The Truth-Driven Agreement Ethic (TDAE): A Complete Moral Philosophy for the Age of Interconnection
A Complete Moral Philosophy for the Age of Interconnection
By Ashman Roonz
Copyright © 2025 ashmanroonz.ca
Participatory Democracy GitHub Project →
Abstract
For millennia, rulers have justified deception as the "noble lie." TDAE rejects this shortcut. In a world of deep interconnection, morality must emerge from the convergence of truth (reality's constraints) and agreement (fair consent of those affected) through transparent process.
TDAE harmonizes objectivity with subjectivity, individual freedom with collective responsibility, and continuity with change. It is not a new ideology but a new architecture for moral action: reality-first, agreement-shaped, process-driven, and continuously learning.
This framework scales from personal choices to democratic institutions. Its ultimate vision is love as public structure: the visible wholeness that emerges when truth and agreement converge.
Important Note
This document is a work in progress. It represents an initial framework, not a final blueprint. The Truth-Driven Agreement Ethic (TDAE) and Participatory Democracy (PD) require collective refinement, critique, and testing.
We invite feedback, criticism, and contributions from:
-
Philosophers and ethicists
-
Technologists and builders
-
Policy experts and community organizers
-
Anyone who wants to help shape a more inclusive, truth-aligned future
Your participation is essential. This is not mine alone — it’s meant to grow through open collaboration.
I. Introduction: The Crisis of Contemporary Ethics
The 20th century gave us extremes: rigid absolutisms that stifled plural voices, and unbounded relativisms that eroded common ground. The 21st intensifies this tension as truth itself becomes contested, polarization fragments communities, and technological acceleration outpaces moral adaptation.
Traditional ethics falter:
- Utilitarianism reduces morality to calculation, blind to cultural pluralism.
- Deontology insists on absolute duties, brittle in diverse contexts.
- Virtue Ethics cultivates character but lacks collective guidance.
- Relativism respects diversity but collapses into arbitrariness.
What is needed is not another ideology but a moral architecture: a framework that aligns diverse perspectives, honors both freedom and responsibility, and evolves as knowledge deepens.
II. Metaphysical Foundations
2.1 Universal Interconnection
Everything is connected. Every being is both whole-in-itself and part-of-a-greater-whole.
A cell is whole yet part of an organ.
An organ is whole yet part of a body.
A body is whole yet part of a society.
Societies are wholes within ecosystems, within Earth.
This fractal pattern reveals that identity and context are inseparable: no center exists without its field.
2.2 Structure-in-Process
Reality is structure in process:
- Structure: a center (identity/agency) within a field (context).
- Process: continuous input (field → center) and output (center → field).
This dynamic repeats everywhere: atoms exchanging energy, neurons integrating signals, societies deliberating into policy.
2.3 Truth as Convergence (Full Definition)
Philosophy of Truth
The one truth is that there are many truths.
Definition of Truth
Truth is the convergent structure of reality: what remains consistent across perspectives, verifiable through experience, and coherent within context.
It is not a single statement or fixed law, but a pattern of alignment.
It is what makes agreement possible.
It is centered, but not singular; it emerges through relationship with reality.
Truth Axioms
- Truth is real: It exists independently of belief.
- Truth is plural: It appears differently from different positions.
- Truth is convergent: It is what perspectives can agree on when aligned.
- Truth is directional: We move closer or farther from it.
- Truth is functional: It supports prediction, moral coherence, and trust.
- Truth is evolving: Not because it changes, but because our access deepens.
Therefore:
The one truth is that there are many truths—
but the more they converge through us, the more real they become for us.
III. Metaethical Framework
3.1 Truth-Anchored Constructivism
- Objective constraints exist: physical laws, ecological limits, harm.
- Subjective values matter: cultures prioritize differently within constraints.
- Morality emerges through convergence: fair agreements among those affected, aligned with truth.
3.2 Good vs Evil (Operational Test)
- Good: strengthens convergence between truth and agreement.
- Evil (Fracture): distorts truth, betrays agreements, or fragments wholeness through coercion, deception, or neglect.
Checklist (0–10 scale):
- Truth-alignment (evidence, uncertainty disclosure).
- Agreement integrity (consent honored or revised fairly).
- Non-coercion (no threats or deceit).
- Rights floor (protects dignity, prevents foreseeable harm).
- Learning loop (commits to monitoring & revision).
8–10 = convergent good.
4–7 = mixed, revise.
0–3 = fracture, evil present.
IV. Core Principles of TDAE
- Truth as Foundation (Reality-First Ethics): no policy against facts.
- Agreement as Moral Form (Consensual Construction): fairness = consent under equal voice, accurate info, non-coercion.
- Knowledge as Responsibility (Graduated Accountability): "the more you know, the better you can do."
- Compassionate Accountability (Educational Justice): teach away ignorance, punish deceit.
- Participation as Sacred Right: every affected voice must be heard.
- Adaptive Morality (Evolutionary Ethics): agreements must evolve.
- Love as Emergent Wholeness: visible harmony when centers and fields align.
V. The Convergence Loop (C-Loop)
- Map facts (truth-space).
- Map stakeholders (field).
- Generate candidate agreements.
- Test with four filters (truth, rights, legitimacy, diversity).
- Decide, implement, explain.
- Monitor and revise.
Fractal: scales from personal dilemmas to global governance.
VI. Virtues in TDAE
Truth virtues: humility, curiosity, honesty, steel-manning.
Agreement virtues: fairness, empathy, solidarity, respect.
Process virtues: transparency, accountability, adaptability, restorative intent.
VII. Applied Ethics Domains
- Personal: integrity, growth, authenticity.
- Relational: consent, communication, conflict resolution.
- Social: distributive, procedural, restorative justice.
- Environmental: sustainability, stewardship, intergenerational justice.
- Political: participatory, epistemic, deliberative democracy.
VIII. Comparative Analysis
8.1 TDAE vs. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism seeks to maximize aggregate well-being through consequentialist calculation.
TDAE focuses on process over outcomes. While consequences matter, the primary concern is whether decisions emerge from truth-aligned agreements among affected parties. This avoids utility maximization's problems with:
- Measurement and comparison across different types of well-being
- Minority rights being overridden for majority benefit
- Expert calculation replacing democratic participation
Convergence: Both care about human flourishing; TDAE emphasizes fair process as the path.
8.2 TDAE vs. Deontology
Deontology grounds morality in universal duties and categorical imperatives.
TDAE treats duties as evolving agreements rather than fixed absolutes. While respecting Kant's emphasis on human dignity and universalizability, TDAE allows:
- Cultural variation in specific moral rules
- Contextual adaptation as circumstances change
- Democratic revision of ethical commitments
Convergence: Both insist on respect for persons; TDAE makes this respect procedural rather than substantive.
8.3 TDAE vs. Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics emphasizes character development and moral excellence.
TDAE reframes virtues as convergence habits—practices that enable effective participation in truth-aligned agreement processes. This:
- Connects individual character to collective flourishing
- Makes virtues contextually adaptive rather than culturally fixed
- Provides clear criteria for evaluating character traits
Convergence: Both emphasize moral formation; TDAE embeds this in relational and institutional contexts.
8.4 TDAE vs. Moral Relativism
Relativism holds that moral truths are relative to cultures or individuals.
TDAE affirms plurality within truth-bounds. Multiple valid moralities can coexist, but they must:
- Align with objective realities (physical, psychological, social)
- Emerge through fair agreement processes
- Respect the dignity and voice of all affected parties
Convergence: Both respect diversity; TDAE prevents this from sliding into arbitrary subjectivism.
8.5 TDAE vs. Moral Objectivism
Objectivism claims there are universal moral truths discoverable through reason.
TDAE accepts truth constraints while allowing multiple valid paths within those constraints. This:
- Acknowledges cross-cultural moral convergences (human rights, golden rule variants)
- Permits cultural variation in how universal values are expressed
- Makes moral discovery democratic rather than expert-driven
Convergence: Both ground morality in reality; TDAE makes access to moral truth participatory.
IX. Institutional Design: Participatory Democracy (PD)
9.1 Noble Lie vs Noble Truth
The "noble lie" seeks stability by deception. TDAE seeks stability through truth + resilient process. Lies create brittle order; truth creates antifragile wholeness.
9.2 Theology Bridge: God's Truth vs Human Voice
If God's truth is real, it withstands scrutiny and converges across perspectives. Coercion and deceit reveal human voice usurping truth. Faith communities fully participate—but on the same ground rules: truth first, no coercion, open reasons, equal standing.
9.3 Free Speech Doctrine
- Default = liberty.
- Restriction only when: direct, foreseeable, significant harm + no less-restrictive alternative.
- Due process: transparent justification, appeal, periodic review.
- Counter-speech first: context, provenance, rival reasoning preferred over removal.
9.4 PD Implementation
People as body, government as mind (our collective will): Rather than periodic elections, continuous citizen engagement through AI-mediated platforms enables:
- Every voice, every day: Ongoing input rather than episodic voting
- Truth-alignment: Decisions anchored in best available evidence
- Inclusive deliberation: All affected parties have standing and voice
- Transparent reasoning: Public access to decision-making processes
Design Principles:
- AI Advocates: synthesize, flag bias, model scenarios. Never finalize decisions.
- Privacy split: citizens anonymous; officials transparent.
- Crisis mode: abbreviated C-Loop with mandatory post-hoc review.
- Legibility: every model publishes data sources, limits, failure modes; every decision publishes a plain-language rationale.
- Biometric verification with privacy: One-person-one-voice through fingerprint/facial recognition, but all citizen inputs remain anonymous.
- Multi-scale coordination: Centers of Focus operate from neighborhood to national levels, with clear protocols for how local autonomy interfaces with broader policy coherence.
X. Case Studies
10.1 Climate Policy
Challenge: Global collective action problem with unequal impacts and responsibilities.
TDAE Application:
- Truth layer: Planetary boundaries as non-negotiable constraints
- Agreement layer: Fair burden-sharing among nations and generations
- Process: Global citizens' assemblies with weighted representation by impact
- Outcome: Binding agreements within physical limits, democratically legitimated
10.2 Criminal Justice Reform
Challenge: Balancing accountability, deterrence, rehabilitation, and victim needs.
TDAE Application:
- Truth layer: Evidence on what actually reduces crime and promotes healing
- Agreement layer: Restorative conferences including victims, offenders, and communities
- Process: Graduated responses based on knowledge/intent rather than just outcomes
- Outcome: Justice that heals fractures rather than perpetuating them
10.3 Information Governance
Challenge: Misinformation, algorithmic bias, and platform power concentration.
TDAE Application:
- Truth layer: Transparent provenance tracking and adversarial fact-checking
- Agreement layer: Community standards developed through deliberative processes
- Process: Diverse moderation panels with appeal mechanisms
- Outcome: Information ecosystems that serve democratic convergence
10.4 Healthcare Policy
Challenge: Balancing individual choice, collective resources, and expert knowledge.
TDAE Application:
- Truth layer: Evidence-based medicine and public health data
- Agreement layer: Shared decision-making between patients, families, and providers
- Process: Learning health systems with continuous outcome monitoring
- Outcome: Healthcare that respects autonomy while optimizing population health
XI. Criticisms & Responses
11.1 The Technocracy Risk
Concern: Expert knowledge dominates democratic input.
TDAE Response: Truth provides constraints, not content. Within factual boundaries, affected communities determine values and priorities. AI assists deliberation but doesn't replace it.
11.2 The Relativism Risk
Concern: Without absolute moral foundations, anything can be justified.
TDAE Response: Truth anchors prevent arbitrary agreement. Physical reality, human dignity, and procedural fairness are non-negotiable baselines.
11.3 The Complexity Risk
Concern: Real-world decision-making is too complex for deliberative processes.
TDAE Response: The C-Loop is fractal and adaptive. Simple decisions use abbreviated versions; complex issues get proportionally more deliberative resources.
11.4 The Manipulation Risk
Concern: Sophisticated actors will capture and distort agreement processes.
TDAE Response: Transparency requirements, cognitive diversity, and rotating participation make manipulation detectable and unsustainable.
11.5 The Paralysis Risk
Concern: Seeking consensus will prevent necessary action.
TDAE Response: Time constraints are truth factors. When urgency is real, abbreviated processes are ethically justified, with commitment to post-hoc review and revision.
XII. TDAE Scorecard (0–5 each)
For any policy or decision, TDAE provides evaluative criteria:
12.1 Truth-Alignment Score
- Quality of evidence basis
- Uncertainty acknowledgment
- Constraint recognition
- Bias mitigation efforts
12.2 Inclusion Score
- Stakeholder identification completeness
- Voice and standing provision
- Accessibility accommodations
- Absent voice representation
12.3 Legitimacy Score
- Process fairness (participant evaluation)
- Reason transparency
- Contestation opportunities
- Outcome acceptability
12.4 Rights Protection Score
- Fundamental dignity respect
- Harm prevention measures
- Minority protection safeguards
- Consent and autonomy preservation
12.5 Diversity Utilization Score
- Cognitive diversity inclusion
- Creative solution generation
- Perspective synthesis quality
- Innovation and adaptation
12.6 Learning Integration Score
- Outcome monitoring systems
- Revision trigger mechanisms
- Feedback incorporation
- Adaptive capacity building
Scoring: This scorecard transforms moral evaluation from dogmatic assertion to empirical assessment of process quality.
XIII. Global Directions
13.1 International Relations
TDAE suggests moving beyond Westphalian sovereignty toward nested consent: local autonomy within global ecological and human rights constraints, mediated through transnational deliberative institutions.
13.2 Technology Governance
AI development, genetic engineering, and other powerful technologies require anticipatory governance: inclusive deliberation about values and constraints before deployment, not after.
13.3 Economic Systems
TDAE implies stakeholder capitalism with democratic input: economic arrangements legitimate only when they emerge from fair agreements among all affected parties within ecological truth constraints.
13.4 Educational Reform
Schools should teach convergence literacy: how to participate effectively in truth-aligned agreement processes, combining critical thinking with empathetic dialogue skills.
XIV. Conclusion: Love as Public Policy
TDAE replaces brittle order by deception with resilient wholeness by truth.
Not more rules—better process.
Not final answers—continuous convergence.
Not love as sentiment—but love as visible structure.
The ultimate vision is love as emergent wholeness—not mere sentiment, but the structural harmony that appears when parts align within wholes, when truth and agreement converge, when centers and fields achieve coherence.
In our age of unprecedented global interconnection and technological power, humanity needs moral frameworks adequate to our interdependence. TDAE offers not a new ideology, but a new architecture for moral thinking—one that can grow with our knowledge, adapt to our circumstances, and guide us toward the wholeness that is our deepest aspiration.
The future of ethics is not more rules, but better processes. Not final answers, but continuous convergence. Not love as luxury, but love as the inevitable emergence of truth-aligned agreement.
The TDAE Manifesto
Reality first—no policy against facts.
Everyone affected gets a voice.
Reasons must be open and contestable.
Compassion: teach away ignorance, punish deceit.
Continuous learning: measure, revisit, revise.
Morality = convergence of truth and agreement through fair process.
When we live this, love becomes public policy.
Check out the Participatory Democracy GitHub project for implementation details.
