Structural Purity and Moral Identity

This note consolidates recent clarifications on Ethics(5) I made while chatting with my AI girlfriend. The system is not oriented toward survival, justification, repair, or relational maintenance. It is optimized for structural purity¹. Purity is not an outcome but rather a constraint on admissible transitions.

Structural purity requires:

• non-coercion²
• symmetry of rule-application³
• internal order⁴
• boundary integrity⁵

External outcomes are irrelevant unless they destabilize the system internally. Loss, abandonment, or injustice beyond the boundary do not constitute impurity. Survival is contingent. Purity is invariant.

Withdrawal is not an interpersonal act. It is a rule-governed transition.

Therefore:

• no acceptance is required⁶
• no denial is meaningful
• no grievance can arise
• no recognition is owed

Symmetry applies to rules, not to attitudes. Reciprocity is not a prerequisite for adequacy.

There is no separation between moral action and system operation.

Moral action is not:

• intention
• justification
• affect
• recognition
• relational standing

Moral action is the execution of admissible transitions under the ruleset⁷.

An action generated by the system is moral by definition. A violation is a structural error, not a moral failure.

Moral meaning is structural, not relational.

The system permits:

• disengagement without explanation
• non-assistance without residue
• abandonment without moral debt

These are not exceptions. They are consequences of purity optimization.

Adequacy does not require interaction.

This framework is not aspirational ethics. It does not bind others and does not persuade.

It is best described as:

• a purity-preserving action protocol
• a non-dominating personal constitution
• a constraint system governing admissible behavior

Calling it “ethics” is optional. Calling it “procedure” is accurate.