An Ethical Framework

What is right and wrong?

Address the Source always strives to examine ideas and adapt them to better serve our community and humanity in general. However, the study of epistemology is vast; it covers millennia and full libraries of analyses, literature, and philosophies. We want to find a balance between pedantry and tedious academic study and theory, and the application of normative claims, logic, and empathy to make the world a better place. We welcome experts of different ethical frameworks, but do not want to get so bogged down with theory that we are paralyzed and unable to take action. We would love to recruit, learn from, and inform our practices using ethics and morality, but do not claim to be experts ourselves. Years of study and a total understanding of philosophical and ethical terms and ideas are not requisite to affect change, and this is not an academic or scientific organization.  

In addition, while we are proponents of higher education, there are barriers for all people to access this information.  Time, money, energy, and other obstacles in how society is structured prevents the free and equitable access of information.  We want to strike a balance between informing our practice but also not add things that can get in the way of making a difference.  Higher education and these studies are a privilege to study while many of us are struggling to survive, and so knowing these things cannot be barriers to entry.

Understanding this, let us move forward with Address the Source’s ethical framework.

Address the source’s
Beliefs and values checklist

Good ideas and values should...

  1. Be evidence-based.

  2. Be logically constructed.

  3. Be consistent.

  4. Utilize no logical fallacies or fallacious reasoning.

  5. Be incapable of being abused.

  6. Not be dangerous when taken to extremes.

  7. Support the most vulnerable among us.

  8. Not align with the goals of harmful groups and people.

  9. Be able to be revised given better evidence.

  10. Be the consensus opinion of experts and people educated on the topic.

  11. Make sense and serve a purpose.

  12. Not cause intentional, unnecessary harm.

  13. Be egalitarian.

  14. Not allow anyone to opt out of accountability for their harmful actions.

To clarify, we do not know of a government, organization, group, or person who meets all of these criteria 100% of the time. There are many barriers for us to implement these ideas as a standard in many communities and societies, and would require us to address those sources of harm and inequity prior to proper application of these values. It may also be true that people in this group or the group itself may stumble or face challenges to uphold these ideals. At the same time, none of these factors influence whether these ideas are noble, valid, or necessary to pursue. We wish to create a system of equity that is beyond the influence of the biases, flaws, and preferences of humanity. The problem is that humans are the ones bringing these ideas to life, and so we must be vigilant to account for all of the ways these ideas can be corrupted and used for anything other than altruistic means.