Standalone Essays · Character and Virtue

A Secular Ethical Prioritization Framework: Obligations and Loyalties

Introduction and Methodology

The purpose of this framework is to:

Provide models for identifying and solving ethical problems.

Develop a systemic methodology for approaching difficult ethical decisions.

Understand the benefits of structured decision-making in resolving ethical dilemmas.

Distinguish between personal values and beliefs and objective principles in every situation.

Build skill in reconciling apparently competing obligations.

I recognize that ethics cannot be reduced to mere rules. It consists instead of overlapping, interactive, and hierarchical principles that offer guidance. When ethics are reduced to rules, mere compliance soon leads to skillful evasion of responsibility.

Foundational Loyalties: The Axiomatic Core

The foundation of any ethical system must be its Axiomatic Core—the non-negotiable principles upon which all other loyalties and decisions are built. For a secular, reason-based framework, this core loyalty must be to Reason, Truth, and the Minimization of Undue Harm (often expressed as the Harm Principle). This ferocious level of commitment is not extended to any subsequent human relationship.

This foundational commitment defines and qualifies all other loyalties. A human obligation maintains its authority only so long as it remains in alignment with the Axiomatic Core.

The First Law of Ethical Priority:

Obey the Axiomatic Core (Reason, Truth, Minimization of Harm) first.

Obey human authority that does not require you to violate the Axiomatic Core.

Four Broad Principles in Human Loyalty

All subsequent human loyalties are organized and managed by four guiding principles:

Reciprocal Obligation (Partnership): Loyalty must be reciprocal to maintain its full weight. A loyal neighbor trumps a disloyal family member. This is because the loyal party is a partner in upholding superior loyalties (like family security or civic good).

Hierarchical Priority (Placement): A higher obligation may demand the sacrifice of a lower obligation, but not vice versa. For example, the need to protect dependents (a higher obligation) may require leaving a job (a lower, contractual obligation) if the job’s demands create undue harm to the family.

The Weight of Risk: The weight of expected positive outcomes decreases as a factor the higher the principle or authority involved. For example, you may choose to abandon a personal ideal if the outcome will be disastrous. However, a threat to a core principle (like Truth or Autonomy) may require standing firm even if it means personal ruin.

Fidelity to Vows (Promise-Keeping): A person to whom you have made a solemn, voluntary vow or commitment takes priority over a person of equal “rank” who is not the recipient of a similar vow (e.g., a contractual partner over a non-contractual friend). Covenants and contracts heighten ethical duty.

The Principle of Proximity (Propinquity): The more immediate takes precedence over the more extended or distant. You must build a solid core of responsibility before reaching out to greater, more abstract ones. If you cannot responsibly manage your own household, you cannot be expected to effectively manage a city or a nation.

The Nested Chain of Human Obligation

Applying the principles of Hierarchical Priority and Proximity yields the following order of obligation, from highest to lowest:

1. The Covenanted Partnership (Spouse)

The spousal relationship takes precedence over parents, children, and voluntary affiliations because it is the highest voluntary commitment (Vow/Covenant) and the foundation of the immediate household. The partnership should be mutually supportive and enduring, as it must outlast the temporary parent/child relationship. In the rare instance of an intractable disagreement, a system of decisive action (such as an assigned tie-breaker role) is necessary to protect the unit’s functionality.

2. Immediate Dependents (Children and Immediate Family)

Care for immediate dependents must take priority over extended family and voluntary groups. Failure to provide for one’s own dependents is a severe ethical lapse. Children are regarded as individuals-in-training who are in the temporary custody of their parents until they reach autonomy (maturity and self-determination).

The immediate family is the first line of defense. From a practical perspective, caring for our immediate family members can be an effective first line of defense against poverty and social exclusion. By pooling resources, sharing responsibilities, and offering support and assistance to one another, families can help ensure that their members are able to meet their basic needs and navigate the challenges of life. The language for this duty is deliberately strong: if anyone doesn’t take care of his relatives, especially his immediate family, he is worthless and shameful.

The definition of family, however, should be broad. Some people argue that we should broaden our definition of family to include non-traditional or non-biological family structures, such as same-sex couples, adoptive families, or blended families. Seeing as I and my wife adopted six children, and that we feel that as long as people are willing to commit to sacrificial love for each other, who they choose to love is none of our business—we definitely fall on the “broaden the definition” side of the fence. This kind of love transcends traditional boundaries and categories, and can serve as a powerful force for creating strong and resilient families, no matter what they look like on the outside.

3. Reciprocal Kinship (Parents)

The ethical duty to support parents and grandparents is based on reciprocal obligation—a duty to sustain those who sustained you. This is a higher priority than abstract charitable work or voluntary group ministries.

4. Voluntary Affiliations (Community and Guilds)

Your obligations to a voluntary, high-commitment community (e.g., a philosophical society, a union, or a professional guild) should exceed your general obligations to the world at large. Within this group, a higher duty is owed to those who have voluntarily assumed an oversight role (leaders) because they are responsible for the group’s collective welfare.

5. Contractual Obligations (Work Relations)

Loyalty and service in work are based on the Contractual Obligation between employer and employee. Workers must be faithful and perform with integrity to uphold their end of the contract. Employers, in turn, must uphold the contract by providing fair and prompt wages and a non-oppressive working environment. The ethical duty is to the contract, not solely to the person holding the title.

6. Proximate Relationships (Neighbors and Close Friends)

Obligations to those who are geographically close and friendly take priority over those who are distant. In times of local hardship, the Principle of Proximity dictates that mutual aid between friendly neighbors is more immediate and effective than appealing to distant family or state aid.

7. The Social Contract (Host City / Host Nation / Government)

While your allegiance to the Axiomatic Core is supreme, you have a duty to the social contract of your host community. You must seek the welfare of your host city and nation—upholding its laws, paying taxes, and contributing to its stability—because your own security depends on the functioning of the larger system. This obedience is limited: if the government demands an action that violates the Axiomatic Core (Reason, Truth, Minimization of Harm), civil disobedience is not only warranted but required.

Prioritizing Aid: Charity with Discernment

Being open to helping anyone does not mean all aid carries equal weight. There should be a limit to our obligation to support those who appear to be taking advantage of our generosity or lack the motivation to improve their situation. The Sojourner does not feel obligated to support someone who lives only for pleasure.

When resources are scarce, prioritize the virtuous—not as a judgment of their worth as humans, but as a matter of efficiency. By prioritizing aid to those who are virtuous, the Sojourner can help ensure that resources are being used effectively and efficiently to address the root causes of poverty and injustice, rather than simply providing short-term relief. Imagine two individuals in need of aid: one is a hardworking single parent who is struggling to make ends meet, while the other is someone who is able-bodied but chooses not to work and instead spends their time engaging in destructive behaviors. While both individuals may be in need of assistance, providing aid to the hardworking parent is likely to have a greater positive impact, both in terms of improving their individual situation and in terms of setting an example for others in the community.

The same logic of efficiency informs where aid is directed. While it’s important to avoid making blanket generalizations about gender and financial decision-making, research does suggest that women tend to prioritize household necessities and investments in their families when they receive financial aid, while men may be more likely to spend on luxury items or personal indulgences. Financial aid is precious and there should be continual efforts to make sure that it is not wasted. In this way, prioritizing aid to the virtuous can be seen as an effective strategy for promoting long-term social change and creating a more just and equitable society.

Equality, Rights, and the Burden of Advantage

A hierarchy of obligation invites the objection that it offends equality. It does not—because equality does not mean “everyone gets the same rights.” While children have equal intrinsic value as human beings, they do not have the same rights as adults in many areas. For instance, they cannot vote, drive a car, or enter into legally binding contracts. These restrictions are in place to protect them and are lifted as they mature. Equal value is not identical rights.

Advantage, likewise, is not a license but a load. It’s true that I am autistic, but I am measurably more intelligent than the average person. Do I get to look down my nose at someone whose intelligence is average? Do I get more rights because of it? No. If anything, I get more responsibility. A white, Western, male in the upper middle class or higher has a great burden of responsibility because (rightly or wrongly) he has been gifted by life with huge advantages. Society is wrong for giving him more slack for the mere fact of the pigment of his skin. It is equally wrong to pay him more merely because he has testes rather than ovaries. It is also ridiculous to think that just because he had the good fortune of being born in the U.S. and the luck of coming into some money, that he is any wiser than anyone else. Yet, there he sits, bathing in his blessings. If he IS wise, he will not congratulate himself on these artificial measurements any more than I do for my IQ. He will take on the responsibilities that only he can bear and do something with them to make the world a better place.

Summary of Hierarchical Priority

The ethical structure is defined by a chain of nested, hierarchical loyalties:

Axiomatic Core (Reason, Truth, Minimization of Harm)

Covenanted Partnership (Spouse)

Immediate Dependents/Family

Voluntary Affiliations/Community

Contractual Obligations (Work)

Proximate Relationships (Neighbor/Friend)

Social Contract (Host Nation/Government)

If any relationship or authority steps away from the Axiomatic Core, the focus of obligation must shift to the demands of the higher, more foundational level.

See also: Essays