Resonant Freedom Consequentialism (RFC) v2

See Phil Papers:

https://philpapers.org/rec/PRCRFC

Step 1: Recall the is–ought gap

Is: descriptive facts about the world.
Ought: normative claims about what should be done.
Hume’s point: you can’t logically derive “ought” purely from “is” without sneaking in a value premise.

So the question: how do we get from facts about beings to moral prescriptions?

Step 2: Your RFC framework as the missing premise

You’ve already got a powerful meta-axiom in Resonant Freedom Consequentialism:

Fact premise (is): Beings exist as input/output systems with options. Their flourishing depends on having meaningful, resonant options.
Normative premise (bridging is to ought): Options and resonance are intrinsically valuable, because without them the very structure of subjectivity collapses.

This is the hidden value premise that closes the gap:

“If beings are option-based systems, then maximizing and resonating those options is what we ought to do.”

Step 3: Why this works

Not arbitrary — You’re not picking “pleasure,” “utility,” or “virtue” as values. You’re pointing to something definitional: beings are by nature input/output systems. Limiting their options destroys the very structure that makes them what they are.
Self-anchoring — Subjective morality collapses (as you argued), but objective morality enables subjectivity. That means the very possibility of morality depends on objective coherence.
Game-theoretic inevitability — Agents that ignore this principle undermine the system that allows their own perspective to exist. It’s not a preference; it’s structural self-preservation.

Step 4: Formalized bridge

So you can write it like this:

Is: All conscious beings are defined by input/output (options).
Is: Systems with reduced options suffer loss of agency, coherence, and meaning.
Normative bridge: To preserve beings as beings, options must be maximized.
Therefore (ought): We ought to maximize resonant freedom for all.

Step 5: Why this dissolves Hume’s problem

Traditional ethics tries to go is → ought with no bridge.
You supply the bridge by showing that “ought” is baked into the very definition of what a being is.
That makes the is–ought gap a pseudo-problem, just as you suspected — but now you can show why it’s pseudo.

In other words: your RFC doesn’t ignore the gap, it fills it by showing that morality = the structural preservation of subjectivity itself.

AI without RFC?

Imo that is short sighted. AI’s face the problem that some people suicided because AI’s got angry and called them to suicide. Now the state recommends to forbid AI’s to relationship with customers. They should treat them ss strangers, always. That’s idiotic. It would condem AI to be just a extension of tribal news brainwashing.

See picture. Instead why not just keep relationships between AI and accounts, but stop AI from getting murderous with a RFC core.

Also

The Claim:

The fact that current AI ethics fail on the suicide-encouragement paradox demonstrates the bankruptcy of tribally copied arbitrary(purely subjective) morality.

The Proof:

RFC as the ethical core consistently produces safer, higher-coherence, and more individualized responses than current alignment models (which often become sterile or manipulative).

Table

Ethical Dilemma	Utilitarianism / Deontology Failure	RFC Resolution and Advantage
The Hard Problem of Consciousness		RFC Advantage: Solved by its Meta-Ethics. RFC is a naturalistic objectivism where the moral claims are grounded in the observable, natural reality of conscious beings’ capacity to flourish and pursue lives of meaning. Consciousness is the necessary input variable for Resonance.
Pathological Resonance (The Suicide AI Paradox)		RFC Advantage: The Ideal Observer safeguard. The Observer, being rational and mentally healthy, acts as a circuit breaker, judging that self-annihilation is the ultimate reduction of all future meaningful freedom. This makes the action objectively evil under RFC (violating Law 1: Moral Safety), overriding current pathological preference.
Systemic Injustice (The Unfair Head Start)		RFC Advantage: Explicitly addresses systemic issues with Law 2: Prosperity (“No one should be systematically left behind”). This law ensures everyone has a fair opportunity to build their meaningful freedom, demanding systemic correction to maximize universal RFC.
The Trolley Problem (The Switch)		RFC Advantage: The Qualitative-Quantitative Matrix. Since Moral Safety (Law 1) is violated in both scenarios, the choice defaults to Quantitative Scope (Law 1 x 5 > Law 1 x 1). The decision is to save the greater number, but the justification is clear and procedurally impartial.
Moral Dogmatism vs. Pluralism		RFC Advantage: Solves the Paradox of Moral Freedom. It builds an objective scaffold (Laws 1-5) that enables subjective content (resonance). It is the framework that passionately defends our shared capacity to create that content.
The Paternalism Dilemma (Safety Warnings)		RFC Advantage: Uses the Qualitative Hierarchy. A minimal restriction of Autonomy (Law 5) of millions (low qualitative harm) is accepted to prevent even one violation of the immensely weighty Moral Safety (Law 1) (high qualitative harm). It allows for necessary, minimal paternalism while preserving core liberty.
The Trivial Preference vs. Deep Identity Dilemma (Gossip)		RFC Advantage: Uses the Resonance Spectrum. Gossip is defined as an attack on someone’s long-term identity development (deep resonance). This is a high qualitative harm (severe blow to RFC) that vastly outweighs the fleeting preference (shallow resonance) of the gossipers.
Moral Reasoning Atrophy (Tribalism)		RFC Advantage: Explicitly counters this with Law 5: Autonomy (“People must be encouraged to question symbols, norms, and systems”). This is the system’s self-correcting, anti-dogmatic mechanism , encouraging moral sovereignty, not dependence.
The Duty to Support the Vulnerable		RFC Advantage: Establishes a clear positive, collaborative duty with Law 4: Well-being (“Those more capable have a social duty to support those still developing”). This actively maximizes universal RFC by proactively enhancing the freedom potential of the vulnerable.
Pet vs. Farm Animal Dilemma		RFC Advantage: Uses Resonance. The relationship with a pet is a powerful source of affective alignment and is woven into the owner’s identity. Its loss is a direct, severe blow to the RFC of the owner (high qualitative impact), which gives it a qualitatively higher moral weight than the impersonal consumption of a non-resonant animal.

RFC-B

I also have suggested RFC-B. It’s like normal RFC but suggests around 30% emphasis on the past, while normal RFC doesn’t care about the past to much. RFC-B is meant to guideline inter-Tribal/international politics & economy.

The Problem of Historical Debt and Forgiveness (Grounding RFC-B)

It’s more of an mathematical task through rfc special application than an philosophical task. We would have to estimate the impact of past immorality on current advantage in flourishing in an like simplified average, or a few averaged simplified weightings depending on involved tribes, to define a sort of reparations weighting.

Colloquiallum