Introduction
The Geometry of the Good is a forthcoming philosophical framework that treats ethical obligation as an ontological feature of our relational lives rather than a product of law, choice or cultural consensus.[1] It begins from a simple but far‑reaching thesis: to be is to be in relation. Determinacy requires directedness — an orientation toward other beings — and directedness entails relation.[2]
In this view, there are no ontologically primitive, isolated agents. Whenever one entity is oriented toward another, a vector of obligation arises. These obligations are not artifacts of contracts or choices; they emerge from the very structure of directed relations.[3] Recognising this relational bedrock shifts moral philosophy away from rules and contracts toward a geometry of relational life.
To test these claims, David R. Koepsell built an agent‑based simulation in which autonomous agents occupy a two‑dimensional space, emit obligation vectors toward nearby agents, accumulate contradiction debt when obligations are ignored, and build trust when obligations are fulfilled.[4] By altering norm preferences (legal, a priori, care or epistemic) and enabling or disabling repair mechanisms, the simulation explores how different normative regimes affect relational stability.[5]
External Resources
For further exploration, the following resources offer direct access to publications and interactive simulations related to the Geometry of the Good:
Key Principles
The framework rests on five ontological axioms that describe how obligations arise and persist:
- Directedness: An obligation forms when one agent intentionally directs attention toward another. Without directedness, there can be no obligation.
- Contradiction Debt: Unfulfilled acknowledged obligations generate a moral tension — a contradiction debt — that strains relational coherence and accumulates until addressed.
- Trust as Infrastructure: Trust is not merely psychological; it is an ontological affordance that enables agents to interpret, fulfill and reconcile multiple norms. Without trust, normative coherence collapses.
- Repair as Continuity: After failed obligations, agents must engage in moral repair to restore relational integrity and prevent collapse.
- Diachronic Sensitivity: Obligations evolve over time. They develop, expire, and re‑emerge across generations, forming a diachronic trajectory of moral life.
These axioms guide the simulation and provide a formal structure for understanding how ethical systems can emerge from relational interactions.[6]
Simulation & Data
The simulation examines how normative structures influence relational integrity across different scenarios. In the baseline pluralist scenario, agents acknowledge multiple norms but lack repair mechanisms. As unfulfilled obligations accumulate, contradiction debt escalates and relational integrity collapses by generation 20.[7]
In the utopian scenario, every agent recognises all norm types. Trust values quickly stabilise at high levels — around 74 by generation 19 — and contradiction debt remains low. Obligation fulfillment is high, reflecting the stabilising role of trust.[8] By contrast, the collapsed scenario involves minimal norm acknowledgement. Trust drops to nearly zero and the relational web disintegrates, demonstrating that obligations cannot flourish when directedness and trust are ignored.[9]
Introducing repair dramatically changes outcomes. In enhanced pluralist models, agents record over 400 repairs across 20 generations, contradiction debt declines and obligation fulfillment exceeds 80 percent by generation 12.[10] The simulation also shows how denial — refusing to meet an obligation — increases contradiction debt and fragments relationships.[11]
Explore the interactive chart below to see how trust, contradiction debt and fulfillment evolve under different scenarios.
Comparisons to Other Ethical Theories
The Geometry of the Good offers a structural account of obligation that contrasts sharply with several well‑known ethical theories. Traditional deontological models, such as Immanuel Kant’s, hold that moral requirements follow from universal, rational imperatives — the categorical imperative — that must be followed regardless of personal desires.[12] The simulation suggests that obligations emerge prior to rational deliberation and persist even in systems lacking rule‑based universality.[12]
Utilitarianism judges actions by their consequences and aims to maximise aggregate well‑being; the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.[13] Yet agents in the simulation achieve ethical coherence without computing utility functions. Local maintenance of obligations and trust proves sufficient for sustainable moral life,[13] suggesting that outcome calculation is not necessary for ethical stability.
Care ethics locates moral significance in the fundamental elements of relationships and dependencies. It emphasises maintaining relationships by contextualising and promoting the well‑being of caregivers and care‑receivers in networks of social relations.[14] The Geometry of the Good formalises this insight: care‑like responsiveness is not merely a virtue or attitude but an ontological affordance generated wherever directedness is sustained.[14]
Interactive Tools
Directedness Demonstration
The canvas below illustrates how directedness creates an obligation. Drag the movable circle toward the other to see the obligation arrow form. When the distance is small, the arrow becomes more pronounced, representing stronger directedness.
Quiz: Test Your Knowledge
Challenge yourself with a few questions about the Geometry of the Good:
Quiz: Compare Ethical Theories
Test your understanding of different ethical frameworks, simulation outcomes and their implications.
Advanced: Predictive Models & Contradiction Debt
This section allows you to explore how different normative and repair parameters influence the evolution of trust and contradiction debt over time. Use the sliders to adjust the level of norm acknowledgement and repair efficiency. The line chart will update to show predicted trajectories over 20 generations.
Conclusion & Further Reading
The Geometry of the Good presents a relational ontology in which ethical life depends on structural conditions like directedness, trust and repair. Simulations demonstrate that when these conditions are satisfied, agents spontaneously develop coherent moral systems; when they are absent, obligations fragment and collapse. This framework not only critiques traditional theories but offers a constructive way to model moral complexity.
Future work will refine the models by incorporating richer norm categories, reflective reasoning and embodied complexity. The current simulations are simplified and occur in uniform environments; they provide no direct mapping to empirical data and should be viewed as conceptual experiments rather than prescriptions.[15]
For further resources, explore David Koepsell’s publication list on PhilPeople [16], the Moral Landscape Simulator [17], the SimEthica agent–obligation simulation [18], and his curriculum vitae and Google Scholar profile [19].