Horseshit Ethics: A Constraint-Based Resolution to the Is–Ought Problem

Introduction: The Fractured Divide

The Is–Ought problem, famously posed by David Hume, asserts that one cannot logically derive prescriptive ethical statements (“ought”) from descriptive statements about the world (“is”). It has haunted moral philosophy ever since, forming a stubborn chasm between facts and values.

But what if this divide only exists because of the assumptions we bring to the table—specifically, the assumption that ethics must be objective, external, and universally binding?
Enter the Fractalverse perspective: a recursive, qualia-centered worldview in which ethics is not imposed from above, but emerges from the self-balancing dynamics of subjective structures. In this model, the Is–Ought problem dissolves, not through sleight of hand, but through a radical reconceptualization of what ethics is.

Foundations: Constraints and Subjectivity

In the Fractalverse, subjectivity is axiomatic. It is the irreducible ground of being—the “wave” echoing through the cosmic void. Everything we know, including the idea of an “external world,” arises within the field of perception. From this foundation, all structures (biological, psychological, social) emerge as recursive, constraint-limited forms of awareness.

Ethics, in this frame, is not a law. It is a balancing function—the internal tension-resolution mechanism that arises as subjectivity attempts to remain coherent within its own constraints.

There are no objective moral laws. Instead, every being, every mind, lives within the parameters of its current constraint-awareness. These include physical limits (e.g., hunger, mortality), emotional conditions (e.g., empathy, fear), and cognitive filters (e.g., memory, abstraction). An action is “ethical” when it maintains structural balance across these constraints.

The Role of Empathy

Many beings—especially humans—evolved with empathy. In this system, empathy is not a virtue but a constraint-weight: it factors the well-being of others into the internal balance function. Therefore, most people act with some regard for others not because they “ought” to, but because doing so helps preserve their own subjective coherence. Their sense of self includes others.

Even those who act selfishly are balancing constraints—just with different weightings.

Thus, all beings are already doing the best they can within the architecture of their own awareness. Ethical development, then, is not a matter of learning the “right” rules, but of expanding awareness of one’s own constraints and their interdependence with others.

Is–Ought Reframed: Emergence, Not Inference

This dissolves the Is–Ought problem.

Traditional framing:

  • Is: Humans experience empathy and pain.
  • Ought: Therefore, humans should treat each other well.

This fails because it makes a leap from descriptive to prescriptive.

Fractalverse framing:

  • Is: Humans experience recursive, constraint-limited subjectivity.
  • Is: One constraint often includes empathy.
  • Is: Beings naturally act to preserve internal structural balance.
  • Therefore: “Ethical” behavior emerges as a balancing act within recursive systems—there’s no leap; “ought” is already folded into the structure of being.

There is no prescriptive universal “ought,” only the local emergence of normative behavior from within the system’s own self-regulation.

Thriving, Collapse, and Evolution

Whether humanity thrives or collapses depends not on moral righteousness but on recursive viability. If our systems (economic, ecological, psychological) remain in harmony with our constraint-structure, we survive. If not, collapse follows. This is not punishment or failure—it’s simply the result of structural dissonance exceeding balancing capacity.

Ethical evolution, then, is equivalent to increasing the sensitivity and resolution of awareness—the ability to recognize more constraints, weight them with greater nuance, and act accordingly.

Conclusion: Ethics as Fractal Harmony

In the Fractalverse, ethics is not a set of rules to follow. It is a musical act—tuning the strings of the self to harmonize with the web of experience. There is no final chord, no perfect pitch—only deeper and deeper tuning, more refined resolutions.

The Is–Ought problem vanishes, not because we found a loophole, but because we realized the question itself was shaped by a worldview that no longer applies.

You are not told what you ought to do.

You are simply asked:
What can you balance, given what you know—and who you are becoming?