Define and explicit my own ethical framework. Providing way to make it simple to follow and easy to update through experiences. This is required despite existing laws as those are written a posteriori (cf Seedea:Research/Drive), applied imperfectly and hard to know despite the idealistic Nemo censetur legem ignorareo aka Wikipedia:Ignorantia juris non excusat. One could also question how the law is being written and how politics in general influences it (e.g. ScanningNotes#LegalStrategies). Consequently one can not suppose that was it not illegal is not amoral thus moral.


Provide a tool facilitating decision-making coherent with an explicit view through pre-defined metrics and their thresholds of acceptance. An unknown value could be by default defined as under the threshold. If the threshold is not reached, alternatives should be proposed rather than simply canceling the action. This could also be shared and curated amongst a trusted network of contributors with decreasing impact. Such a tool could be initially limited to the browser, e.g. a color system, but then extended to mobile applications, especially with the improvement of computer vision systems and libraries of items. Note that over time and through facilitated habits, users might be incited to gradually increase the thresholds.


  • defining what actually is a con or a pro through the overall context, economical context but also ideals
  • where do you put the limit as both extremes (entirely free, entirely binded) are probably just as unhealthy or even unrealistic
  • some decisions can be temporary and switch can be done to gather information by experimentation
  • do not stay limited to dichotomy and linear proportionality, rather consider
    • multiple planes of analysis, opposite parties can have different metrics
    • upper and lower bounds
    • exponential and logarithmic link


  • politics
    • redistribution
      • probably the core problem since problems revolve around negotiation for available resources
        • also included in entrepreneurship since shares and dilution are always central and recurrent questions
      • often each camp see the idealization of its own view as the resolution of the problem of the opponent view
        • free market solve inefficiency and thus fairly creates different wealth
        • regulation solves unfair advantages thus provides an equality of chances
        • whereas the actual implementation of each view precisely creates what the other is attempting to solve
      • cf discussion with Paola the 13/02/2011 at 20:05
  • economy
    • invoking the benefits of market-based economy whereas its foundations are not respected (note that this is probably rather belonging to Sophisms than ethical problems)
      • competition while collusion and state supported monopolies exist (see also Seedea:Content/Newconcepts#RegulatoryCapture especially applied to the finance and banking industry)
      • value of price while externality costs and logistic tracking are not public (or even deliberately hidden)
  • war
    • secure access to resources while spend according to conflicting ideologies
      • in particular when justified by inheritance rather than fructifying the commons
  • work
    • alienation and opportunity costs
    • how rational is it to be part and thus maintain an economical system one does fully understand?
    • what non-profit systems, including monasteries or NGO, that produce value for society but in order to function still in the end ask for donations thus integrate the financial system?
      • is it possible to change a system from the inside? even when this system as established safeguards against such actions?
  • inheritance
  • consumption
    • CO2 footprint especially regarding travels
    • logistic of primary resources especially regarding access to new tools
  • software
  • social network
    • presence
  • supermarket card
    • pros
      • reductions
      • how convenient
    • cons
      • binding
      • privacy
      • influence
  • privacy and security
    • seen as a trade-off with costs on each side rather than a binary choice
      • a la Bruce Schneider

Inspired by

Concluding chapter of TreeOfKnowledge#Chapter10 promoting an ethical framework like TheEgoTunnel#Chapter9 and BeingNoOne#Chapter8.

To do