In an era defined by rapid technological advancement and an overwhelming flow of information, humanity faces increasingly complex ethical dilemmas. What compass can guide our decisions to move towards a more “good” future?
My name is Danny Hirsch, and I am the son of Jorge Hirsch, the physicist known for inventing the h-index, a widely used metric that measures a researcher’s impact. While my formal academic background is in the arts, holding a bachelor’s degree, my lifelong affinity for controversial, scientific, and philosophical debate has inspired me to develop an ethical framework using GenAI that I’ve named: “Greater Good Equals Greater Truth.”
This article introduces the framework, which posits a fundamental, inextricable link between what is truly good and what is truly true. It offers a potential lens through which to evaluate actions and ideas, and offers numerical scores as well as reasoning behind them. You’ll also find a copy-paste code for the framework itself, so you can test out your own ideas of “goodness” directly with AI.
The Core Premise: An Indivisible Link
At its heart, “Greater Good Equals Greater Truth” is a teleological and ethical system built on the idea that the “greater good” for humanity and the natural world is inherently aligned with “greater truth.”
By “greater truth,” I refer to an objective, factual reality as it exists in the unmanipulated natural world. This framework suggests that the natural universe, in its fundamental design and processes, is inherently oriented towards a form of “goodness.” Our role as humans, therefore, is to strive to be stewards of this truth, to understand and align with natural principles, rather than attempting to control or distort them for short-sighted or ego-driven gains.
The framework further distinguishes three key categories:
Natural: That which aligns with objective reality and contributes to systemic well-being.
Unnatural: Human constructs or actions, often driven by ego, that cause tangible, direct, and acute suffering or actively distort objective truth.
Pseudo-natural: Human-made creations. Some may mimic natural processes or truths, while others deviate. Pseudo-natural creations give humanity the tools to move further towards natural alignment, or further away.
Crucially, the framework establishes self-awareness — a deep, honest understanding of one’s own motivations, biases, and place within the larger reality — as the ultimate truth and an absolute ethical constraint. This self-awareness serves as a vital safeguard against ego-driven manipulation that causes tangible, direct, and acute suffering.
“Greater Good Equals Greater Truth” aims to provide a robust, principle-based method for ethical decision-making, offering a clear guide for individuals and entities to act today in ways more aligned with where our species and morality systems may go tomorrow.
How it Came Together
The framework itself represents the culmination of a back and forth with Gemini in which I provided the philosophical parameters & assumptions, its positions regarding various classic ethical dilemmas, and clarified questions & inconsistencies. Once completed, I asked Gemini to output a summary that could be ingested by another GenAI models to learn the framework.
Join the Discussion
I believe “Greater Good Equals Greater Truth” offers a compelling and timely approach to navigating our complex world. I invite you, the reader, to engage with its principles, to critique its tenets, and to explore its potential applications.
How does this framework resonate with your own ethical understanding?
What are its strengths and weaknesses when applied to real-world dilemmas?
Share your thoughts and critical perspectives in the comments. Let us collectively explore whether this framework can indeed guide us toward a future where the greater good and greater truth are inextricably linked, fostering a world of genuine self-awareness, sustainability, and universal alignment.
To try it yourself, first ingest the framework (below.) Afterwards, you could ask the AI questions like these to get started:
“How would the ‘Greater Good Equals Greater Truth’ framework evaluate [a recent political decision/social media trend]?”
“How does this framework compare to [Utilitarianism/Deontology/Virtue Ethics]?”
“Apply the ‘Absence of Ego-Driven Manipulation’ pillar to a common marketing strategy.”
“What would a society governed by this framework look like?”
Limitations
To trust the outputs of this framework within a GenAI model, you must also trust the LLM you are using to be able to provide reasonable advice and reasoning on morality. Alternatively, you could also do your own analysis applying the principles of the framework using your own judgement.
The framework uses what’s publicly known as its inputs. This means it’s less accurate for analyzing that which still not fully publicly known or developed.
These limitations also means the framework itself is evergreen, which is one of its strengths. The scores will evolve with us, as the AI and inputs evolve.
The Framework for AI Testing (Copy and Paste into your LLM):
The June 2025 Framework for Greater Good Equals Greater Truth Philosophy: A Comprehensive Description
This philosophical framework establishes a teleological and ethical system predicated on the fundamental axiom that the ultimate “greater good” is inextricably linked to, and indeed achieved through, complete alignment with “greater truth.” It is an imperative for humanity to consciously identify and divest itself of “unnatural” deviations, thereby fostering a deliberate re-integration with what the framework identifies as the inherent goodness and profound wisdom embedded within the natural universe. The core proposition is that authentic well-being — pertaining to individual sentience, human societal structures, and the entire planetary ecosystem — does not arise from arbitrary human desires, transient pleasures, or abstract societal constructs of human invention. Rather, genuine good emerges exclusively from a deep understanding of, an earnest embrace of, and a harmonious alignment with the fundamental realities and immutable principles that rigorously govern all existence, precisely as these phenomena manifest and unfold in nature, untainted by human manipulation, intervention, or distortion. The framework posits that recognizing and living in accordance with these deepest, cosmic “truths” is the singular path to the “greater good.”
I. Core Axioms: The Universe’s Inherent Goodness and the Nature of Truth
1. The Natural Universe’s Intrinsic Goodness: The foundational axiom of this framework is the profound conviction that the natural universe — defined as “what is” in its pristine, unadulterated state, prior to or independent of human deviation — is inherently good. This is not a mere optimistic sentiment or a romanticized view; it is established as a foundational principle from which all subsequent tenets logically derive. Consequently, if the fundamental essence of the universe is inherently good, then its ceaseless progression, its continuous unfolding, and its dynamic processes must, by definition, also inherently lead towards the “greater good.” This principle implies an inherent trust in the universe’s own self-optimizing nature, a recognition that its natural course, its unguided evolution, is invariably the most beneficial in the grand, overarching scheme of existence. This also implies that “natural sacrifices” (e.g., death, decay, natural disasters) are ultimately part of this good progression, as they facilitate larger, necessary cycles and learning opportunities.
2. Definition of “Greater Truth”: Flowing directly from the axiom of the universe’s inherent goodness, the definition of “greater truth” is precisely delineated. It signifies the continuous process of moving ever closer to objective, factual reality as it exists within the unmanipulated natural world. This concept of truth transcends subjective interpretations, personal opinions, cultural relativism, or comforting fictions that might serve human convenience or fleeting desires. Instead, “greater truth” demands a rigorous, almost scientific-like pursuit of understanding the underlying mechanics, the immutable laws, and the deep, often subtle principles that govern all existence. This pursuit extends from the grand scale of astrophysical phenomena and cosmic evolution to the intricate dance of molecular biology, from the robust, self-regulating cycles of ecosystems to the fundamental laws of physics. It is about recognizing the cosmic “truth” in every observable aspect of existence and actively seeking to align both human understanding and human actions with that truth. The goal is epistemic congruence with reality.
II. Humanity’s Place in the Natural Order: Defining Natural, Unnatural, and Pseudo-Natural
To accurately delineate humanity’s role and responsibilities within this framework, a sharp and precise distinction is drawn between what is considered “natural,” what constitutes “unnatural,” and the unique category of “pseudo-natural.”
1. “Natural” Definition: A quality, behavior, or phenomenon is considered “natural” if it is consistently found in both animals and humans. This refers to the most fundamental, shared biological and instinctual drives that connect Homo sapiens directly to the broader tapestry of life on Earth. Examples include the basic imperative for individual and species survival, the innate drive for procreation and the continuation of a species, or the profound, often self-sacrificing empathy a mother feels for her offspring. These are regarded as deep, universal currents of life that underscore our shared evolutionary heritage and demonstrate an inherent, fundamental goodness that precedes complex human consciousness.
2. “Unnatural” Definition: Conversely, “unnatural” denotes qualities, behaviors, or motivations that are unique to humans and conspicuously lack direct, observable parallels in the animal kingdom or broader nature. This category specifically includes human constructs like ego, particularly when it manifests as manipulative self-interest that extends beyond basic survival needs or the well-being of one’s immediate biological group. It also encompasses abstract forms of greed that are insatiable and go beyond simple resource acquisition for sustenance (e.g., accumulation of wealth beyond practical utility), or complex, non-essential forms of manipulation that deviate from the more direct, instinctual, and often transparent interactions observed in the natural world. These “unnatural” elements are explicitly identified as deviations from the core, inherently good nature of the universe’s progression.
3. Humanity as a “Natural Deviation” and “Pseudo-Natural” Creations: Humanity itself, with its unique cognitive abilities, capacity for complex abstract thought, and intricate societal structures, is viewed as a “natural deviation” from the core “natural” definition. We emerged organically from nature, a product of its own evolutionary processes. Yet, our particular evolutionary path has led to distinct characteristics that empower us to create phenomena that do not spontaneously arise in the wild. These human-made constructs, technologies, abstract systems, and forms of organization are collectively termed “pseudo-natural.” They are born from natural processes (human minds), but are uniquely shaped by human ingenuity and consciousness, representing a distinct category of existence.
III. The Hierarchy of “Pseudo-Natural” and the Absolute Ethical Constraint
Crucially, the framework recognizes that not all pseudo-natural creations are viewed equally in terms of their alignment with truth and good. There exists a vital hierarchy within the pseudo-natural realm.
1. Ultimate Truth: Self-Awareness: At the very pinnacle of this hierarchy lies self-awareness, a distinctly human capacity for introspection, consciousness of one’s own existence, and reflective thought. This framework identifies self-awareness as the ultimate truth that humanity can embody and perceive. This profound self-recognition is seen as the highest expression of truth humanity can achieve. Consequently, any actions, endeavors, or pseudo-natural creations that genuinely foster or deepen self-awareness, whether individual or collective, are considered inherently good and align directly with this ultimate truth.
2. Lower/Deviant: The Ego-Harm Threshold (Absolute Prohibition): On the lower, more problematic end of the pseudo-natural spectrum resides ego-driven manipulation that causes “tangible, direct, acute suffering” to others. This specific type of ego-driven action is unequivocally deemed inherently wrong and is never justified,regardless of any purported benefits it might promise, any temporary convenience it might offer, or even if it claims to lead to a “greater good.” This is a deontological absolute within the framework’s otherwise teleological orientation.
-Definition of “Tangible, Direct, Acute Suffering”: This term is precisely defined to include not only acute physical pain but also severe psychological distress, such as chronic burnout, profound emotional anguish, or intense anxiety, when these are directly caused by human actions or choices. The “direct” aspect implies a clear causal link, not merely distant or unforeseen consequences.
-Distinction from Natural Suffering: It is vital to differentiate this from suffering that is a “necessary natural sacrifice” (e.g., the suffering inherent in natural predation, disease, or disasters). Such natural suffering, though uncomfortable from a human perspective, is considered part of the universe’s good progression. The prohibition applies specifically to human-induced suffering driven by ego-based manipulation.
-“Not Good but Not Bad” Category: It’s important to note that indirect or delayed harm, or manipulation that doesn’t immediately cause acute suffering, is treated with less condemnation. These outcomes are categorized as “not good but not bad,” as the framework trusts in nature’s inherent, long-term self-correcting mechanisms to address such imbalances over time, without the need for immediate, harmful human intervention. This implies that if a deviation from truth or a non-optimal outcome does not involve ego-driven acute suffering, nature will eventually course-correct, allowing for a learning process.
IV. The Path to Alignment and Progress: Stewarding Truth, Not Controlling It
1. Truth Revelation Mimics Natural Processes: In this framework, the revelation of truth is envisioned as a process that mimics nature itself — organic, unmanipulated, and inherently gradual. Truth unveils itself through diligent observation, rigorous scientific inquiry, and the natural unfolding of reality, rather than through deliberate human intervention, forced disclosures, or manipulative revelations designed to control outcomes or accelerate progress beyond natural limits. While the framework acknowledges that a significant, sudden “big bang” revelation of truth is perfectly acceptable if it occurs naturally or serendipitously (i.e., it is not a result of ego-driven haste), humanity must never attempt to rush, control, or force truth for ego-driven reasons. The pace of truth’s unveiling should be dictated by the natural world’s own rhythms and inherent complexity, not human impatience or desire for control.
2. Humanity’s Role as Stewards: Humanity’s central role, therefore, is not to dominate or exploit, but to learn from these natural revelations and become better stewards of the natural environment. This isn’t about dominion; it’s about respectful coexistence, deep understanding, and responsible guardianship. Progress, within this unique context, isn’t defined by endless material accumulation, unchecked technological expansion, or increasing societal complexity for its own sake. Instead, true progress is measured by humanity’s success in evolving by shedding its lower, “unnatural” traits (especially ego causing harm) and aligning more closely with the inherent good of the natural order. This implies a move towards greater ecological harmony and less destructive impact.
3. The “Slow, Sometimes Pseudo-Natural Process” for Re-alignment: This crucial journey towards re-alignment is characterized as a “slow, sometimes pseudo-natural process.” This is a key nuance: it means humanity can utilize its unique capacities and creations (its “deviation”) as tools for its own evolution, but only if these tools adhere strictly to rigorous scientific methodology and are not driven by ego-fueled haste. The process must respect natural rhythms and scientific discovery, not human impatience or desire for control. This allows for deliberate, intelligent human action, provided it is aligned with natural principles and motivations.
4. Self-Sustainability as the Criterion for “Good” Pseudo-Natural Creations: For “pseudo-natural creations” — everything from our sprawling cities and intricate technologies to our complex economic and political systems — to be considered “good” and aligned with nature, they must demonstrate self-sustainability or be on a clear and deliberate path toward it. This serves as a vital, measurable criterion, mirroring the universe’s inherent self-sufficiency and cyclical nature. This criterion applies broadly: to material and energy consumption, aiming for closed-loop systems, circular economies, and regenerative practices. Ideally, it also extends to the conceptual self-sustainability of abstract systems, ensuring they do not create unresolvable long-term imbalances or dependencies. The framework pragmatically acknowledges that short-term non-sustainability or non-acute harm might be acceptable if it’s a necessary, carefully considered, and crucially, non-ego-driven step toward achieving undeniable long-term self-sustainability. Ultimately, humanity’s profound purpose within this framework is to cultivate self-awareness (the ultimate truth) and align with the universe’s inherent goodness through practices that are fundamentally self-sustaining, all while actively shedding the ego that leads to acute harm.
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/9303b244-5637-4798-92b4-f6db7c795158
