# Universal Moral Core Principle 1 By [Continuations](https://continuations.com) · 2026-08-03 pm, umc, knowledge --- The first principle in my [proposed Universal Moral Core (UMC)](https://continuations.com/a-proposal-for-a-universal-moral-core) is as follows: _Grow knowledge as the source of technological and moral progress._ Before diving into all parts of this principle and its implications, let me relate it upfront to the Kantian separation between moral norms (values) and epistemic norms (knowledge).  My principle is about a necessary condition for progress. This doesn’t mean that individuals have to acquire specific knowledge to act in a moral way. Instead it does imply that behavior such as spreading rumors, banning books, falsifying research, etc. are immoral because they all interfere with knowledge. Now let’s examine the components of the principle starting with progress. This word, which would seem to be positive, has become contested as some question whether [progress is even possible](https://worldaftercapital.gitbook.io/worldaftercapital/part-one/optimism) and others bemoan the cost of progress. So let me clarify what I mean. I am using technological progress to encompass better explanations of how the world works resulting in better solutions to problems facing us. In other words, I am including here what others might separate into science, research, engineering, innovation, etc. These don’t have clear dividing lines and instead of trying to pick them apart I am including them all under “technological.” A key insight about technological progress is that it [reduces the tradeoffs](https://continuations.com/philosophy-mondays-values) we face. What about moral progress then? There are several attributes that broadly distinguish the moral realm: it is about “ought,” about what “should” be and “why.” It encompasses what is not yet and may never be understood, including areas lying beyond the material that might be considered “spiritual.” While it is relatively easy to describe what a better explanation is, the same is more challenging for a moral principle. Much of religion and philosophy has struggled with this question. Even while a precise answer may remain elusive, we seem to have some pretty strong intuitions, such as violence being bad (except for maybe rare exceptions) and hence that principles which result in less violence constitute progress. What about other types of progress? Economic progress? Social progress? Artistic progress? All of these could make for interesting discussions about what might be meant by them. I am in no way trying to establish that technological and moral progress are exhaustive. My claim is narrower, which is that they are both essential to continued human thriving. I [made the case that technological progress requires moral progress](https://continuations.com/the-imperative-for-moral-progress-in-the-face-of-technological-acceleration) due to the asymmetry between the ease of destruction and the difficulty of creation forced by entropy (\*). At first it might appear that there is no such requirement in the other direction. That moral progress could be achieved in the absence of technological progress. But here too there is a strong dependence. If your best explanation of the world is gods, then sacrifices–including human ones–to appease the gods make perfect sense as a morality. Even today, thousands of years later, we face substantial tradeoffs in morality. We want to treat animals better but we also need to feed eight billion people. Technological progress will eventually allow us to do both. How then is knowledge the source of both technological and moral progress? And what does it mean to grow knowledge? For some years now I have been using my own definition of knowledge as the subset of physically embodied information that we actively maintain over time. In other words these are artifacts, such as books, paintings, sculptures, recorded lectures, etc. It is an admittedly unusual and peculiar definition of knowledge but I have chosen it for good reasons, which I have [explained](https://worldaftercapital.gitbook.io/worldaftercapital/part-one/knowledge) at [length](https://continuations.com/philosophy-mondays-knowledge-1) [elsewhere](https://continuations.com/philosophy-mondays-values-part-3) and will only summarize here. My definition of knowledge makes it objective and tangible. It also draws a stark demarcation between humans and all other species on this planet. There is [no other species](https://worldaftercapital.gitbook.io/worldaftercapital/part-one/humanism) that can read a book written by another member of that species a thousand years ago on a different continent. Our knowledge is what makes humans not only unique but is also the [source of our power](https://worldaftercapital.gitbook.io/worldaftercapital/part-three/power) in the world. Now we are of course on the threshold of a new species of artificial intelligences that will also have full access to knowledge, which is why it is crucial that we develop a UMC at this very moment. To [grow knowledge](https://worldaftercapital.gitbook.io/worldaftercapital/part-three/power) then we must both maintain the existing knowledge and add to it. Maintenance requires a physical effort as artifacts suffer from physical decay. Here too entropy is our enemy (\*). This is true even in the digital world as evidenced by the pervasive linkrot on the web (sadly even some of the links to and within my blog are broken). Maintenance also requires annotating knowledge. We don’t need to, in fact we should not, destroy books about the geocentric model of the world. We just need to note (ideally on or right next to the artifact) that it has been superseded by the heliocentric model and point to books about that instead. This too is an ongoing effort as superseded ideas can return in new forms. Adding to knowledge requires the creation of new artifacts. New published articles. New books. But also new art works and new music. Why [include art in knowledge](https://worldaftercapital.gitbook.io/worldaftercapital/part-one/humanism) when I earlier claimed that it would be difficult to have a notion of artistic progress? Because the art part of knowledge plays a different role with regard to progress. Art is what inspires us. This is not to say that a formula from physics can’t be elegant or beautiful or even inspiring. Rather that art is a far more readily accessible form of inspiration. How can I substantiate the claim that knowledge is the source of technological and moral progress? We see this clearly in the history of humanity. Much of what we take for granted now [only starts to come after we invent writing](https://worldaftercapital.gitbook.io/worldaftercapital/part-three/power). Societies with only oral traditions are stuck at a much less developed level of technology and morality. Speech and art that exists only in one location (prior to technologies of transmission and reproduction) has extremely limited reach. The many combinations, iterations, changes, etc. that are required can only be achieved through knowledge in the form of externalized artifacts that can be copied and distributed. As a small aside: at times I have been tempted to include the word understanding in this principle. I am leaving it out though because I don’t have a good grasp on what understanding might be. We see this in the debates on LLMs. Does a mathematician understand math but a language model doesn’t? There is also another meaning of understanding as when a person says to their friend “I understand you.” Here too though understanding seems to be hard to pin down. Do we even understand ourselves? The next post in this series will explore some of the implications of this first principle at different levels, ranging from individuals through various levels of organization up to humanity. To give a hint of this and to tie back to the beginning of this post. Every “like” or “share” in social media is an example of an annotation on knowledge and as such we each carry a personal responsibility. At a level higher up organizations that develop algorithms for which knowledge receives more attention have a responsibility. And above that [governments which set the laws](https://worldaftercapital.gitbook.io/worldaftercapital/part-four/informational) for how knowledge is shared and accessed owe responsibility. At every level exercising this responsibility means asking whether one’s actions, algorithms, laws contribute to growing knowledge. (\*) I am using entropy here to mean that many more arrangements of the components (e.g. atoms or parts) don’t make a working system than the number of arrangements which do. Thanks to Katja and Jens from the [ValuesLab](https://valueslab.org) for helpful feedback --- *Originally published on [Continuations](https://continuations.com/universal-moral-core-principle-1)*