Ethics After Subjects: 1 Obligation Without Intention

Ethics is usually anchored in a subject. Someone intends, chooses, harms, or fails. Responsibility is traced back to a will. Obligation is grounded in agency. Moral force is imagined to originate inside a person.

But once subjects have been removed from the architecture of meaning, ethics does not disappear.

It changes location.

---

The Persistence of Ethical Force

After Gödel, closure is impossible.

After temporal thickness, persistence is uneven.

After individuation without subjects, differentiation no longer implies ownership.

And yet:

• obligations remain

• harms persist

• repair is demanded

• responsibility does not evaporate

Ethical force survives the loss of the subject.

This is the problem the series addresses:

What becomes of ethics once responsibility is distributed and obligation is semiotic?

---

Obligation Without Intention

Obligation is often treated as a mental state: an intention, a commitment, a promise, a sense of duty. But this mistakes experience for structure.

Obligations do not originate in intentions.

They arise from binding.

Whenever a semiotic system stabilises coordination — whenever readiness becomes commitment — constraints are created. Those constraints persist, shaping what can and cannot follow. Obligation is the pressure exerted by those constraints.

No intention is required.

No subject need endorse it.

No one needs to “feel” responsible.

Obligation exists wherever binding persists.

---

Ethical Force as Structural Asymmetry

Once obligation is understood structurally, ethics becomes a matter of asymmetry, not virtue.

• Who must adapt when coordination breaks down?

• Who absorbs the cost of persistence?

• Who bears the burden of repair?

• Whose futures are constrained to keep the system going?

These are ethical questions — but none of them require moral psychology. They are questions about how semiotic systems distribute constraint over time.

Ethics begins where persistence is uneven.

---

Harm Without Malice

Similarly, harm does not require intention.

Harm occurs when binding produces constraint that:

• blocks rebindability

• forecloses futures

• forces adaptation asymmetrically

• persists without uptake or repair

Trauma already showed us this: harm can survive without memory, without malice, without anyone “doing” it again.

Ethics, then, is not about blame.

It is about liability embedded in structure.

---

Responsibility After the Subject

Without subjects, responsibility is no longer about authorship.

It is about position.

Responsibility attaches to:

• where a binding sits in the system

• how much constraint it imposes

• how much repair it requires

• how difficult it is to revise

This does not absolve.

It reframes.

Responsibility becomes a question of who is situated such that repair can occur, not who intended harm in the first place.

---

What This Series Will Do

This series will not offer:

• a moral theory

• a code of conduct

• a psychology of conscience

• a language of virtue or vice

It will instead examine:

• obligation as structural pressure

• harm as breakdown of coordination

• responsibility as distributed liability

• repair as semiotic work, not moral redemption

Ethics after subjects is not softer.

It is less forgiving.

Because structures do not care whether anyone meant well.

---

The Shift Ahead

Temporal thickness showed us how meaning acquires weight.

Ethics after subjects shows us who must carry it.

The next post will take the first step:

Liability Without Blame

Why responsibility persists even when no one is at fault.

That is where ethics begins, once the subject is gone.