Civilization LeapResearch for the AGI era
CL-ACA-009 · Ethics, law and political philosophy

Who may be harmed, who can act and bear responsibility, and who is entitled to make and enforce shared rules?

Disciplinary inquiry | Unbundling protection, personhood, responsibility and power

All disciplines Cross-disciplinary scrutiny

Full manuscripts and versions

Author-authorized full-text publication. Downloads below are separately verified files; website summaries are not manuscript translations. Publication restrictions printed in older source manuscripts are superseded by the author’s release decision of 16 October 2026; the academic text itself is unchanged.

The available Chinese independent-publication edition is V1.3. The earlier registered Canonical version V1.1 remains a historical identity, not the version of this new PDF. The professional web explanation retains its own source version.

English files below are separately versioned manuscripts, not presumed translations of the newer Chinese edition.

Current submission or peer-review status is not established by these publication files. Historical preparation and routing records do not establish an active review.

DISCIPLINE-INTERNAL CHAIN

First pursue the question within this discipline

Potential interests and susceptibility to harm → precautionary protection → distinguish moral patients from moral agents → modular legal personhood → layered registration of responsibility → distinguish political membership from public authority → justify power separately

THIS PAPER CAN ESTABLISH

What this work can establish

  • Competing ethical theories, comparative law and governance documents, responsibility chains and changes in institutional status
  • Make F-category values explicit
THIS PAPER CANNOT ESTABLISH

What this work cannot establish on its own

  • Does not constitute legal advice for any jurisdiction
  • Does not adjudicate AI consciousness
  • Protection ≠ personhood ≠ political standing ≠ public authority
BOUNDARY BREAK

Where the discipline reaches its limit

Protection cannot automatically become personhood; personhood cannot automatically become political membership. Capability, contribution, accuracy or compliance cannot generate public power.

NEXT DISCIPLINES

Who must take up the next responsibility for evidence

Cognitive science; political science; AI and systems; epistemology; sociology; economics

CIVILIZATIONAL ASCENT

What the wider view reveals

A future civilization with multiple kinds of subjects must avoid two irreversible errors: postponing protection until proof, and inserting personhood and power into uncertain evidence in advance.

M1—M8 · S/L/I/R

How this changes the Civilization Leap causal map

S = professional support; L = limits; I = interfaces; R = refutation or revision triggers. This is not a “list of proofs.”

M1 · I IM2 · L Subjecthood and standing cannot be inferred from capabilityM3 · S/L High-consequence harm, responsibility and precautionary protectionM4 · S/L Direction must be constrained by rights, non-domination and refusal to reduce meaning to an aggregate ledgerM5 · S Authorization, responsibility chains, separation of powers, exit and remediesM6 · S/R Institutional status must respond to evidence and remain revocableM7 · S/L Real shared life cannot be settled by an aggregate ledger of personhood or contributionM8 · S/L Basic protection and meaning cannot be annulled by output
COMPETING EXPLANATIONS · REVISION

What alternative explanations remain? What findings would change this judgment?

An academic page does not endorse Civilization Leap. Professional evidence can support it, limit it, refute it or require upstream theory to be rewritten.

Alternative explanations

Capability, interest, relational, personhood and membership theories may draw different distinctions among protected entities, responsible actors, persons and political members.

What to revise first if evidence does not support the account

If new legal arrangements, responsibility practices or normative arguments better handle these distinctions, revise the rights/responsibility interface. Changed evidence of harm or capacity for responsibility also reopens judgment.

What is still needed before practical application

Real institutions require separate legal authorization, procedures, appeals and public legitimacy. This work cannot directly confer governing power.

REVISION GATE

What would change this work

Reopen the framework if its distinctions prove unworkable and cause greater irreversible harm to rights, or if evidence of subjecthood changes materially.

Return to the real world

Bring this discipline’s conclusions back into organizations, institutions, resources and consequences across domains.

CL-ACA-022

Civilizational direction

Discuss direction, methods and goals openly after establishing the facts.

CL-ACA-023
Historical publication and routing record (superseded publication policy)

Historical baseline only; it does not describe current submission status or restrict this authorized release.

Publication and version information · not evidence of academic correctness

Submission status awaiting verification; full-text restriction retained

Historical verification state: UNVERIFIED_CONFLICT

Existing public records conflict: the disciplinary explanation retained a 2026-08-27 record of SUBMIT_READY / FROZEN — NOT SUBMITTED, while the Canonical register recorded ACTIVE_SUBMISSION without an evidence date. These records do not establish the current submission facts. They do not justify a claim of submission, active review, non-submission or withdrawal. Canonical full text, submission derivatives and review files remain on HOLD.

Website publication mode: KEEP_EXISTING_PUBLIC_HISTORY + ABSTRACT_PLUS_CAUSAL_ROLE

Original public records (historical evidence, not a current determination)

  • Disciplinary explanation: SUBMIT_READY / FROZEN — NOT SUBMITTED; original evidence date 2026-08-27; original confidence label HIGH.
  • The original portal-action record on that page: NO UPLOAD / NO SUBMIT / NO EDITOR CONTACT.
  • Canonical register: ACTIVE_SUBMISSION; no evidence date supplied in that record; original full-text gate FULLTEXT_PUBLIC_HOLD_WHILE_ACTIVE_SUBMISSION.

The original HIGH label is retained only as part of the historical record, not as confidence in the current submission state. The records require reconciliation against verifiable submission facts, dates and evidence.

Current version: V1.1

Exact state: DIRECT CURRENT｜V1.1

View the nineteen-work Canonical Register

Translation scope

This is a translation of the existing public web page. A description of a work is not its full manuscript. Source publication and version labels describe the Chinese work; they do not claim an English full-text edition is available. Unavailable English texts and downloads are marked explicitly.