Working Paper · v13 · March 2026 · DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18809258
Transmutarianism
A Systemic Framework for Moral Accounting Based on Relational Need Flows.
Abstract
Transmutarianism evaluates moral work based on transmutation ratios: the relationship between what an agent absorbs (receives) and what they emit (provide to others) across hierarchically-weighted human need dimensions. Unlike consequentialist frameworks that treat agents symmetrically, Transmutarianism accounts for differential starting conditions.
The framework operates as moral accounting: it measures the flow of relational value using economic mechanisms while leaving questions of moral worth to cultures, religions, and individual communities. The Conduit, the agent at origin point who passes through exactly what they receive, establishes the morally neutral baseline from which all transmutation is measured. Because deterministic passthrough is the default, the framework emphasizes systemic intervention over individual moral exhortation: designing environments where neutral processing produces net positive flows.
Key Constructs
| Term | Symbol | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Fulfillment | D+ | The state of having a need met at a given Maslow level. |
| Deprivation | D− | The state of having a need unmet at a given Maslow level. |
| Filtering | F = D−(in) − D−(out) | Reduction of deprivation through an agent. Positive values indicate the agent absorbed more deprivation than they emitted. |
| Amplification | A = D+(out) − D+(in) | Generation of fulfillment through an agent. Positive values indicate the agent emitted more fulfillment than they absorbed. |
| Moral Work | M = τF + A | Net transmutation at need level n, with weighting coefficient τ. |
| Moral Capital | C+ | Accumulated positive moral standing from sustained transmutation work. |
| Moral Debt | C− | Accumulated obligation from extraction (net absorption exceeding emission). |
On the Coefficients
The asymmetry coefficient τ weights filtering relative to amplification. Default τ = 1 treats them equally; cultures with recent collective trauma may set τ > 1 to emphasize deprivation reduction; cultures emphasizing positive flourishing may set τ < 1.
Total Moral Work also applies hierarchical Maslow weights wn = {5, 4, 3, 2, 1}, so transmutation at lower need levels (physiological, safety) carries more weight than transmutation at higher levels (esteem, actualization). The two parameters are independent: τ calibrates the filtering and amplification balance within a level; the Maslow weights compose levels into a total.
The Four Agent Archetypes
+F, +A
Transmuter
Filters deprivation AND amplifies fulfillment. The cycle-breaker. The abused person who becomes a caretaker, absorbing hardship without passing it on, emitting more belonging than they were given.
+F, −A
Absorber
Filters deprivation; emits less fulfillment than received. The stoic. Common in caregivers running on empty.
−F, +A
Magnifier
Amplifies both deprivation and fulfillment. The charismatic leader. Whether the net is positive or negative depends on magnitudes and τ. The one archetype where the moral verdict is indeterminate without measurement.
−F, −A
Extractor
Amplifies deprivation while absorbing fulfillment without proportional emission. The privileged abuser. Takes more than is given, emits more harm than was received.
F = 0, A = 0
The Conduit (Baseline)
Morally neutral. Passes through exactly what is received. Most agents, most of the time, function as Conduits. This is the framework's deterministic baseline, the default from which all transmutation is measured.
The central moral question shifts from "What should I do?" to "What am I doing to the flows that pass through me?"Transmutarianism v13, §2
Implications: AI as Conduit
An AI trained on data containing deprivation patterns will emit those patterns through deterministic processing. Blaming the system for emitting what it absorbed is a category error.
This reframes AI governance. The right question becomes: how do we design AI systems that transmute rather than merely conduct? Unlike humans, AI processing architectures can be directly modified. Training data can be curated. Reward functions can be aligned with transmutation objectives, converting absorbed resources into net positive fulfillment emission.
The framework's empirical companion paper, Whose Values Train AI?, presents evidence that the populations most affected by AI-mediated decisions are absent from the alignment process. That structural exclusion makes transmutation-aligned AI unlikely without intervention.