These next three sections are simply a description of Eleutherianism, Hermanism, and Eleutherian Hermanism as positively constructed moral framework and laws. They aim to provide a shallow understanding of the phenomena of good and metaphysics that I seek to prove in the rest of the book. Hermanism The judge morality of Hermanism is what decides whether an action is good or not after the action. We take the process of intuitional judgment on whether something is a good, a consequentialism, and seed it with the definition of the good will to discover what is a good result. A seed is a value of morality. All seeds come from the good will. These seeds include justice, freedom, survival, fairness, and any moral value. We take the aim of the good will to do its duty to the subject, will, or abstract good and then Hermanism tells us whether the aim was accomplished. Take the seed of feeding your own child. We aim to feed our children to keep them alive and healthy. That is why we buy and prepare food for them. This is the result of the aim of the good will to feed our children as good itself and so they can do good. The act of feeding them is confirmed scientifically to be moral good as without food they would die. Poison would kill them. Rotting food would make them sick. Thus, feeding our children food that is nourishing is an action that satisfies the aim of the good will. This can get very complicated when we impose higher order duties. A simple heuristic for the Hermanist calculus is essentially did this action result in a better world or not. If there are actors that have been harmed and actors that have benefited it seeks to weigh results while also providing cooperative activity that keeps harms from occurring due to 2nd order restrictions. A simple example of the Hermanist calculus is whether it was beneficial to spend money on food or rent. If you spend it on food you eat; if you spend it on rent you continue to have shelter. This example is a case of positional injustice. Both actions result in a better world for yourself but lead to some harm. There are three types of second order constrained actions: Both being permissible and a good result, one being bound by duty, and positional injustice. We see that if the second order construction of a space fails it results in a positional injustice where a bad result must occur no matter what. This is an example of how Hermanism judges social spaces. If you are thrust into a space that forces you to lead to negative results then it is moral to simply do as much good as you can. Here are some more examples of duty of the first order in the Hermanist calculus:

Introduction This book aims to present an ethical system that arises from the interaction of two ethical laws: Eleutherianism (EL), a form of deontology, and Hermanism (H), a form of consequentialism. My critique of the principle of the will of Kantian deontology creates Eleutherianism. The interaction between the metaphysics of intuition and the definition of the good will creates Hermanism. It is a consequentialism that serves to be the judge morality while Eleutherianism serves as the guide. ELH, or Eleutherian Hermanism is the abbreviation of the two laws’ implications and interactions. This is created with the knowledge of what is good from the judge morality and of our duties from the guide morality. The Judge informs the guide and the guide informs the judge in a learning process until we have mapped out the best practices for how to achieve morality from the good will. Necessary Definitions for Clarity Here are some definitions of terms I use in the rest of the book: A first order duty is defined as the immediate choice an actor makes in setting themselves up with a moral choice. This is character. It is the activity of duty of the subject. The second order duty is the construction of the moral space to create the best outcome morally through both restricted choice and freedom. These are also the agent based constructions of duty. This is done by creating a space where it is easier to get the best outcome; It is also the agent's influence on a subject. The logistics of morality. Amicology or the theory of the 2nd order space is the container of this construction. The third order duty is the construction of the moral spaces and the interaction between spaces. This is the ideology of society or the construction of the laws of the nation state. The fourth order duty is the construction of the moral space between ideologies or the meta-ideology of interactions between any two differing ideologies. The 4th order duty can be anything from the duty of the federal government to the states, and vice versa, or the duty between religions or creeds that differ on fundamental grounds.

The aim of this paper is to present an understanding of ethical theories from the lens of Eleutherian Hermanism. It is to take the philosophical methods used in the construction of ELH and apply them to other ethical theories. It is not a verbatim discussion of the ethical theories as presented in the text of the original authors but an interpretation that is wholly my own. I aim to reinterpret the philosophies of Utilitarianism from Bentham, Kantian Deontology, and Nicomachean Virtue ethics to construct their mores inside of the philosophical space of knowledge. I aim not to dismantle their constructions but to compare their answers to the questions of ethics, with Eleutherian Hermanism. These are claims from the text but are not the text. They are my thoughts regarding these ethical systems. I aim to reinterpret the theory of good, guide morality-based understanding, judge morality-based understanding, and the theory of justice of these three important ethical systems and relate them to Eleutherian Hermanism. First, we must start with the positive construction of Eleutherian Hermanism: Universal Proof of the Definition of Good: 1. The good will wills good. 2. Respect of the good will is definitionally good. This is true by definition. 3. The good will wills good on itself and all other things. This is the process of the good will willing good or moral consideration. 4. The respect of the good willed subject’s will is good because it is the good will. If the good will wills the disrespect of the good willed subject then the good willed subject respects the good will with its own disrespect. This is punitive justice or a failure of higher order duties. 5. The good will advances the good willed subject to do good in the future. This is good by a different scope. 6. If the good will is respected then good will have been done. Good results come from the aims of the good will. 7. The good will wills good for everything. This is true because of 3, 4, 5, and the duty to abstract good (Herman 22-23).

The Physics of Morals contains Eleutherian Hermanism. Eleutherian Hermanism is a metaphysically proven system of ethics that fuses the schools of thought of Consequentialism, Deontology, and Virtue ethics. It does this through the combination of the proof of the universal definition of good, the categorical definitional method, and the transcendental inductive method. This is all very technical. This may make the book seem intimidating. It is indeed an intimidating and complex read, but each section should offer an insight into the world, ethics, and your everyday goals. You don’t need to understand the philosophy at its deepest level to gain value from it. You merely need to practice the art of thinking and learning from the depth of thought that The Physics of Morals provides. You should read The Physics of Morals as a way to expand your mind. As a way to gain a fresh perspective on your value system. As a way to understand modern and ancient systems of morality that lead us to not just to personal, but societal and worldwide goals for the future. Eleutherian Hermanism is the philosophical system created, invented, and proven in The Physics of Morals. It is different from all other ethical systems due to its use of metaphysics, scientific or mathematical proof, and its structure. It is the first ethical system to take from consequentialism or judge morality, deontology or guide morality, and Hitobhian or both guide and judge. The Physics of Morals is a work that should be read slowly, patiently, and with a lot of introspection. Every section has its purpose in the whole tapestry of the ethical system. Every section builds on the previous section in some way. Every answer a section provides leads us to a new question until the work is complete.

This is a interactive platform where people can write, read, and talk about philosophy. I have written a book on ethics and am looking to edit it for clarity and content. I was hoping to post a chapter a week and get feedback on it. I will also post the whole manuscript and then specific chapters we can talk about. If you would like to join me on this journey of a deep read of my philosophy please like and comment!