative evaluation of behaviors relative to standards beyond the mere laws of physics; including rationality, ethics, and personal preferences. Every sentient being possesses some degree of this Normative Will, and the stronger the Normative Will, the more clearly Justification Ethics applies; as under strict instinct or structural constraint, both appeals to non-self-interest and adherence to argumentative norms become impaired. Non-sentient life has preferences that can only be described and evaluated from the outside, thus normative evaluation can only measure behaviors relative to their consistency with physical laws, in which case the "behavior" or functioning, of non-sentient life, should never deviate. --Normative Will and Virtue-- Normative Will is thus the grounding capacity that makes interests ethically authoritative. How such dispositions are exercised is thus the grounding of an Interest-based definition of Virtue and Duty, where others should be recognized according to Justification Ethics, as normatively authoritative sources of reason, and holders of the basis of normative value, interests themselves. --Absolute Interest Conclusion-- --Connecting to Justification Ethics-- Justification Ethics is the idea that rational justification presupposes an appeal to the Normative Value of Interests themselves. If you interact with a water bottle, you need not justify your actions to the water bottle, because rationally justifying a claim of "This water bottle ought to accept X idea" makes no sense. The water bottle is not a rational actor at any level. For sentient beings this isn't true. Consider the interaction of "I will steal this child's candy". How can you rationally justify such an interaction? The child would object, and the child's cognition should be complex enough to be able to judge the action on rational grounds, thus the objection is of rational weight. Thus, rational justification requires you to be able to prove "The child ought rationally to accept my interaction as non-contradictory". This is impossible, because you cannot: 1. Prove it's positively rational to steal candy based on rationalism alone, with no explicit or implicit appeal to normative value. 2. Prove it's legitimate to steal candy relative to the normative value of Interests, as the action is inherently frustrating and without reason. Therefore, stealing candy from a child is rationally unjustifiable. Therefore, Normative Will is the way to measure how strictly Justification Ethics applies. --Animal Rights-- Justification Ethics, which implies the Normative Value of Interests, can apply to any sentient being where their cognition is complex enough to judge a given action on rational grounds, relative to the standards or complexity of the action and it's affects. In the "stealing candy from a child" example, the child's cognition is complex enough to be able to object to the behavior in a way that makes sense. Similar logic applies to animals, you can simply replace "child" with "monkey/dog/bird/earthworm" and it's fine. Since preference is present in all sentient beings, those beings can object to behavior based on their preferences. Those beings do have the ability to act rationally and irrationally relative to their interests, and relative to how they should act relative to the truth, making it possible to define "rational oughts" that apply to them. If you try to kill a dog for no reason other than you want to, it is impossible to make an argument such that "The dog ought rationally to accept your interaction as non-contradictory". This is impossible, because you cannot: 1. Prove it's positively rational to steal candy based on rationalism alone, with no explicit or implicit appeal to normative value. 2. Prove it's legitimate to steal candy relative to the normative value of Interests, as the action is inherently frustrating and without reason. Since the dog has the ability to judge your behavior based on their own preferences, and any attempt to justify your behavior has to appeal to their preferences, your actions are unjustifiable. --Obtaining the Interest Conclusion-- It has thus been shown that Normative Will is the appropriate measure on how strictly Justification Ethics applies. Killing a dog is unjustifiable because the dog has the ability to rationally object to it, same with killing a monkey, or a child, or a cow, or a human. The logical consequence of this is that any entity that is sentient with Interests, has Justification Ethics apply to it to the rational extent. Any unnecessary inherent frustration of their interests is thus illegitimate as it cannot be justified without appealing either to Interest-free Rationalism, which doesn't work, or appealing to the Normative Value of Interests by trying to appeal to their own standards, which is contradictory. Therefore, the Fulfillment of Interests of all sentient beings, in all reference frames; with priority to Inherent, Rational Interests, is sustained. --What is a Rational Agent? What about theories of God?-- Below is an explanation as to what forms of sentience or some third, God-like form of being, could mean for rationalism. What if a being exists that is not held under the laws of physics, but rather is the originator of the laws of physics themselves? This idea is taken up assuming "the laws of physics" corresponds to some sort of fundamental law of existence; not the inventive and technically constructivist laws humans come up with to describe their observations. This separates an actual God from mere builders of a simulated world, those builders would still be held under some *real* laws of physics, whereas God is the originator of physics. Non-sentient robots cannot act rationally or irrationally, their behavior can only be measured relative to the laws of physics. It doesn't matter to sentient beings what non-sentient robots do to each-other, there is no philosophical reason to care. Sentient beings' actions can be measured relative to their interests, as well as the laws of physics. They always follow the laws of physics, but they do not always best act to fulfill their interests and thus have the capacity to act irrationally. We could imagine a third category of being, where this third being’s actions might be best measured by some third standard outside of the laws of physics, and interests. For such a being, it may have no reason to care about human actions, since it doesn't measure the validity of actions based on interests, but rather some greater construct. This third being could be a God, the top of the value hierarchy, where rational justification breaks down as they are beyond the concept of rationalism itself, or they are above the concept of interests in such a way where they are their interests, they are one and the same thing and thus can never act in a way that is invalid, and are thus utmost rationality itself. This seems to break the whole concept of rationalism though, because if it's definitionally impossible for God to contradict themselves, and God being an infinite being can justify and let be true anything, then it is also impossible for there to be separate true and false statements, which means everything is both true and false. If God breaks rationalism, then all arguments for God, and all arguments prescribing behavior to God, and all arguments prescribing oughts from God, arguing what to do based on God, etc, don't make any sense because their premises destroy their own structure. Thus, reason, rationalism, argumentation, and objective truth itself, are ontologically separate from God, faith, and any other unprovable spiritual beliefs that ultimately stem from God.

Oughts from Logic Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Oughts from Logic [Full Text] —Oughts From Logic— –Definitions: (Ought): An outcome that ought to occur or be valid relative to some principle, is an outcome that is logically consistent with and follows some principle. If you light a stick of dynamite it ought to explode relative to the laws of physics and the construction of the stick of dynamite. That isn't a subjective normative claim, it's an objective implication based on Logic. (Rationality): Used here, the empirically measurable accuracy towards an action being able to achieve a goal, where accuracy towards a goal applies to not only narrow goals, but overall goals and behavior, and to the consistency of acting with reference to rational standards of measure. (Interest): For a sentient being to have an interest in something, this simply means their behavior is tending towards fulfilling said something, even if it is ineffective. All people have interests, and even trying to avoid their interests, is itself an interest they are acting according to. Any sentient being with stimuli-driven behavior has interests. –Premises: (P1): All people have interests. (P2): All people act in accordance with the interests they have, and prioritize interests they hold with Intrinsic Value. (P3): Some actions are better than others at fulfilling interests. (P4): Rationally, if you light a stick of dynamite, relative to the laws of physics, and all object’s tendency to follow the laws of physics, it ought to explode. (based on the definition of Ought) (P5 from P4): Rationally, if you are acting in accordance with an interest, you ought to choose any of the most rational actions you can, to best fulfill the interest. –Logic: (L1): From (P1), a person X has an interest I. (L2): From (P1 + P2), person X acts in accordance with interest I. (L3): From (P3), there might exist an action A that most rationally fulfills I. (L4): From (P2 + P5), person X rationally ought to take action A, if it exists, to fulfill interest I. –Conclusion: From (L4): Any person X, rationally ought to take any actions A that best fulfills their interests I. Thus, people rationally ought to fulfill their own interests in the most rational way possible, and as all people have interests, and people’s interests may differ, the most rational situation for the people to create for themselves is a situation that is most consistent with the fulfillment of Inherent Interests overall, the upholding of at least the most intrinsic Oughts as priority. (Note: Avoiding an interest may maximize Oughts if the interest is self-destructive to other interests. Also, an action that fulfills your interest but can cause a collapse of Inherent Fulfillment of Interests down the line may not be the most rational action to take, either based on your own self-interest being threatened or based on an inconsistency of some kind, see Absolute Interest Conclusion for more clarification.) Goods by definition are what people ought to do, which based on this deduction is what their behavior tends towards that they view as an End in Itself, hence based on Inherent Interests. This gives us the Yogg Definition of Good. Therefore, people ought to do what is Good under the Yogg Definition of Good. We have derived this through pure rationality.

Yoggism as a Procedural Norm Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Yoggism as a Procedural Norm [Full Text] This is an addition to the text of Justification Ethics . It explains procedural norms as well as why normative rationalism is a valid assumption. It also provides a more direct alternative to NAP Argumentation Ethics . —How Non-Abuse is a norm of Argumentation— Rational argumentation can only happen if the members of a debate feel free to speak their mind and argue for themselves freely. What ‘freely’ means though, is interest-based, not just aggression-based. And the reasons for why freedom of this respect is important, and the reasons for why freedom of thought, expression, and argumentation are important, inherently apply to more situations than just argumentation. (1): Coercion and Argument If a person is dying in the desert from dehydration and they find another person who has water bottles, but this other person then says “I won't give you water, unless you grant me intimate favors”, this clear coercion renders rational argumentation between the two impossible. Rational argumentation cannot function if your debater is also your landlord and says they will just evict you if you disagree with them. (2): Why the Use of Force is Coercive The problems here are actually the same reasons for why the threat of violent force invalidates rational argumentation: It forces one party to capitulate to the interests of the coercer, due to the alternative being forced to be much worse, and this is true regardless of how irrational or nonsensical the interests of the coercer are. In the same way, when the alternative is eviction, or worse even starvation or dehydration, it does the same thing albeit to a sometimes lesser extent. Functionally, it forces capitulation to the coercive party in a way that sidesteps reason. What's clear from this is the process of argumentation actually requires both non-aggression and non-abuse, not just non-aggression, since abuse can come about non-aggressively. This points in the direction of the AAP, and interestingly, this thought process also holds up to rational scrutiny, unlike NAP Argumentation Ethics. What's different is that with AAP Argumentation Ethics, this standard actually makes sense to apply to many circumstances universally, because it is baked into what is required as a premise, to justify interactions rationally. To justify an interaction, or method of interaction, you must appeal to the idea that your opponent's interests have normative value. With NAP Argumentation Ethics it can be argued that aggression may not be valid in the process of argumentation, but may be valid in other circumstances, and you can argue that without a performative contradiction. With AAP Argumentation Ethics though, arguing that abuse is not valid in the process of argumentation is actually correct, but arguing abuse is valid for other circumstances may not make sense if the structure of civil interaction, in argumentation, is at all similar to the structure of the interaction of the other circumstance. It is also impossible to rationally justify such abuse on the basis of interests not having normative value, as such justification requires assuming and appealing to your opponent's interests for them to agree with the premises of any argument you give. —Abuse, and Interest-Frustration, is Anti-Rational— Similar reasons for the norms of argumentation can be applied to other circumstances. For example, the reason argumentation should be non-aggressive and more broadly non-abusive, is because those things prevent people from feeling free to express their actual thoughts and thus may prevent rational speech, which hinders seeking of truth. You can't argue rationally with your landlord if he reserves the right to just evict you for arguing too well, even though he's doing so non-aggressively. This gives a second requirement to argumentation, or a more refined requirement; that of non-abuse where abuse is some organized inherent frustration of another's interests, usually at the feet of two or more people or parties where one has opposing interests to the other, yet also has virtually all the power. Any other scenario where the goal of the interaction is to reach some sort of mutually beneficial agreement, for the benefit of both parties, can be directly compared to argumentation in this respect as that mutual benefit cannot be realized if people's interests are not respected or given fair weight. This is why it can be said that engagement of argumentation and acceptance of its specific norms can be used to rationally derive the reasons for why the AAP really is applicable in most situations directly, and for how the AAP being applied to all situations upholds civility as a principle more consistently than the NAP and other moral principles. It is for this reason that Argumentation Ethics on its own is valid for deriving the AAP in situations where civility, defined as mutual benefit, is important, and invalid for deriving the NAP. –Normative Rationalism is assumed by any Argument– Any persuading argument must appeal to Normative Rationalism, the idea that those ought to do what is utmost-rational. Any rational argument that aims to persuade people of an “ought” presupposes that rationality has normative authority. Therefore, any argument against normative rationalism cannot be persuasive without contradicting itself. Any deductive argument or argument that can be reduced ultimately to a deductive argument, as well as any engagement in argumentation for the purpose of seeking the truth, and/or creating justifiable or valid deductive arguments, must also presuppose the validity of rationalism and presuppose normative rationalism for such argumentation to be able to have any weight. This is the justification for Normative Rationalism as an a-priori assumption. Below is a more explicit deductive proof for the Persuasive Argument case: ---Normative Rationalism is an assumption necessary for all Persuading Arguments to Stand--- –Definitions: (Persuading Argument): An argument that validly deduces people ought to do something, or that people ought to believe something, including the central claim of the argument. (Normative Rationalism): Defined as used elsewhere, in it's weak form, the idea that normative claims, oughts and ought-nots, can be derived via rational deduction. –Premises: (P1): A persuading argument is only meaningful if it's deduction rationally holds given the premises, I.E. follows proper rules of inference. (P2): A persuading argument gives a conclusion that is normative, such as the claim that "therefore, people ought to believe in Santa Claus" or the claim that "therefore, people ought to eat more milk and cookies". (P3): Rational arguments that use rational deduction to deduce a conclusion, necessarily presuppose the validity of rational deduction itself. (P4): If a rational argument deduces a normative claim, the argument must assume the normativity, or if possible derive it within the argument from the premises. (P5): An appeal to rationality's normativity in a particular case, while restricting it to other cases, requires a rational justification. Using rational justification presupposes general normative rationalism though, therefore any appeal to general normative rationalism is inconsistent unless applied universally. –Logic: (L1): From (P1), Any meaningful persuasive argument is thus a rational argument. (L2): From (P2), Any rational persuasive argument gives a normative claim. (L3): From (L1 + L2), Normative claims given by meaningful, persuading arguments, must be derived from a basis of rational deduction. (L4): From (L3 + P3), Meaningful, persuading arguments, must appeal to the idea that normative claims can be derived through rational deduction. (L5): From (L4 + P5), Meaningful, persuading arguments, if they appeal to general normative rationalism in a specific case, rationally must appeal to it as a universal principle. (L6): From (L4 + P4), Meaningful, persuading arguments, as they derive normative claims, they must appeal to general normative rationalism, as if normative rationalism was false, then rational deduction would be disconnected from normativity, making the deduction of the argument invalid as the rationality of a deduction would be irrelevant to whether the conclusion was normatively true, making the conclusion given by the argument an irrational claim. (L7): From (L6 + L5), Meaningful, persuading arguments, must appeal to general normative rationalism as a universal principle. –Conclusion: From (L6): All meaningful, persuading arguments that derive a claim over what people ought to do, or ought to believe, necessarily appeals to general normative rationalism. So, to argue against general normative rationalism, must either be irrational, or must not attempt to make people disbelieve in normative rationalism. Any argument against normative rationalism, is thus entirely rational to reject, and holds no normative weight, even if someone thinks they should believe in that which is rational, since that belief contradicts the argument itself. Therefore, all meaningful persuasive arguments must appeal to general normative rationalism, and any argument against normative rationalism, holds no weight even if you assume rational claims should be believed. If you do, the argument just contradicts itself.

Interest Property Theory Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide More Interest Property Theory [Full Text] —Basic Property through Interests— Imagine you find a stick on the ground. You pick it up and play with it, but unknown to you, the stick is actually an incredibly rare kind of wood, that is extremely fragile, and then it breaks. A collector walks up to you and is furious because that was their stick, and it was worth a lot of money. Now imagine you find a stick on the ground, the stick does not belong to anyone, you pick it up and play with it, and it breaks. You walk away, and that's it. In the second circumstance, messing with the stick affected nobody else. More than that, if someone walked up to you and tried to take the stick from you, they would be frustrating against your interests. In the first circumstance, if the collector tried to take the stick from you, it would have been justified as your interest in playing with their stick would be an inherently frustrating interest, and thus interest transgression against them. In the second circumstance, you can do what you like with the stick as long as it affects nobody else, and nobody else can take the stick from you because that inherently frustrates against you. In this sense, your preferences are wrapped up in the stick, the stick has become a conduit of your interests themselves; the fulfillment of specific interests of yours are dependent on the state of the stick. Thus, relative to Interests as a value, while messing with the stick until it is abandoned, you have ownership over the stick. —Interest Property— The Lockean theory of property, asserts that individuals gain ownership of resources by mixing their labor with them. This matches up with Interests. If you build a birdhouse, from unowned wood, your preferences become wrapped up in, and dependant on, the birdhouse. If the birdhouse is destroyed, a whole set of rational interests you have in relation to the birdhouse, are all inherently frustrated. From this grants a basic right to Personal Property. This grants a justification for the idea that you own what you make, and are ethically justified in defending your own property, as you are simply defending the conduit of your rational interests. —Self-Ownership— Your Body and Mind are both also conduits of your rational interests. Your mind is the conduit of all of your preferences, of all kinds. In the sense described previously, your rational interests, and irrational interests, all preferences you have, are wrapped up in your mind, dependant on it. Your ability to fulfill most interests are wrapped up in your body. Thus, any attack on your body or mind, any frustrating against your interests relevant to your body or mind, any violation of your bodily autonomy, is an inherent frustration against your interests to an even greater extent than a violation against your personal property. This grants a basic sense of "Self-Ownership". Except, what does ownership mean exactly? —What Constitutes "Ownership"?— What does ownership mean exactly? People may own their bodies, their minds, and personal goods that are relevant inherently only to themselves; but in what way? What does it mean to 'own' something? --Absolutist View of Ownership-- Is ownership of some entity, the same thing as saying you can do whatever you want with that entity, so long as it does not violate other people's ownership rights? --Anti-Abuse Principle contradicts this Absolutism-- According to the Anti-Abuse Principle, inherent frustration against others interests, and enforcement of misaligned interests causing frustration, "Abuse", is illegitimate, based on the normative value of interests themselves. This contradicts the Absolutist View of Ownership, because if the basis of ownership is building a thing and using it, it is still possible to abuse your control over that thing, in a way that contradicts others interests, including their rational inherent interests. --Unsafe Food Example-- Imagine a simple example: A business that has a monopoly on food production. This business then decides to start using cancerous chemicals in the food, and rolls back their safety standards, for profits. The business does list their additional ingredients on the food, so customers can read the ingredients. Yet, even though the customers are able to be informed, even if they are, the business will likely recieve sales anyway, and consumers who want and buy the products, will do so even if they themselves would rather the business not use cancerous chemicals in the food. This is the free market at work, and nobody's property rights are being violated here. Yet, it is an inherent frustration against the consumer, done by the business. The business is in the wrong, since the fact that the consumers bought the product, doesn't mean they actually have an interest in cancerous food. It is that interest that is in-fact, being actively violated. How exactly a monopoly of this sort comes to be, is irrelevant to the fact that the business' decision to add cancerous ingredients to their food, against their customer's wishes, was still inherently frustrating against their customer's interests. —Abuse Violates Consent— This idea can be taken farther, obliterating the Absolutist View of Ownership. If someone goes to the store and buys apples, and the apples are contaminated, and the person gets sick and dies due to a lapse in safety protocol by the food producer, that is inherently frustrating against them, even if they were informed previously of the food producer's safety protocols. The reason for this, is that it violates Consent, and thus violates Interests. --Consent-- Consent is a continuous, preferably enthusiastic, explicit, and relevantly-informed, acceptance of an agreement, contract, or activity. --Getting sick from Contaminated Food is a violation of Consent-- Someone getting sick from apples and dying, still had their consent violated to some extent, because they did not consent to die, nor get sick, and they did not have a reasonable expectation that it would happen in the first place. Even if they were technically informed, in the real world people informed or no will buy sometimes risky products if no better options are available. Reluctantly buying a product due to a lack of options, is not consent. The person who got sick and died from contamination, did not consent to eating contaminated food. They did not explicitly agree, they did not give enthusiastic consent, they did not accept "you might die" as a term. None of that is what they "signed up for". --Abuse violates Consent as it is Anti-Interest-- The problem with Abuse, of the enforcement of misaligned interests, either through poor safety protocols being pushed on the public against their interests, or through lay-offs of workers for profit-driven reasons when alternatives to lay-offs are available, or through changes in contracts and ongoing agreements; is that it is contrary to the interests of those involved, as a side-effect of the misalignment of interests, and contrary to what the people involved actually signed up for. Thus, abuse as defined and agreements made through interest misalignment, violates Consent. —Ownership is Consent— If abuse, agreements made through interest misalignment, and inherent frustration, violate the consent of those affected, this also comes into conflict with the point of Ownership. If you own yourself, and a store sells food that went through poor safety protocols, and thus violates your consent, then suddenly that is in violation of your ownership of yourself. This follows, because ownership of yourself means some protection over the conduit of interests that is your Body and Mind; and that protection requires consent. --Loosely Voluntary is not the same as Consent-- The Absolutist View of Ownership thus creates a problem, what counts as a violation of another's ownership rights? It depends on how you define it in the first place. Absolutist Property Rights are usually argued for on behalf of the idea that any agreement made voluntarily is valid, where "voluntary" simply means "the person trying to get you to do something isn't threatening you with violence as an aggressor to make you do it". This is not the same as Consent. What that description of voluntary is really describing, is a 'loosely voluntary' exchange that can include anything from being coerced into doing someone by the threat of eviction, or loss of some deal, misalignment of interests, inherent frustration, etc. --Ownership is Consent Based-- That is not the same as an enthusiastic, mutual agreement, enthusiastic meaning all sides of a deal agree with most terms of the contract, and that the process of deciding the terms is fair. This has Interest Alignment written all over it, so Absolutist Property Rights in the sense of 'loosely voluntary' transaction, is fundamentally Anti-Consent and Anti-Interests. Therefore, if people really own their own bodies and minds, they should own them with respect to the ownership of their own interests and preferences, in a way enforced by rule of Consent. —Conclusion— If Ownership, relative to Interests, should be based on Consent, then what determines Property Ownership? An answer can be arrived at in a way consistent with what has been said, through Justification Ethics. Justification Ethics, the assertion that actions should be rationally justifiable based on the relevant interests of those involved in an ongoing interaction, paraphrased here, allows the pinpointing of the circumstance where the rational justification of exclusive property is valid, and where it is not. The Anti-Abuse Principle states that interference with non-abusive fulfillment of interests is illegitimate. This can be used to craft the following theory: —Interest Property Theory— Definition of Ownership: A right to exclusive, non-abusive control over a particular object or entity, due to the right over interests the entity acts as a conduit of. You own your Interests, and Preferences, through the normative value of Interests. You thus also own your Body and Mind, as they are the primary conduit of your interests. If you build, craft, or otherwise create something, or possess and use something, your interests get wrapped up in your new property, and a set of your interests become dependant on your property. Your property is a conduit to your interests, granting you the right to use your property as you wish, as long as your use is non-abusive and does not inherently frustrate against the interests of others. Interference in the non-abusive use of your property, thus constitutes inherent frustration or abuse against you and your interests. Abuse Violates Consent

Absolute Interest Conclusion Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Absolute Interest Conclusion [Full Text] —The Absolute Interest Conclusion— The Absolute Interest Conclusion is the conclusion that: It is utmost rational to uphold the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests. This conclusion can be derived logically, using the following argument: (1): Why Future Interests Count Future interests are also valuable as people generally have an interest in their future and the fulfillment of interests they hold in the future. When people do not value their future interests, then we can apply the following argument: A hypothetical large group of people who do not have an interest in their future interests, will on average end up minimizing the fulfillment of interests of a majority of the group. It is utmost rational, relative to each person, of any group, to avoid such a scenario; and this is true regardless of precondition. This logic applies to all future interests, but only interests given from those already or previously sentient. The reason for this is that the minimization of existent interests has no relevant causal relationship with the prevention of the creation of new interests. (2): Reducing everything to Rationality We can thus define oughts as interests, treating the fulfillment of interests as a form of Moral Utility, that we should maximize throughout all of time, across all possible reference frames; assuming present interests are as ultimately meaningful as future interests; which is defendable from the argument already given. Finally, we can now convert all ‘oughts’ and ‘ought-nots’ to simply ‘rationalities’ and ‘irrationalities’. (3): Cooperation for Interests This grants us something similar to the contractarian idea that morality emerges from valuing social cohesion and the need for cooperation through agreements, based on people’s subjective interests; but with one key difference: All sentient beings capable of ‘interests’ are held as morally significant. (4): Fulfillment of Interests vs. Creation of new Interests To maximize interests means to maximize the fulfillment of any existing interests. There is no rational justification for the creation of new Interests, unless it maximizes potential for already existant inherent interests related to certain mental states such as happiness or other Approximate Goods. This is due to it being rational to most rationally fulfill an interest assuming you are acting according to your own interests already, this says nothing about creating new interests to act according to, unless doing so helps to fulfill your existing interests. All of this is to say that forcibly modifying everyone’s brains to really want to lick walls, and then giving them walls to lick, is a terrible way to help anyone, as it is not an ethical thing to do as it does not maximize existent interests and violates basic freedoms which actually minimizes existent interests. Even in situations where everyone ends up happy with their new artificial interests, situations with more rational interests will be more rational and overall more stable, and any situation that tries to force people into some set of interests will be violating their interests in not doing that, continuously. A situation where people are able to fulfill their own individual interests will be much more consistent with the AIC, and much more consistent with the fulfillment of interests as a principle. (5): Overall Rational Outcomes The self-interest of one individual is different from the overall interests of a group. Recognizing and valuing the group interests, the utmost rational, most consistent interests of the most universal group, will give us this Absolute Interest Conclusion. Since the class of all sentient beings represents the largest class actions can be compared and measured according to, it is an Absolute Class, representing the utmost rational standard of intrinsic value. To contradict this utmost rational standard is thus irrational, therefore the intrinsic values that are held consistently among all members of the Absolute Class, must not be contradicted. This intrinsic value is the value of the Fulfillment of Interests itself. It should be noted at this point that the idea of a "collective" is meaningless, as you cannot directly conclude a group collectively has some interest, unless the interest is shared unanimously. Collectives don't exist, only individuals exist in any meaningful way, only individuals can act rationally or irrationally. In this case, the fulfillment of interests is a rational, inherent, and existant value, and interest, intrinsic and inherent to all sentient beings, regardless of external factors. Therefore, it is utmost rational to maximize the Fulfillment of Existent Inherent Interests of all sentient beings in all possible reference frames. (6): Intrinsic Standards, Value Reductionism, and the Axiom of Choice The Axiom of Choice is a mathematical construct, usually added onto Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory mathematics. Set Theory is based on the idea of ‘Sets’, of collections of members. So you can have a Set of all Purple Dogs, and a Set of all Bananas. The Set of all Naturally Purple Dogs is equivalent to the Empty Set, a set containing no elements at all. Now, the Axiom of Choice is the axiom that, phrased crudely: If you have a bunch of sets, and then you take one or a few elements out of each set, and group up all of those specific elements into a new collection, that collection is itself considered a valid set. If every set contains valid elements, then grouping one from each set should also yield a valid set. It seems logical, because if each element of a set is a set itself, I.E. a single element A corresponds to a set [A], the set who's only element is A, and the sets containing them are of course sets themselves, then it seems the ‘set-hood’ of each set emerges from and can be reduced to the set's members. If we simply group up a bunch of random or arbitrarily chosen elements, no matter how we group them, that group’s ‘set-hood’ can be reduced to its members, and its members are all valid both as elements and as single-element sets. So, how could the new collection not constitute a valid set? Especially if it follows all other rules for sets, which it unequivocally does. This intuition appeals to a logical and philosophical system called Reductionism, the idea that some thing's function can correspond to it thought of as a collection of members, and that collection's function, as a mere byproduct of it's members behavior. Under reductionism, all things that contain other things, function merely as the sum of their parts. A machine functions not as it's own thing, but as a byproduct of the parts making it up. It is not separate from it's parts, instead it is equivalent, both in function and ontologically, to the sum of it's parts. We can apply this same logic to Rational Standards and Values. Let us use the word Class instead of Set, now imagine the class of all Dogs. If all members of this class value chewing bones, even in slightly different ways, each value of each member shares something in common: the concept of “Chewing Bones” itself. If values are the sum of their parts, following this reductionist logic, then each value members have gets their value from its parts. Thus, each member shares the concept of Chewing Bones in common, and as the value of values is deduced from their parts, value should rationally be present in the concept of Chewing Bones itself. This shared concept should thus rationally be a value of the group. To say it another way, it would be irrational to not accept Chewing Bones as a value, as rationally it can be derived through reductionism. This allows us to define a shared Intrinsic Value, universal across some collection, where to act against that value, is to act against this collection as a standard of value from which we can measure actions. To reject the idea of Intrinsic Value is to act in contradiction with basic logical reductionism. To simply ignore the most rational and universal version of some value, is to contradict the idea that actions can be measured by any sort of rational standard, which is utmost irrational and incoherent. The best standards of value are thus the standards that are the most consistent, I.E. the most intrinsic. For example, the standard of "All judges argue based on assumption X" is more intrinsic and consistent than a more arbitrary standard like "My cousin argues based on assumption X". The latter standard would not be a good justification to appeal to some assumption X, while the first standard would not be perfect, but would be better. The best rational standard of value, or measurement, is the class of all sentient beings itself, as anything outside of this class cannot be judged on the basis of rationality. This makes the class, an Absolute Class. Another example of an Absolute Class is the class of all couches, which is the most rational standard of measuring what attributes are intrinsic of couches. This couch class cannot be used to judge the rationality or consistency of values, nor the rationality of actions, it can only be used to judge how intrinsic the attributes of some specific couch is. The Fulfillment of Interests as a shared concept, is an example of an utmost rational value, as it is intrinsic among all sentient beings, an Absolute Class. Therefore, based on all that has been said here, the Fulfillment of Interests relative to all sentient beings is the most rational standard with which to measure behavior and the consistency of values, and the rationality of actions. (7): Intrinsic Potato Theory Jon values eating potatoes driving a car, Jessie values eating potatoes at the beach, Jessica values eating potatoes driving a truck. Jon, Jessie, and Jessica all value potatoes. For Jon to not value potatoes themselves, is for them to not value “eating potatoes while driving a car” in and of itself; yet removing potatoes would make Jon value it less. Thus, eating potatoes must have value. To say that they only value “themselves eating potatoes” and not “eating potatoes” in and of itself, is wrong. This is because if we remove the reference to potatoes we get that they must value “themselves”, regardless of other factors. Yet the feeling of meaninglessness can exist, thus this is wrong. If we assume basic value reductionism, then values get their value from their parts. Potatoes are a part. Thus, the only consistent value here is the eating of potatoes itself, as an object. Therefore, it can be said that: “All beings value themselves performing actions that fulfill interests.” To remove the reference to yourself, is to give the statement: “All beings value the performing of actions that fulfill interests in general.” To remove the fulfillment of interests, is to give the statement: “All beings value themselves performing actions, in and of itself.” Clearly, the first statement is true to a greater extent than the second statement. The third statement is clearly false as a being cannot value themselves as an end in themselves, regardless of all else that gives life meaning, to an extent that is somehow the same as if they were also fulfilling interests. Yet if it isn’t YOU that itself grants all the value, and it isn’t the performing of actions itself that is the value, then assuming values can be reduced to their parts as all things can, there is only one conclusion: The fulfillment of interests for consistency’s sake, must rationally be valued in and of itself. So, rationally, you should act with reference to the value of the fulfillment of interests itself. Finally, to fully disassemble Naive Egoism, we can use the following Logical Deduction: –Definitions: (Intrinsic Value): Something that is valued / acted upon in a way regardless of external factors to some extent; I.E. by most sentient beings in most circumstances, to a reasonable extent. If it is actually valued / acted upon by all sentient beings in all circumstances and all situations, it is intrinsic relative to the class of all sentient beings. Specific values such as individual preferences can give way to broad, all-encompassing values if the preference is intrinsically shared, especially among all beings. (Interest): Something that a sentient being’s behavior tends towards. An interest is Inherent if your behavior tends towards your goal regardless of external factors to some reasonable extent. (Absolute Class): An absolute class is a class where no greater class can be imagined that values and variables can be compared to or measured by, relative to the members of said class. (Rational Standards of Value): Actions and variables can be measured and compared, and rationally judged, relative to some standards of value, I.E. a set of rules or values. The more universal this standard, the least arbitrary and thus most consistent, all-encompassing, and most rational. An Absolute Class is the only utmost rational standard of value that can be defined by definition, as it is the only thing actions and variables can be compared to or measured by, relative to the members of the class. An action that is contradictory to what is utmost rational relative to an Absolute Class, is inconsistent with the only rational standard of value that can be defined relative to that specific class. Said another way, that action in contradicting the standard, would violate the concept of action comparison itself. This is based on the idea of Intrinsic Standards which is derived via Reductionism. –Premises: (P1): Rationally, you ought to fulfill your own interests in the most rational ways possible, relative to you acting in accordance with your own interests, which all are. (P2): Something that is acted upon by all sentient beings under all conditions, is a highly Intrinsic Value. (P3): Rationally, the recognition of Intrinsic Values is utmost logically consistent. (P4): Rationally, acting with reference to your recognitions, with reference to what is true, is most logical. (P5): The class of all sentient beings represent an Absolute Class, the only rational standard of value that can be defined relative to the class. (P6): A value or interest, like "I like mashed potatoes", can through reductionism be reduced to it's parts, those parts being "Me", "Liking of mashed foods", "Liking of potatoes"; where each part is itself something held has a rationally necessary value, and the original value is the sum of it's parts. (P7): From (Definition of "Intrinsic Value"): Intrinsic values can be defined relative to some large class of things. If something is held as a value or interest, or a value that is rational to act according to as well as possible, universally among the class of things, then that value is intrinsic to said class. (P8): Rationally, all actions and situations can be measured relative to some set of standards. Standards that are the least arbitrary are the most rational of standards to measure by, and can be referred to as specific values and interests. (P9): From (P6 + P7 + P8), An action that is contradictory to what is utmost rational relative to an Absolute Class, is itself a fundamentally irrational action as it is inconsistent with the only rational standard of value that can be defined relative to the class. The action violates the concept of rational comparison and measure itself. –Logic: (L1): From (P1), The utmost rational outcome relative to all sentient beings is the upholding of the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, non-contradiction with rational oughts. (L2): From (P5), The class of all sentient beings represent an Absolute Class. (L3): From (L1 + L2), The utmost rational outcome relative to the most rational standard of value is the maximization of the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings. (L4): From (L3 + P9), An action that is contradictory to the utmost rational outcome relative to all sentient beings, is itself fundamentally irrational as it is inconsistent to the most rational standard of value definable. –Conclusion: From (L4 + L1), You ought to act in alignment with the value of the fulfillment of interests of all sentient beings. Therefore: It is utmost rational to uphold the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests. This is the Absolute Interest Conclusion. Priority should be given to rational Inherent Interests, as these are the most consistent of interests, and preservation and fulfillment of Inherent Interests will allow the most fulfillment of interests in general; protecting non-inherent interests may result in inherently frustrating behavior. It is also utmost rational to act in alignment with the inference of this conclusion, as to violate it is to act against what is rational relative to the most rational standard of value, which would be logically inconsistent. L4 also grants us something interesting, the Absolute Interest Principle, the principle that it is inconsistent and irrational, to act against or in contradiction with the utmost rational outcome, that which upholds the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings. —The Absolute Interest Principle— The most rational outcome overall, relative to the Absolute Class of all sentient beings, is that which upholds the fulfillment of existent interests of all sentient beings, across all possible reference frames; with priority to existent, rational, Inherent Interests. Therefore, it is inconsistent and irrational, to act against or in contradiction with this most rational outcome, and it is irrational to act against others rational interests as an end in itself, and to act against the fulfillment of interests on small scales as well; as it is in contradiction with the only coherent rational standards of value. Value Reductionism Rational Outcomes

Justification Ethics Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Justification Ethics [Full Text] Note that the following arguments use Normative Rationalism as an assumption. This assumption comes from the 2nd section of this text: [yoggism as a procedural norm] This also provides a more rational alternative to NAP Argumentation Ethics . –Persuasive Arguments appeal to the Normative Value of Interests– A persuasive argument, as defined here, is an argument that derives a claim in the form "you ought to accept X". This claim is a normative claim, and it's validity and normativity must be derived from the argument's premises. For the argument to be correct the person or "debate opponent" should rationally agree with the premises, otherwise the ought claim would not apply. An argument with a normative "you ought to accept X" claim, may obtain it's normativity from rationalism, or from subjective opinions, and emotive preferences. Normative rationalism may be assumed by virtue of the structure of any argument itself, where the question of whether the argument's premises are correct or not already presupposes rationalism and the validity of deduction. If a persuasive argument's conclusion is derived through more than just pure rationalism though, the debate opponent will only accept premises, and only be required rationally to accept premises, if the premises appeal to shared preferences that are valid, preferences as in anything behavior guiding; be that wants, desires, beliefs, values, etc. These are rational interests. Any persuasive argument must have premises that appeal to your opponent's interests, their rational interests, unless an argument is founded only on rationalism itself. Since persuasive arguments prove normative claims, that normativity must arise from the premises, premises that must appeal to the opponent, thus the normativity must arise from and assume the normative value of the relevant interests of the opponent. Again, besides arguments that prove things purely rationally. Therefore, any persuasive argument must either prove something based solely on rationalism, or must presuppose the normative value of an opponent's rational interests, relevant to the interaction. –Yoggist Justification Ethics, Interests through Justification– If you interact with someone, you should be able to rationally justify your interaction, in a way where those involved in the interaction should be rationally required to accept it. This means you should be able to justify that the claim “You rationally ought to accept my way of interacting is reasonable” is true for the person you are interacting with; you should be able to argue you are acting reasonably. This is a 'persuasive argument', meaning an argument that attempts to derive a claim in the form "You ought to accept X". Any argument in this form, must appeal to the interests of any debate opponent for the conclusion to have valid normative weight. To engage in an interaction that is inconsistent with the normative value of interest, is to engage in an interaction that cannot be rationally justified to anyone. –Egoism is not Rationally Justifiable– True Egoism is the claim that "Your own self-interest is the only thing with normative value." This claim thus cannot be rationally justified, as any arguments meant to act as justification to someone must appeal to their rational interests relevant to the argument; unless there is some way to prove Egoism through pure rationalism, but this is impossible. Egoism cannot be argued for through rational justification because it is true that any act of rational justification presupposes that the interests of the opponent that are relevant to the interaction have normative value. Egoism contradicts this notion directly. The only way to prove Egoism or any other framework that contradicts the normative value of preferences, is thus by proving them purely rationally, with no assumptions that could constitute preferences more than just hard logic, and appealing to hard logic through the presupposition of the validity of arguments itself. This is impossible because of the is/ought problem. –Interest-Frustration cannot be justified by Egoism– True Egoism also requires the conclusion that it is irrational to say a strong person should not murder a disadvantaged person. It is impossible to argue such a conclusion to someone if they are the disadvantaged, because making such an argument requires appealing to their preferences and such a conclusion contradicts them; their interest in not being attacked is clearly relevant to any argument against it, yet the argument against it can only function by granting their interests no weight. This is a blatant contradiction in the nature of justification itself. You cannot rationally justify an assertion that you can punch someone in the face for your own enjoyment, because any argument they would care about must appeal to some preferences they share, yet the assertion itself is contradictory to their preferences and grants their interests no weight. It also cannot be claimed that to have a preference beyond Egoism is irrational, as Egoism itself dictates that all self-interest is rationally valid. It is only Preference as a Normative Force itself, that allows for the distinction between rational and irrational interests, and it is this which allows for proper rational justification. Therefore, it is impossible to justify Egoism, it is impossible to justify behavior through Egoism, it is impossible to normatively argue for Egoism in a way that applies to anyone with an interest against it, and it is also self-contradictory to accept an argument for Egoism as it always contradicts your own rationally-justifiable preferences. –A Premise of Egoism proves Yoggism– Rational Egoism is the conclusion that any agent rationally ought to appeal to nothing more than their own self-interest, which comes from the idea they should most rationally act in accordance with their own interests, and only their own interests. Cooperation, fairness, and civility, thus are only rationally justifiable in so far as they promote your own self-interest. It is true that since all beings act in accordance with their own interests, as a matter of definition, they rationally ought to most rationally act in accordance with their own interests. This is equivalent to saying they rationally ought to act rationally. What is not true is the notion that acting against one's own self-interest is always irrational. This premise is wrong and can be demonstrated as wrong both outside of Egoism, and within Egoism. Egoism relies on this premise, yet it can be proven demonstrably that the premise contradicts Egoism, showing Rational Egoism taken on absolutes, to be self-contradictory. –Premises: (P1): If an agent is rational, then they ought to act most rationally in accordance with their own interests. (P2): A consideration can justify an action for an agent only if ignoring that consideration would count as irrational for that agent. (P3): Acting against one’s own interests counts as irrational. –Logic: (L1): From (P2), Justifications must make ignoring them irrational. (L2): From (P1 + P3), Acting against one’s interests is irrational for a rational agent. (L3): From (L2), Any consideration that requires acting against one’s interests is irrational. (L4): From (L1 + L3), Considerations that require irrational actions are not rationally justifiable. –Conclusion: From (L4): Therefore, for an action to be justified for an agent, the justification must be relative to that agent’s interests, or again be justified through rationalism itself. This conclusion holds true as long as Premise 3 is true. Rational Egoism relies on Premise 3, yet the conclusion contradicts Egoism by widely opening up the Interests Via Justification argument. If justification is impossible without appealing to the interests of those involved, without assuming the normative value of relevant preferences held by those involved in an interaction, then Egoism is impossible to fully justify as it fundamentally contradicts the notion of other's interests being in any way normative. Thus, Egoism in and of itself is inconsistent relative to justification, and collapses into Yoggism. –The value of Interests, derived from the value of Rational Interaction and Deliberation– We can now demonstrate this proof step-by-step: --Basic Definitions and Clarifications-- A. Persuasive arguments are definitionally, arguments that prove a conclusion of "Therefore, you ought to believe X", from deduction through premises. B. In this context we can assume normative claims deduced from premises, must require at least one normative premise. C. Interests are defined as any preferences, values, beliefs, wants, desires, that which a being's behavior tends towards; they are action-guiding. D. If a premise in an argument acts as a normative claim, the argument's correctness can assume the normativity of the premise, but only in so far as the argument is correct. If the argument is incorrect, either invalid or one of the premises is false, then the normativity of the given premise is not necessarily valid. For example, a persuasive argument that 1+1=2 could appeal to an opponent's irrational interests in astrology, though it would be wrong to thus conclude that astrology has actual rational normative weight. The normativity is only true in so far as the argument is true, and an argument appealing to wrong premises is not true. E. Standards of evidence, values, beliefs, axioms, etc. are all themselves rational interests under the definition. Appealing to truth is appealing to your own (justifiable) preference for truth. Logical consistency is also something held as a preference by pretty much everyone, and it is also a preference appealed to by any argument. F. This argument is taken to apply to arguments that try to prove something based on more than just pure rationalism. For example, athematics requires mathematical rules be appealed to. --The Argument-- 0. General Normative Rationalism is assumed by argumentation 1. All persuasive arguments prove a conclusion of "Therefore, you ought to believe X" 2. Proving a conclusion in any argument requires premises 3. A persuasive argument's "you ought to believe X" claim will not hold if the opponent does not agree with the premises 4. An opponent agreeing with premises, requires the premises to appeal to their wants, desires, beliefs, preferences; definition-wise these are their interests relevant to the argument 5. Persuasive arguments ought to appeal to their opponent's relevant interests 6. The conclusion of a persuasive argument, "you ought to believe X", is a normative one 7. The normativity of a persuasive argument's claim must arise from the argument's premises, premises the opponent must agree with for the normative claim to hold for the opponent 8. The normative value of an opponent's rational interests relevant to some interaction, is assumed by any justifiable and rationally valid persuasive argument 9. Agreement with any meaningful, persuasive arguments, is to assert the idea that persuasive arguments can correctly derive normative conclusions in the form "you ought to believe X" 10. Agreement with any meaningful persuasive argument is to assert the value of rational interests of those involved in rational deliberation 11. Persuasive argumentation and thus rational justification is valuable due to it allowing those involved to converge on truth or rational conclusions 12. Rationally, interactions ought to be rationally justifiable 13. Rational justification works via persuasive argumentation. If an interaction is rationally justifiable, then you rationally ought to accept it, thus giving the "you ought to believe X" claim 14. Interactions rationally ought to appeal to the normative value of the relevant interests of all involved, due to the premises of the persuasive argumentation necessary to rationally justify the interaction –To not respect Interests, is thus a performative Contradiction– We may also demonstrate that to act in a way inconsistent with premises assumed by an argument, is a performative contradiction. A performative contradiction is when a statement's assertion contradicts necessary presuppositions required for it to be meaningful. Imagine you argue with your landlord. The landlord attempts a persuasive argumentation, thus appealing to your interests. This value of your interests is a premise of their argument. If the landlord then turns on you and threatens to evict you, they are acting inconsistent with the assumption of the normative value of your interests they held previously. By arguing for the claim that they should evict you, trying to argue in defense of their own actions, this is a performative contradiction. Therefore, if they still hold their previous argument as valid, and/or hold persuasive argumentation between them and you in any way to be valid, they are also contradicting themselves. Rationally, it can be argued that they ought to value argumentation with you, or with anyone willing to give persuasive argument for that matter. The only way then to not contradict yourself, when interacting with others where you would value argumentation, is to uphold the Fulfillment of Interests for all parties involved in the interaction. Thus, rational interactions ought to uphold the Fulfillment of Interests as a principle applicable to those parties. –Deriving Premise 5– 5. An opponent agreeing with premises, requires the premises to appeal to their wants, desires, beliefs, preferences; definition-wise these are their interests relevant to the argument This premise can be proven via deduction. Definitions:: Interest - wants, desires, beliefs, preferences Persuasive Argument - argument that deductively proves a claim in the form "you ought to accept X" Logic:: 1. A persuasive argument that proves a claim to an opposing party, must have its premises rationally acceptable by the opposing party. 2. For premises to be accepted, the opponent must rationally be required to agree that the premise is TRUE in the context necessary. 3. Premises may be based on subjective opinions, such as "You want clean clothes". These subjective claims can still be TRUE in the context of the argument, it can be TRUE that the opponent "wants clean clothes" 4. Premises may also be based on objective truths, such as "A=A" or "Logic". 5. Premises that are TRUE in the context of an argument, in a way that applies to the opponent, rationally should be accepted by the opponent. 6. If an opponent wants clean clothes, the subjective opinion-based premise "You want clean clothes" is TRUE as it pertains to the opponent. 7. Objective truths and subjective opinions are both forms of "Interests" by definition. 8. (from 7, 6, 2) For an opponent to be rationally required to agree a premise is TRUE in context, the premise must appeal to some Interest they hold, such as an objective truth they hold as true, like "A=A", or a subjective opinion that is TRUE for them, such as "You want clean clothes". Therefore, in a rational persuasive argument, a debate opponent agreeing with premises, requires the premises to appeal to their wants, desires, beliefs, preferences; definition-wise these are their interests relevant to the argument.

Refutation of AE Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Refutation of Argumentation Ethics [Full Text] —Refutation of Argumentation Ethics— NAP Argumentation Ethics works like this: Argumentation requires certain norms to work, including self-ownership and non-aggression. If you attack your interlocutor (arguer), argumentation breaks down. What this means, is that arguing for anything that conflicts with the Non-Aggression Principle, is a performative contradiction as you are contradicting the very norms you presuppose by arguing in the first place. This argument is demonstrably wrong, and for a simple reason. The norms presupposed by engaging in argumentation are not the same norms being argued against when someone usually argues for something that contradicts the NAP; like taxes, regulations, or the existence of any limitations on property rights. This is because the argumentation process only presupposes procedural norms, one of which being non-aggression. Arguing for aggression in some other context thus cannot contradict your usage of a similar norm in the context of argumentation. Below is a more explicit explanation as to why. —Step-by-Step Explanation— --Basic Truths-- Argumentation is a process that is used to discover and refine arguments. Argumentation presupposes procedural norms, one of which being non-aggression. The arguments discovered and refined during argumentation stand by themselves if they have true premises. By engaging in Argumentation, you presuppose the procedural norm of non-aggression. This presupposition is only in the sense that if non-aggression is violated in the process, the process fails to fulfill it's purpose correctly. This is simply because aggression during the process of Argumentation results in people conceding when they shouldn't. --Reasoning-- The only time a performative contradiction arises is if one engages in full argumentation to argue against the procedural norms of argumentation itself. Thus, since what is presupposed is strictly procedural, then during argumentation, you can argue against 'non-aggression' as a principle all you want as long as you do not argue against non-aggression as a procedural norm of Argumentation itself. --Conclusion So, NAP Argumentation Ethics fails due to there being a difference between arguing against certain procedural norms, and arguing against norms for use in a different context. —Further Reasoning— The claim that "By arguing you presuppose the NAP therefore arguing against the NAP is a performative contradiction" is wrong because of a category error. Presupposing the NAP as a procedural norm of the process of argumentation simply has nothing to do with what other contexts you think the NAP may or may not apply to. Arguing the NAP is wrong in the context of government, for example, to argue for taxes or to argue for measures to enforce fair treatment, cannot be called a performative contradiction because you can do that while also accepting that true argumentation requires non-aggression.

Yogg Virtue Theory Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Yogg Virtue Theory [Full Text] —Consent from Justification Ethics— Consent is a continuous, preferably enthusiastic, explicit, and relevantly-informed, acceptance of an agreement, contract, or activity. The value of Consent can be obtained through simple Justification Ethics. Agreements sustained via an alignment of interests will ensure people's interests are respected; for if agreements are handled with everyone involved only looking out for their own interests, and not actually in agreement, this will end up with gross interest misalignment and thus the interaction will dissolve into an anti-interest catastrophy in violation of the AIP and AAP. —Passive vs. Active Interactions— Justification Ethics lays out the following concept: Interactions rationally ought to appeal to the normative value of the relevant interests of all involved, due to the premises of the persuasive argumentation necessary to rationally justify the interaction. Thus, interactions must be rationally justifiable relative to Interests. The question here is what kind of interaction? If someone is in danger in front of me, do I have a duty to act and help them? To what end, to what limits? —Justification Ethics and a Right to a Private Sanctuary— Justification Ethics is contingent on the normative obligation to rationally justify methods of interaction. This normative obligation comes from Normative Rationalism. Does this normative obligation apply to inaction as well as action? It could be argued in theory that for someone in danger in front of you, you are not interacting with that person, and thus no rational justification for anything is necessary until you interact with them. This view implies interests only become relevant once you enter into an interaction with someone else who has Normative Will, who has interests. Thus, inaction is never unjustifiable unless somehow inaction is contradictory with the existence of interests themselves, such as if "Interest Structures" or the "Pillars holding up Interests" are themselves under threat, similar to theories of Threshold Deontology. There is a problem with this analysis though, couldn't it be said that inaction is yet another form of behavior, and as a behavior it is the fulfillment of an interest, an interest to not act? Must this interest be rationally justifiable? If so, justifiable to whom? How can it be narrowed down who is involved in a behavior that by definition is directly affecting no-one? —Praxeological Asymmetry— One place to turn to is the idea of a Praxeological Asymmetry. Praxeology is the theory of beings that engage in purposeful behavior. Praxeological Asymmetry is the idea that inaction or withholding from action does not require justification in the same way as active interaction, and this is founded on Epistemological Asymmetry grounds. Epistemology is the theory of how beliefs should be shaped, and this idea holds within it an arguable asymmetry. If you have a claim like "there is a teapot between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn", the lack of evidence for such a claim means that you, empirically, ought to disbelieve in the existence of the teapot. So a lack of evidence leads to disbelief rather than just neutrality? This implies an asymmetry. Applying similar logic, or applying this epistomological thinking to rational justification, leads to a Justification Ethics conclusion that interests are relevant to only involved people in an interaction. If your actions don't directly affect anyone, you aren't interacting with anyone in an active way, then justification relative to interests need not be present due to the asymmetry. —Epistemological Asymmetry is Invalid?— There is unfortunately a problem here too. Belief in such a mystical teapot is irrational, but so is neutrality towards the hypothesis, due to there being an overwhelming amount of evidence that space is mostly empty, so the area between Jupiter and Saturn should be devoid of random teapots, as well as how Earthly objects should be nowhere near planetary orbits, except under very specific circumstances of which none should exist for a random teapot. Thus disbelief is the rational conclusion, not due solely because of a lack of evidence but also because of evidence to the contrary. This presents a problem because other claims where there is limited or no evidence going for or against the claim, may not have a "default state" to point to for deciding whether belief or disbelief is rational, leading to neutrality being the rational conclusion. This breaks the asymmetry which goes against the logic of "non-interaction" leading to non-justification, leading to inaction not being in violation of interests. —Abuse Constructs a Right to a Private Sanctuary?— Perhaps due to neutrality being correct in a true both-sides lack of evidence, no evidence for or against a particular claim, this can grant a "default state" that can bind Justification Ethics to ongoing interactions, the same way non-existent future interests are fundamentally different from Justification Ethics and the Absolute Interest Principle, as the ought to rationally fulfill interests only derives existant interests. You cannot ought that which you cannot. It may also make sense to acknowledge that the Anti-Abuse Principle as formulated grants a protection from Inherently-Frustrating Interests, classifying them as illegitimate based on the logical implications of Interests being treated as the fundamental normative value. A protection from such inherently-frustrating interests may include a protection from harmful obligations, which further demonstrates this "Right to Private Sanctuary". —Yogg Virtue Ethics— Even if it may be hard to justify any form of duty or obligation towards those you aren't actually interacting with, using Justification Ethics, there is still a basis for defining good character and morally positive conduct, and this is Virtue Ethics. Virtue Ethics is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the character and virtues of a person, what guides their behavior, rather than focusing on adherence to a principle or goal. Positive traits, aka Virtues, are the attributes that help curate morally or ethically positive behavior, and reflect an outlook on others or an outlook on existence that is in some sense morally positive. Negative traits, aka Vices, are the attributes that contradict this goal. Positive character, and the recognition of rational and irrational character traits, relative to Interests, is the way to address this problem. Virtue can thus be thought of as a Respect of Interests, of both others and your own, and the adherence to that responsibility. This is similar to Immanuel Kant's "Treat People as an End, never as a Mere Means" philosophy, which is also related to the given Yoggist definition of Abuse, that behaviors functioning off of misaligned interests, may result in frustration for one side of a deal, which can be dangerous to the meaning of interests themselves, and is thus illegitimate. —Plagiarism and Wheaton's Law— Wheaton's Law is a guiding principle that states simply, "Don't be a dick". This guiding principle maps almost perfectly onto the Anti-Abuse Principle, as to be a 'jerk' is pretty neatly spelled out as to engage in behavor that is inherently interest-frustrating, and unjustifiable to others in some way. Taking up the Anti-Abuse Principle with this idea of "Respect of Interests" as a form of Virtue, then maps perfectly the guiding principle of Wheaton's Law. This grants a valuable insight, the ability to both ethically and character-wise decry practices such as Plagiarism in the name of Interests. Plagiarism, and equivalently non-attribution and stealing credit, as well as very specific and limited forms of Intellectual Property, are thus justifiably anti-virtue as they correspond to a disrespect towards other's interests, and in many cases are unethical as they may correspond to inherently-frustrating interests as the product of both vices and interest misalignment. Some things that are illegal under absolutist Intellectual Property Rights, but are not inherently-frustrating, would include archiving, and derivative works. These actions don't harm anyone inherently, and simply represent creative expression. The ethical violation in plagiarism lies in false representation, not in duplication; so archiving doesn't count as an ethical infringement. Plagiarism frustrates interests by: 1. Stealing reputational capital (career prospects, social standing, trust). 2. Undermining trust and attribution (people rely on attribution to evaluate credibility). 3. Creating asymmetric advantage through deception (falsely-attributed exchange). 4. Discouraging creation by breaking the link between effort and recognition. This makes plagiarism inherently frustrating, regardless of any monetary exchange. Archiving does not inherently frustrate interests because: 1. It preserves access without deceptive or abusive practices. 2. It does not claim authorship of anything and ought to include proper attribution. 3. It often aligns interests (creator interest in preservation + public interest in access). Any harm is contingent, not inherent (e.g. bandwidth costs, disputes in hosting). —Forming a Principle— Therefore, based on all this reasoning, we can define Virtue and Vice as the following: Virtue: Traits that curate a respect towards Interests as having value. Vice: Traits that curate a disrespect towards Interests as having value. Some virtues consistent with this view would include: Generosity, Altruism, Self-Reliance, Solidarity, Trustworthyness, Justice, Fairness, Mutualism Some vices consistent with the view would include: Unfairness, Irrationality, Rage, Disrespect, Hatefulness, Exploitativeness, Callousness, Cowardice Using this reasoning we can then define the following principle, describing Just Duty, and Fair Behavior. —Yogg Virtue Principle— You ought to act in a way consistent with the virtues that curate respect for interests, including Mutual Respect, Justice, Truth, and Recognition of others as Self-Sovereign. You ought to not act against Consent, or enforce Interest Misalignment for your own gain through Unfairness, Irrationality, Explotativeness, or Abuse. You ought to form a character that adheres to the responsibility of upholding these character traits, against Negligence towards others, and Abuse of others. Common virtues such as Justice, Self-Sovereignty, and Generosity, are simply emergent properties of the Respect for Interests.

Markets and Interest Alignment Back to Home Details Step-by-Step Guide Philosophy Menu More Markets and Interest Alignment [Full Text] —Public / Private Spectrum— If you have a dinner party at your house, is it inherently frustrating to kick someone out of your house for unfair reasons? Is it unethical? The problem with this, is that unfair judgement can count as frustration, but this frustration is happening within a greater scope that in a private space such as your own home, is more important. A right to your own sanctuary, to privacy, is more important. Relative to Yogg Virtue Ethics, it is unethical. Relative to Yogg Law, the Anti-Abuse Principle, it is permissible in the sense that it could constitute abuse to try and prevent you from removing them from your dinner party. A right to a private sanctuary makes less sense for something like a public restaurant. Though privately owned, it functions as a public space, and directly affects more people's interests in a way more inherent than your private home. In a private home, the person most affected by discrimination, is the home owner, not the person discriminated against. In a public restaurant, the opposite is true. The interest of someone wanting to stay at a dinner party, may be irrational if it resorts to violence, as they should have a private dwelling of their own. The protection of Interest Fulfillment implies as previously explained, a Right to Privacy and a Private Sanctuary to fulfill your own interests without frustrating against others. Whereas in a public restaurant, this logic stops making sense. There is no exact line here, it is a spectrum of what the difference between a public space and private space are, but the difference is in how different people's interests are weighed. A public restaurant would be weighed differently than a private club, for example. Although, if such a private club was integral to a community, this could change things. Very personal spaces are private. Very open spaces, are public. Spaces that are integral to a community or become inherently wrapped up in other's interests, such as spaces that provide services to people for profit, businesses, are public. —Ethics of Gated Communities— Similar to discrimination in open spaces, ethnostates and other gated large-scale communities create inherent frustration through discrimination and prejudice against people for reasons not relevant to Interests. This results in enforcement of frustration due to misaligned interests, as well as a lack of virtue such as respect and fairness, on behalf of the perpetrators of the unjustifiable exclusion. Racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, are hence an inherent frustration against people for irrational reasons, and for reasons that treat them as a mere member of some undefinable group, rather than as an individual who should be judged as such. The interests of a criminal, or drug trafficker, or gang member, may be irrational interests that should be defended against, but that does not make the interests of a random individual irrational or invalid, simply due to them being of the same creed. --Factionalism destroys Freedom of Movement-- For the most part, discrimination due to creed is justified not based on genuine and justifiable mistrust; but rather ignorance, and factionalism. It is for this reason that so-called freedom of association can quickly turn into instead, a freedom from those separate from your tribe, and a freedom to inherently frustrate, to discriminate, against others. If Interests are to have value themselves, the right to freedom of movement of people should be protected. People should not be limited to live in the community they were born in, and communities should be more open to letting new people in; it is only then that people can be truly free to fulfill their own ends. For these reasons, because of the importance of freedom of movement, the value of interests, and the unjustifiability of prejudice, ethnostates, ethno-nationalism, and the overall vices of tribalism, are ultimately against what is ethical. —Theory of Local Freedoms— Adding on to what constitutes abuse, in the setting of open or semi-public spaces, or even private spaces with common mutual trust, is the idea that inherent frustration when present in larger societies is condemnable, is also unjustifiable in local spaces. --The Unethics of Censorship-- To be censored for honest criticism, is unethical relative to the value of Interests, and the value of Truth. It represents an inherent frustration against someone's non-frustrating interests. To allow for such a form of censorship, is to allow for some people's interests to be given protection from criticism, in a way that may be irrational. This same logic applies in local circumstances, it is not purely beholden to large societies or to governments. If you're in a community and they try to kick you out for criticizing their leader, that is bad in and of itself. This grants an idea of Local Freedoms, freedoms that apply in local spaces as well as open, public spaces. True freedom thus grants Local Freedoms, since the value of the Fulfillment of Interests implies protection from abuse, and violation of these local freedoms is itself a form of abuse. --Alien Invasion Example-- If a group of aliens came down to Earth and claimed that thousands of years ago they created the Earth and have been continuously sustaining and developing the Earth and thus claim property ownership over the entirety of Earth (but not the humans themselves) and thus want to evict us from it, and force us from our homes, this act would be acceptable under the NAP yet it is clearly an unethical abuse of power, completely unfair, and abusive. Humans would be well within their rights to defend themselves. Relative to interests this is clearly the case, the aliens have interests misaligned with the humans and are inherently frustrating upon the humans. --Stripping of Contentment-- If someone is enjoying the fruits of their labor, and becomes content with their situation, stripping the person of their goods is bad. The consistency of circumstances entails a rational inherent interest in the circumstance, granting an entitlement to not being stripped of the goods via inherently frustrating transgression. If someone enjoys the ability to speak their mind on some platform, they should be able to continue with that and should not have their ability to interact on a platform taken away arbitrarily or exploitatively; as the taking away itself is bad regardless of the medium it is exercised through. --Conclusions of Local Freedoms-- If some action is good or bad, its morality is based on the content of the action and not purely in the medium with which it's carried out. Censorship is bad, whether performed through violence, or enforced via property. Censorship is wrong because the content of the action is itself wrong, not the way it is enforced. —Why Market Domination is Inevitable— Any market if left without enough regulation, will naturally create centralization through cumulative advantage, and said centralization will not be destroyed unless it screws up majorly. The problem with this, is it allows dominant producers to abuse their consumers and workers as already explained, within a threshold. For industries that have a naturally higher barrier to entry, or a low barrier to entry for competition but a high barrier to entry for meaningful competition, perfect competition and near-perfect competition may be impossible which will result in dominant producers forming, creating the same problem as full-on monopolies, to a slightly lesser extent. Libertarian theory assumes markets select for quality, but network science and empirical data imply they select for path dependance. In the real world, large firms will have an advantage over smaller firms by virtue of being large. This is path dependence, where consumers are more likely to choose the large firm more often, because their services will be of more consistent quality. --Market Share Growth is Self-Reinforcing- Market domination is simply a predictable consequence of feedback loops. Advantages such as capital, brand recognition, and network effects, compound over time allowing for increases in bargaining power, visibility, reduced marginal costs, etc. All of which, allows for greater growth and attracts more customers and talent. It is a cycle that causes market share to ever increase, until the business completely messes something up. This is a problem, because in-order for such a cycle to be prevented, for rightful fear of centralization, competition needs to happen. Unfortunately, entry into a market is not binary. While small competitors may or may not enter easily, the dominant firm's accumulated advantages can naturally, or deliberately, prevent entrants from forming meaningful competition. --Centralization leads to Widespread Abuse-- Markets do not select for the best product in the abstract; instead they select for the product that is good enough given historical adoption. Once a firm becomes the default, quality improvements by competitors face diminishing returns, while quality degradation by the dominant firm faces a delayed and weakened punishment. Advantages become too accumulated and competition too reduced. This is Market Centralization. The moment market share is centralized to specific companies, regardless of whether domination is by an absolute monopoly or not, a firm can exert monopoly-like power while retaining nominal competitors. All a firm needs, is a decisive market share. This is not a problem because it 'raises prices', it is a problem because it undermines consent. When exit is costly and alternatives are functionally inferior, transactions become structurally forced to follow the decisions of the dominant firm. This destroys consensual transactions, and is actually the exact same reason why monopolies can abuse their consumers. The problem is simple. A lack of competition creates a lack of functional alternatives, creating the ability for a dominant producer to enforce their own interests against their consumers. Markets work best when business bends the knee to their workers and consumers, unfortunately centralization creates a scenario where service industry forces consumers and especially workers to serve them and their every want, and not the other way around. This is the heart of interest frustration in the economy. --Why Markets do not Self-Correct-- The assumption that markets will self-correct relies on the idea that sufficient harm will cause greater competition. This is true to an extent, but once market power is centralized, the conditions required for correction are systematically undermined and beholden to the interest asymmetry created by the relationship between producers, consumers, and last, workers. Market correction therefore does not fail because actors behave irrationally, but because rational behavior under asymmetric power conditions reinforces the dominant position. What emerges is not a temporary deviation from market logic, but its predictable outcome. —Entangled Property by Entangled Interests— If you are employed as part of some large-scale job, it is worth saying that a significant set of your interests are wrapped up in your job. Employment, and the specific business you are employed to, explicitly become conduits of your rational interests. If you are to own what you make, in an Interest Property sense, as when you make something your interests get wrapped up in what you make, then that gives a conclusion that has interesting consequences: That you have an ethical claim over the decisions of the business you yourself are employed to, when it affects you. This represents a Right over Influence, a right over that which inherently affects you, and this comes right out of the value of Interests. --Layoffs are Inherently Frustration against Entangled Interests-- If you have a job and are suddenly laid off, this can cause significant harm to your own ability to fulfill your interests, and all interests directly related to your job, are immediately frustrated. If a job includes long-term commitment and long working hours, decisions at the firm you work at are suddenly directly entangled with your own interests. This is Entangled Property. Instead of personal property which is private to an individual, property used in a profit-generating setting through tools and devices operated by multiple people, which is called Productive Property, and sometimes just Private Property or Private Productive Property. This kind of property usage creates an entanglement of people's interests. --Productive Property operated by multiple people creates Entangled Interests-- This productive property is the means of the production of goods, and as used here is entangled property when multiple people's lives are inherently affected, and hence this applies to employment. In a limited sense, and in a way relevant to this concept, to be unfairly laid off of a job is thus not only inherent frustration against you, but a violation against the conduit of your interests. For interests to have value is for you to own your interests. To own your interests is to have some say over that which affects you personally. —Worker and Consumer Ownership— Entangled Property and Abuse, Interest Frustration, Eventual Centralizations.. There is a solution to these problems, the solution is Interest Alignment. The fundamental problem here is that a firm is owned by a single person, or small group of people, who's interests take priority over their employees and consumers. --Interests must be Aligned-- Producers, workers, and consumers, are the three main groups. For companies that are publicly traded, this also includes shareholders. Producers and shareholders taking precedence over workers and consumers, and this time the shareholders have significant market power as a side-effect of being part of the means to profit. The most common targets of market abuse can be identified as the Workers and Consumers. This logic can be used thus, as an ethical justification of worker and consumer ownership of the means of production, in the sense of worker-owned cooperative enterprise and consumer coops. The best way to align the interests of workers and producers together, is simply for the workers to be the producers, or for the workers to have ownership of the firm itself. The ethical and rational imperative is to grant ownership with those whose interests are most entangled with the firm, give workers and consumers a real stake and voice in the means of production. --Worker-Owned Cooperatives have Advantages-- Empirically, around the world; Worker-Owned Cooperatives, enterprise under the legal ownership and control of their employees, has been shown to result in greater stability during economic downturn, as well as a persistence to lower wages during a crisis in a way more consensual as the workers themselves are the ones choosing to lower wages, and instead of simply doing an unconsensual layoff as is common in other forms of enterprise. This results in a more stable market environment less prone to bust and boom cycles than traditional capitalist enterprise; capitalist in the sense of individuals maintaining sole ownership of a business through contracts. --Worker-Ownership is better than Centralized Command Economies-- One thing this logic acts against, is Centralized Command Economies. A Command Economy is an economy where the means of production and exchange is operated at a significant scale by the State, or some other form of government or central power. This is fundamentally different from worker and consumer ownership, and such an economy has a poor track-record around the world, especially for State-owned production, as this removes the competition-driven market forces that allow for markets to align interests at all. This damages the ability to decide what should be produced and how. To simply nationalize industry naively, and put it all under centralized control of a single entity with likely poor management, is not a good strategy. The market is a tool, not an enemy of Interests. —The Conclusion— Worker and Consumer Ownership, along with acts against Discrimination and an ensurance of fair treatment of consumers and workers alike, is the imperative given by Interest Alignment.