“I feel, it is vital for us to find genuinely sustainable and universal approach to ethics, inner values, and personal integrity-an approach that can transcend religious, cultural, and racial differences and appeal to people at a sustainable, universal approach is what I call the project of secular ethics.” – Dalai Lama XIV
Listen, friends, I don’t want to convince you to adopt some new moral system; instead, I want to teach you a little bit more about the needs-based ethical system that we all seem to be secretly using already. I want you to understand and appreciate the beauty and complexity of the moral system you probably already use; and the more we understand our morality, the better choices we will make.
Here’s the core in one breath: the more a thing is needed, the more moral it is to provide it, and the more immoral it is to withhold or destroy it. Said another way: an action’s morality equals how much it fulfills or frustrates needs, weighted by how necessary those needs are.
Obvious? Exactly. Consider:
You already know this. What you might not know is how your body keeps score.
Your nervous system is constantly sensing shifts in need-states, yours and, often, other’s. When something changes, it pings you with a signal. We call those signals emotions. They’re not random. They’re your dashboard lights and your engine’s throttle at the same time, alerting, orienting, and motivating you toward what matters.
There are many more notes on this emotional keyboard. Every one plays a need. When we learn to name the signal and the need beneath it, we unlock two superpowers:
One of the great aims of The One Religion is to teach this need-based emotional intelligence widely and simply, so more of us can make better choices, heal faster, and build fairer systems.
Because when needs are met, people flourish.
And when people flourish, morality isn’t a rulebook. It’s a rhythm. It’s how we move together toward life.
And here’s an overwhelmingly large emotional cheatsheet if you think you might have a knowledge gap or want to test yourself, but that isn’t all there is to know about need-based morality, if you care to dig a little deeper.
It is good to know how to best work with our emotions and needs and the emotions and needs of others, but sometimes the right thing to do is a little more complicated than wisely identifying and meeting needs. Sometimes needs conflict with other needs, and moral choices are not easy to figure out. That’s where the moral equation comes in. For those tough moral choices that you need to make sometimes, there is a way to think more scientifically about them than you might suppose.
Most “moral talk” gets lost in fog, opinions, slogans, vibes. This equation is a lighthouse. It says: let’s count what actually matters. Will it work? (effectiveness) Is the need urgent and foundational? (shortfall & prerequisites) How many are touched, and how deeply? (reach) How long will it last, and how irreversible is it? (duration & permanence) Does it correct unfairness? (justice) When does it help, now or someday? (time)
That’s not cold; that’s care with a ruler. And I love it for three big reasons:
Here’s the magic: the moral equation doesn’t replace your heart; it magnifies it. It’s like putting glasses on empathy. Your kindness is still the force. The formula just sharpens the focus so your kindness lands where it matters most, first.
And there’s something almost musical about it. Each factor is a section of the orchestra: urgency, foundationality, reach, persistence, fairness, time. Alone, each plays a line. Together, they swell into a score that says, “Do the most good for those who need it most, as reliably, broadly, and lastingly as possible… now.” It’s the physics of compassion, the sheet music of care.
If you’ve ever wished morality felt less like arguing and more like helping, you’re in the right place. This is a tool for everyday decency and world-scale decisions alike. It gives us a shared language to ask better questions and make better choices, consistently, transparently, together.
So take a breath. What follows isn’t math for math’s sake. It’s a map. It will show you how to weigh urgency without panic, justice without bitterness, and long-term good without ignoring today’s hunger. It will help you do what you already wanted to do: meet needs, wisely.
Let’s tune the instrument of your empathy, then play it beautifully.
Below this next song is our needs-based-moral equation public version 1.0. We are offering this for public comment and improvement. In the spirit of transparency and collaboration, we will be hosting forums and discussion events where we can delve deeper into the moral equation. Your feedback will directly influence how this concept evolves. Maybe you’ll help identify a flaw that needs fixing, or maybe you’ll bring up an example or use-case we hadn’t considered. This is how big changes start: with conversation, with many minds working on a shared dream.
MV = Σ_{i=1..n} [
(p_i * a_i) * # Causation: will it happen, and because of us?
(g_i * f_i * n_i) * # Need priority: urgency, foundationality, dependency
r_i * # Reach: how many are helped and how strongly
(D_i * (1 + rho_i)) * # Persistence: how long and how locked-in
w_i * # Fairness: equity / justice weight
delta_i # Time: sooner counts more (hyperbolic discount)
]
Read it as: Causation × Need priority × Reach × Persistence × Fairness × Time, summed over each distinct outcome/need pathway i.
p_i — success probability (likelihood that the outcome occurs because of this action; range 0–1)a_i — attribution (share of the outcome caused by this action; range 0–1)g_i — urgency / shortfall factor (rewards closing big gaps; tapers near optimal) g_i = exp( gamma * (F_i_star - F_i) ) # gamma > 0 # F_i = current fulfillment (e.g., 0–1) # F_i_star = healthy/optimal fulfillment (often 1.0) # gamma = urgency elasticity (how sharply urgency rises with shortfall) Intuition: the emptier the “need cup,” the bigger the boost; near full, extra help adds less.f_i — foundationality (recursive necessity / centrality of the need) f_i = (1 - d) + d * Σ_{j in Out(i)} [ f_j / L_j ] # 0 < d < 1 (typ. 0.85) # Out(i) = needs directly enabled by need i # L_j = number of needs enabled by j (out-degree) Tip: Normalize f_i (e.g., mean = 1) so scales remain interpretable.n_i — dependency factor (neediness; range 0–1)1.0 = fully dependent (cannot self-supply this need).0.0 = fully independent (can meet this need without help).r_i — beneficiary-weighted reach r_i = Σ_{j=1..S_i} exp( -alpha * RD_j ) # alpha > 0 # S_i = number of affected beings # alpha = distance-decay rate (how quickly weight falls with “distance”) Relational distance (RD_j) built from interdependence (ID_j): ID_j = Σ_{ℓ=1..m_j} [ beta_{jℓ} * f_ℓ ] # effect on person j's needs, weighted by foundationality RD_j = 1 / (1 + ID_j) # add 1 to avoid division by zero # beta_{jℓ} = action’s influence on person j’s need ℓ (signed: help > 0, harm < 0) # f_ℓ = foundationality of need ℓ (from above) Intuition: big, direct, foundational impacts → larger ID_j → smaller RD_j → larger weight in r_i.D_i — duration (how long the benefit lasts after it begins; use consistent units such as hours, days, months, years)(1 + rho_i) — irreversibility multiplier (permanence; rho_i in [0,1])rho_i = 0 → fully reversible → multiplier = 1rho_i = 1 → fully locked-in/permanent → multiplier = 2w_i — equity weight (distributional justice; > 0)w_i > 1 boosts outcomes that reduce unfair disadvantage; w_i = 1 is neutral.delta_i — hyperbolic discount factor (sooner help counts more) delta_i = 1 / (1 + kappa * t_i) # kappa > 0, t_i ≥ 0 # t_i = delay to impact (same unit family as D_i) # kappa = hyperbolic discount rate (larger → stronger present-bias)gamma — urgency elasticity in g_i (e.g., 0.5–2.0)alpha — distance-decay rate in r_i (e.g., 0.2–0.6)d — damping factor in f_i (typ. 0.85)kappa — time-discount rate in delta_i (e.g., 0.05–0.3 per time unit)D_i and t_i in the same units (e.g., years); interpret kappa accordingly.beta_{jℓ} for harmful effects (flows through r_i), or add separate negative outcome terms to the sum and then add all effects.f_i) = 1 so scores remain comparable across projects.p_i, a_i (Causation)g_i, f_i, n_i (Need priority)r_i (Reach)D_i, rho_i (Persistence)w_i (Fairness)delta_i (Time)Total moral value is the sum, across all outcomes, of: will it happen × because of us × how urgent/foundational/dependent × how many/how strong × how long/how permanent × how fair × how soon.
Now, we turn it over to you. Let’s talk about need-based morality. Could this be a cornerstone of a fairer future? What concerns need to be addressed? We’re listening. Together, through thoughtful dialogue and collaboration, we can shape this concept into something truly world-changing.
This website uses cookies.