What this document is
The four foundational documents established where value comes from (aperturality), how it is weighted in any given case (stake-geometry), how privately mattering apertures produce shared values (network universality), and how the resulting moral content sorts into tiers of progressively wider scope (tiered values). Together they answer the structural questions ethics has to handle. What they did not do is connect those structural answers to the moral content that already exists in human traditions — the commandments, the sins, the virtues, the rights, the rules of conduct that people have actually used to navigate moral life.
This piece does that connection work. It tests the tier theory against the Decalogue, develops the seven deadly sins as a register of self-regarding stake-collapse the foundational documents had underdeveloped, integrates virtue traditions from Greek, Buddhist, and Christian sources as the positive counterpart, and consolidates the resulting material into a structured account of action-imperatives at three levels of abstraction. It closes with a structural analysis of the Golden Rule and its variants, which turns out to be the cleanest case study of what the framework adds to traditional moral content.
The point is not to add new foundations but to demonstrate that the framework has the diagnostic power to absorb, sort, and refine the moral material the tradition has already produced — and to make explicit what to do, not just what shape right action has.
The Decalogue under tier analysis
The Tiered Values document already cites the Ten Commandments as a clear case of mixed content: "prohibitions on killing and theft generalize structurally and travel across networks; prohibitions on graven images do not." Working through the full list confirms the pattern and reveals something the framework predicts but had not yet demonstrated.
1. No other gods before me. Tier 1, and a peculiarly fragile Tier 1. This is a loyalty-to-network rule that names the network's deity rather than the network's structure. To anyone outside the network it has no purchase. The underlying concern (don't divide your highest loyalty among incompatible commitments) is recognizably about coherence in the stake-geometry sense, and that would travel. So the commandment has a Tier 2 shadow about the structural value of coherent commitment, which is why the rule has felt important to many traditions even when stripped of its specific theology.
2. No graven images. Tier 1, and the canonical case of non-traveling content. The prohibition combines a worry about idolatry (which collapses to commandment 1) and a worry about representation itself, which presupposes a metaphysics in which divine reality is degraded by image-making. Neither survives translation. Modern moral networks have mostly dropped this commandment precisely because nothing structural anchors it.
3. Not taking the Lord's name in vain. Tier 1. Same pattern as 1 and 2 — about how one network treats its sacred objects. A faint Tier 2 shadow exists in the worry about corrupting one's most serious speech-acts, which connects to the deception principle, but the commandment itself is parochial.
4. Remember the Sabbath. Tier 1 with an interesting Tier 2 shadow. The specific content (seventh day, particular liturgical observance) is network-specific. The underlying structural insight is real: stake-geometries need recovery time, periodic withdrawal from instrumental activity, space for non-utilitarian dimensions of mattering to be exercised. Structurally reformulated, the Sabbath principle becomes something like "protect conditions for stake-elaboration outside production" — which does travel.
5. Honor your father and mother. Tier 1 with a partial Tier 2 anchor. The specific content (patriarchal family structure, intergenerational obedience) is network-specific. The underlying structural insight — that stake-geometries are built across generations and apertures have reason to recognize the apertures who made them possible — is real and travels. Where the framework parts company with the commandment as stated is on its unconditionality: the framework would condition honor on the parent being honorable. Unconditional honor regardless of treatment amounts to a stake-collapse imposed on the child, which Tier 2 forbids.
6. No murder. Tier 2, full strength. Killing is the most complete possible stake-collapse — extinction of the entire geometry. "Don't gratuitously collapse felt stake-geometries" is essentially a generalization of this commandment. The Hebrew's distinction between murder (unjustified killing) and killing more broadly tracks the framework's distinction between gratuitous and non-gratuitous collapse. The structural anchoring is exact.
7. No adultery. Tier 1 with a Tier 2 anchor narrower than the commandment as stated. The specific content (sexual exclusivity within marriage as historically often-asymmetric property arrangement) is network-specific. The structural feature underneath — don't deceive an aperture about the contents of their own stake-geometry, especially in the domain where they have deepest stakes — is Tier 2 and travels. The commandment is wider than the structural principle; the structural principle is sharper than the commandment.
8. No stealing. Tier 2. Property is a Tier 1 institution (networks define it differently), but theft as a structural matter is taking from another aperture something they had stakes in, without their participation in the decision. That violates symmetry and recognition.
9. No false witness. Tier 2, and a clean instance of "don't deceive other apertures about the contents of their own." False witness corrupts the network's epistemic infrastructure. Notice the commandment specifies against your neighbor (harmful deception in juridical context), narrower than a general prohibition on lying. The framework would say the narrower version is Tier 2; the broader version might be Tier 1 in some networks but is not structurally required.
10. No coveting. This is the strangest commandment to layer, and the most interesting. It prohibits not an action but an interior state. Read as a network's rule about psychology, Tier 1. Read as a structural claim about how envy deforms the coveter's own stake-geometry, it becomes Tier 2 with the site of damage at Tier 0 — the coveter's geometry is collapsed by parasitic comparison rather than rooted in its own dimensions of mattering. This is the commandment that most clearly anticipates the deadly-sins analysis.
The pattern revealed is one the framework predicted but had not yet demonstrated. The four traveling commandments (6, 8, 9, and arguably 7 in its narrowed form) are exactly the ones every reasonably elaborated moral network has converged on. The non-traveling commandments (1, 2, 3, partly 4 and 5, partly 10) mark the boundary of a particular religious network. The historical pattern of moral progress consists in finding the Tier 2 principle inside a Tier 1 rule and reformulating until the parochial container falls away. The abolition of slavery, which the Tiered Values document cites, is one historical case. The Decalogue analysis suggests it is a general pattern.
The seven deadly sins as self-regarding stake-collapse
The deadly sins exercise surfaces a register of moral content the four foundational documents had underdeveloped. The commandments are mostly about what apertures do to other apertures. The deadly sins are mostly about what apertures do to their own. This distinction is structurally important and deserves explicit treatment.
The site of damage in the deadly sins is the sinning aperture's own geometry. Pride distorts the prideful person's coherence and responsiveness; greed narrows the greedy person's dimensionality; envy deforms the envier's geometry by parasitism; sloth hollows the slothful person's responsiveness. The network may also suffer downstream effects, but the primary damage is interior. The framework can name what the medieval tradition was tracking without quite articulating: structural failures of stake-geometry that occur from the inside rather than being imposed from outside.
The seven divide into a small number of structural patterns, fewer than the tradition's enumeration suggests.
Monomaniacal narrowing. Lust, gluttony, and greed instantiate the same pattern in different domains. One dimension of mattering swallows the others. The aperture still has stakes, but the geometry has collapsed from many independent dimensions to effectively one. The framework distinguishes this from intense single-dimension stakes that coexist with other dimensions in altered proportion — a parent absorbed in a child is not monomaniacal narrowing unless the other dimensions atrophy. The distinguishing feature is dimensional collapse, not dimensional emphasis.
Comparative parasitism. Envy and coveting share this pattern. The aperture's stakes become defined by their relation to other apertures' possessions or attainments rather than rooted in the aperture's own dimensions. This is coherence-collapse (the geometry is no longer integrated with the aperture's own values) and responsiveness-collapse (the parasitic stake cannot update on the question "what do I actually want?" because the answer is always "what they have"). The framework distinguishes envy from admiration: admiration that prompts emulation is stake-elaboration; envy is stake-collapse. Same outward situation, opposite structural consequences.
Responsiveness failure. Wrath and acedia are variants in opposite directions. Wrath is hyperreactivity — anger that persists past its occasion and becomes a fixed feature of the geometry rather than a responsive emotion. Acedia is hyporeactivity — chronic failure to be moved by what should move one, stakes nominally present but with the responsiveness gone hollow. The framework treats these as variants of the same structural failure rather than separate sins. Acedia deserves special attention because it is the purest case of self-regarding stake-collapse with no necessary external manifestation; where the medieval tradition could only describe it metaphorically (dryness, accidie, spiritual death), the framework can describe it precisely as responsiveness collapse across most dimensions.
Coherence failure. Pride instantiates this pattern. The aperture's geometry organizes around a single point — the self, or some image of the self — at the cost of integration with everything else. The dimensions are still nominally there; they have all been reoriented to serve one organizing principle. A prideful person can have rich-looking stakes across many domains, but the stakes are all about me being recognized as the kind of person who has them. Pride's structural cousin worth naming is ideological capture — the same pattern but organized around a doctrine rather than a self.
Reach contraction. A pattern the deadly sins do not capture cleanly but the framework predicts. The aperture withdraws stakes from anything outside an immediate horizon — no stakes in the future beyond this week, no stakes in places beyond this room, no stakes in abstractions. This shows up in clinical depression, in late addiction, in survival-mode living, and in chronic disengagement. Worth including because it is a genuine self-regarding collapse pattern that the tradition's seven-fold enumeration missed.
The deadly sins exercise gives the framework a category it needed and had not yet articulated: structural critiques of how individual stake-geometries collapse from the inside rather than being collapsed from the outside. The harm/self-impoverishment distinction this enables is a substantive contribution. Harm calls for the network's negative principles (don't do this to others). Self-impoverishment calls for the positive principles (help this aperture toward elaboration), but the framework is careful not to license coercive intervention, because forcing elaboration on an aperture from outside is itself a kind of harm.
One caution the framework insists on, which the medieval tradition often did not: stake-collapse can be the consequence of trauma, illness, deprivation, exhaustion, or simply the cost of being alive in a hard situation. The structural fact that a geometry has narrowed does not tell you anything about culpability. The framework critiques the pattern, not the patient.
Virtues as positive geometry
The negative principles identify what collapses geometries. The positive virtues identify what elaborates them. The framework's earlier documents gestured at this but did not develop the positive side to the depth the negative side received. Three traditions, taken together, supply the missing material.
Aristotelian virtue ethics gives the formal structure. The classical four (wisdom, courage, temperance, justice) and Aristotle's expanded dozen (liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, good temper, friendliness, truthfulness, ready wit, modesty, and others) all follow the doctrine of the mean: virtue lies between excess and deficiency on some axis of conduct. Courage between cowardice and rashness, temperance between insensibility and self-indulgence.
This maps onto the framework with striking ease. The mean-doctrine is a theory about which configurations of stake-geometry are well-functioning. Cowardice is responsiveness-failure on the fear axis (the aperture flinches from stakes that should engage it). Rashness is responsiveness-failure in the opposite direction (the aperture acts on stakes it should weigh more carefully). Courage is the well-tuned middle. The framework gives Aristotle what his account needed and lacked: a structural reason why the mean is virtue rather than just an empirical observation that virtuous people occupy it.
The Buddhist Brahmaviharas supply the relational counterpart Aristotle is thin on. The four — loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity — are each a stance toward other apertures' stake-geometries. Compassion is responsiveness to others' collapse. Sympathetic joy is responsiveness to others' elaboration. Equanimity is coherence maintained across the variability of others' fortunes. Loving-kindness is general positive orientation toward other apertures as such. This is a virtue tradition that is already half-translated into stake-geometry — the explicit object of each virtue is another being's experience, and the framework recognizes them as positive Tier 2 dispositions toward other apertures.
The fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control) describe the affective register of well-functioning stake-geometry — what elaboration feels like from the inside. Theologically presented as effects rather than achievements, the list emphasizes depth and coherence: an integrated affective life that can sustain depth without collapsing, oriented toward other apertures with goodwill. Self-control sits oddly because it is a regulatory mechanism in a list of affective dispositions, which commentators have long noticed; the framework can name what is odd, which is that self-control belongs structurally with the action-imperatives rather than with the affective qualities.
The convergence across these three traditions, viewed from inside the framework, is not coincidence. Multiple moral traditions with limited contact arrived at structurally similar lists because they were all describing what well-functioning stake-geometries look like. Aristotle was attending to the agent's responsiveness across axes of conduct. The Brahmaviharas were attending to dispositions toward other apertures' geometries. The fruits of the Spirit were attending to the phenomenology of elaboration. Each tradition captures a different facet of the same underlying structural fact.
A combined inventory looks like this. Wisdom and discernment (Aristotelian phronesis): the capacity to attend accurately to the geometries one acts on. Courage: well-tuned responsiveness in the presence of risk. Temperance: well-tuned responsiveness in the presence of appetite. Justice: action that respects the symmetry principle. Compassion: responsiveness to other apertures' collapse. Sympathetic joy: responsiveness to other apertures' elaboration. Equanimity: coherence maintained across variable conditions. Loving-kindness: general positive orientation toward other apertures. Patience: depth and reach across stakes that cannot be immediately satisfied. Honesty: maintenance of accurate communication with other apertures. Generosity: action that extends the reach of one's stakes toward others. Humility: resistance to the coherence-failure of pride.
This combined list is structurally complete in a way no individual tradition's list is. Each item names a recognizable pattern of stake-geometric well-function, and each can be derived from the framework's structural principles rather than being a free-standing moral demand.
Action-imperatives at three levels
The framework now has enough material to address the question its negative principles and dispositional virtues left underspecified: what to actually do. Three levels of abstraction are useful.
Level one: Tier 2 structural principles. These are the principles the Tiered Values document already lists — don't gratuitously collapse geometries, recognize other apertures, don't deceive, allow elaboration, treat symmetrically, maintain conditions for future participation, weight stakes proportionally to geometry, weight non-participants by proxy. They are maximally general and tell you the shape of right action, but not what to do this afternoon.
Level two: concrete entailments under current network conditions. Given the world we live in and the stake-collapses that most often occur in it, the structural principles entail concrete action-types. Feed the hungry, because hunger is reach-and-dimensionality collapse the world frequently imposes. Educate children, because education is the canonical Tier 2 positive principle. Tell the truth. Forgive, because unforgiveness is coherence-collapse in the aggrieved. Protect speech, because speech is the responsiveness axis at the network level. Welcome the stranger. Visit the sick. Give to the poor. Don't kill, don't steal, don't bear false witness. These entailments are stable across most plausible futures because the underlying conditions are stable — humans get hungry, children need formation, grievances accumulate, networks need responsiveness.
Level three: situation-specific actions. What to do this afternoon — which charity to give to, which conversation to have, which job to take, which institution to support. The framework does not generate these directly; it generates them in conjunction with empirical facts about the specific situation. The contribution of the framework here is structural reasoning that connects level-two entailments to particulars. If feeding the hungry is a level-two entailment, and there is a hungry person in front of me, and I have food, the action follows. The framework provides the structural anchoring; the situation provides the rest.
Each historical tradition has emphasized a different level. The Decalogue is mostly level two on the negative side. The deadly sins are mostly level two on the self-regarding side. The Jesus imperatives — feed, forgive, give to the poor, welcome the stranger, visit the sick, don't accumulate, don't worry, bless those who curse you, love your enemies, sell what you have and give to the poor — are a particularly dense level-two inventory that pushes toward what the framework would call advanced stake-elaboration. The UDHR is level two on the positive side, made systematic. The Bill of Rights is level two on the negative side applied to one network's government. The virtues are dispositions that incline a person toward right action across all three levels.
The framework's distinctive contribution, set against these traditions, is to make level one explicit and to show that level-two entailments are not arbitrary — they are concrete instantiations of a small number of structural principles. What follows is a structured inventory of action-imperatives, organized by which structural principle each derives from. The historical traditions are cross-referenced as approximations.
Anchored in "don't gratuitously collapse stake-geometries." Don't kill. Don't injure. Don't torture. Don't coerce. Don't enslave. Don't terrorize. Don't impose conditions that prevent function — hunger, exposure, untreated illness, abandonment. Cross-references: Decalogue 6 and 8; UDHR 3, 4, 5; Bill of Rights 4, 5, 6, 8.
Anchored in "recognize other apertures." Welcome the stranger. Attend to those the network has overlooked. Update on evidence of consciousness where you find it. Treat marginal cases — infants, severely impaired, animals, possibly artificial systems — with weight proportional to their geometry rather than dismissing them for failing to participate fully. Visit the sick. Visit the imprisoned. Cross-references: Jesus's "as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me"; UDHR 1, 2, 6, 7; Brahmavihara of loving-kindness.
Anchored in "don't deceive other apertures." Tell the truth. Let yes be yes and no be no. Keep promises. Don't manipulate. Don't propagandize. Don't bear false witness. Cross-references: Decalogue 9; Jesus on plain speech; the Aristotelian virtue of truthfulness; UDHR 19 on freedom of expression as the network-level analog.
Anchored in "allow stake-elaboration." Educate. Provide materials for inquiry. Protect free expression. Support art-making. Allow assembly. Fund science. Preserve cultural heritage. Give to the poor (poverty is reach-and-dimensionality collapse). Provide medical care. Cross-references: UDHR 22-27 in full; Jesus on giving to the poor; Aristotelian liberality and magnificence.
Anchored in "treat symmetrically situated apertures symmetrically." Don't discriminate on irrelevant grounds. Apply law equally. Give due process. Judge by structural relevance rather than network affiliation. Cross-references: UDHR 1, 2, 7; Bill of Rights 5, 6; Aristotelian justice.
Anchored in "maintain conditions for future participation." Protect the environment. Preserve institutions that sustain elaboration across generations. Don't pursue short-term gains that foreclose future apertures' conditions. Cross-references: this is the principle the historical traditions are thinnest on, because future-oriented stakes were less salient before climate-scale concerns; the framework can ground environmental ethics structurally where the traditions had to reach for analogies.
Anchored in self-regarding stake-elaboration (the virtues). Cultivate compassion. Practice patience. Develop honesty. Sustain joy. Resist monomania (lust, gluttony, greed structurally). Watch for envy. Maintain responsiveness (the antidote to wrath and acedia). Resist ideological capture (the cousin of pride). Cross-references: the Brahmaviharas; the fruits of the Spirit; the Aristotelian virtues; the deadly sins as the negative space.
Anchored in advanced stake-elaboration (the Jesus paradox imperatives, generalized). Forgive those who have wronged you, because grudges are coherence-collapse in the aggrieved. Love those who oppose you, because hatred is responsiveness-failure in the form of hyperreactivity to a specific other. Don't accumulate beyond what your geometry actually uses, because acquisition past need is monomaniacal narrowing. Orient toward those most collapsed in the network, because they are where elaboration is most needed and least supported. Cross-references: the Sermon on the Mount.
The inventory is not exhaustive, and the structure invites further development. What it gives the framework that the four foundational documents lacked is a concrete answer to "what to do" — still anchored in the structural principles, but cashed out at a level where it can guide actual conduct.
The Golden Rule, its variants, and what attention to stake-geometry adds
The exercise of layering historical material onto the framework reaches an especially clean case study in the Golden Rule and its variants. Three formulations are worth distinguishing.
The Reciprocity Rule: treat others as they treat you. This is the rule of tit-for-tat, of honor cultures, of game-theoretic equilibria. Its structural problem is that it makes your stake-geometry parasitic on others' behavior. Your treatment of others is determined by their treatment of you, which means the coherence of your geometry is hostage to the worst actor in your environment. This is the same critique the framework offered of envy — parasitic stakes rather than stakes rooted in the aperture's own dimensions, applied now to the action-domain rather than the desire-domain.
The Golden Rule: treat others as you would have them treat you. This is the canonical formulation across most traditions — Hillel, Confucius (negative form), Jesus, the Mahabharata. It is a significant improvement over reciprocity because it anchors action in something stable about the agent's own stake-geometry rather than oscillating with others' behavior. But it assumes that what you want is a reliable proxy for what they want. This works when stake-geometries are similar enough that the substitution holds. It fails when stake-geometries diverge — an introvert applying it to an extrovert, someone who would want frank feedback delivering frank feedback to someone who would want gentle feedback, the colonial missionary doing unto indigenous peoples as he would have had them do unto him.
The framework's diagnosis is that the Golden Rule is doing two things at once and they need to be pulled apart. It is saying: consider others' stakes when acting, and use your own stakes as the model for theirs. The first move is structurally right. The second is an empirical shortcut that works under conditions of similarity and fails under conditions of divergence.
The Platinum Rule: treat others as they would want to be treated. This corrects the Golden Rule's failure mode by replacing "what I would want" with "what they would want." The reference point becomes the other's actual stake-geometry rather than mine-treated-as-theirs.
The framework endorses this as structurally superior, but with a refinement the rule's proponents do not always make explicit. What makes the Platinum Rule defensible is exactly the framework's recognition principle. The rule presupposes that I can attend to another aperture's geometry as different from my own and act on what I learn. Without the recognition principle, the Platinum Rule risks a different failure mode: deferring entirely to the other's stated preferences, including when those preferences are themselves products of stake-collapse. The framework's account of self-regarding stake-collapse — monomaniacal narrowing, comparative parasitism, ideological capture — gives grounds for recognizing when a stated preference should not be taken at face value. The Platinum Rule should be cashed out as "what their well-functioning stake-geometry would call for," not as "whatever they currently report wanting."
The Platinum Rule has three problems the framework can address. The manipulation problem: anyone who can manipulate me into thinking they want a particular treatment can extract that treatment. The framework's response is that the rule is not "give them what they want" but "act in accordance with their stake-geometry," and a geometry colonized by addiction, coercion, or ideological capture is not one whose stated wants should be honored without qualification. The opacity problem: I often do not know what others want. Under conditions of opacity, the Golden Rule's empirical shortcut becomes reasonable as a fallback. The Platinum Rule is the goal; the Golden Rule is the fallback when full recognition is not available; the obligation is to attend as carefully as the situation allows and update as evidence comes in. The paternalism problem: acting on what someone "really" wants against their stated preferences can itself be the kind of stake-collapse the framework warns against. The line between honoring deeper geometry and overriding stated wishes is dangerous, and historically the second has been dressed in the language of the first. The framework gives grounds for thinking this through — when in doubt, respect the aperture's own authority over its stakes, except in narrow cases where the geometry has clearly collapsed.
The Golden Rule was tracking something real that the Platinum Rule can lose sight of: the recognition that other apertures are recognizably like me in the relevant structural ways, deserving of treatment proportional to that recognition. A naive Platinum Rule could treat others as so different from me that they become unrecognizable. The framework's recognition principle has two halves that have to be kept in balance. Recognition of commonality: other apertures are stake-bearers like me. Recognition of particularity: each aperture's geometry has its own specific configuration. The Golden Rule emphasizes the first half. The Platinum Rule emphasizes the second. A complete rule would say something like: recognize others as apertures like you, and attend to how their stake-geometries differ from yours, and act accordingly.
The Platinum Rule, properly understood, is not just a corrective to the Golden Rule. It is a generalization of it. The Golden Rule says: model the other on yourself. The Platinum Rule says: model the other on themselves, using whatever apparatus is available — which often includes your own geometry as starting material, especially when direct information is scarce. The Platinum Rule contains the Golden Rule as the limiting case where similarity is high and opacity is high. The framework does not have to choose between them; it can say the Platinum Rule is the general form, and the Golden Rule is what the Platinum Rule reduces to when full recognition is not available.
This is the kind of integration the framework is good at — taking apparent oppositions in the moral tradition and showing they are moments in a single structural account. The deadly sins and the virtues were one such case. The Decalogue and the Tier 2 principles were another. The Reciprocity Rule, the Golden Rule, and the Platinum Rule are a third. Each pair seems opposed until the framework shows where each member belongs in the larger structure.
Summary
The four foundational documents established the structural ethics. This document does the applied work: connecting structural principles to the moral content already in circulation, sorting the content by tier, identifying which parts travel and which do not, and producing a structured inventory of action-imperatives that the foundational documents had left as open work.
Three substantive additions follow from the exercise. First, the harm/self-impoverishment distinction — externally imposed stake-collapse versus internally generated stake-collapse — is now an explicit category, with the deadly sins as the tradition's underdeveloped attempt to track the latter. Second, the positive virtues across traditions (Aristotelian, Buddhist, Christian) converge on a small number of structural patterns the framework can ground rather than just enumerate. Third, action-imperatives can be organized at three levels of abstraction (Tier 2 principles, concrete entailments, situation-specific actions), with the historical traditions readable as approximations of level two derived from level one without always knowing they were doing so.
The framework's claim throughout is not that it replaces the historical traditions but that it explains them. The Decalogue, the deadly sins, the virtues, the Jesus imperatives, the UDHR, the Bill of Rights, the Golden Rule and its variants — each was tracking something structurally real about apertures and their stake-geometries. The framework gives a single vocabulary in which to say what each was tracking, why some parts of each tradition travel across networks while other parts do not, and how the action-content of right conduct follows from structural facts about consciousness rather than from arbitrary moral commands.
The bridge problem named in the Network Universality document — connecting consciousness-as-value to the detailed taxonomy of emotion and propositional attitude — remains the central unresolved problem. The Applied Ethics work this document does makes the problem more pressing rather than less, because acting on the Platinum Rule presupposes the apparatus of attending to another aperture's beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, and intentions — which is exactly what the propositional attitude grid develops. The action-side of the framework needs the structural taxonomy to be fully grounded. That work remains ahead.
This document records a philosophical theory developed through dialogue. It is exploratory, not peer-reviewed, and is offered as a contribution to thinking about the applied content of an aperture-based ethics.