Blog

group of people sitting on rocks overlooking mountain

The Center for Human Equality in Oregon stands firmly against every form of group judgmentalism. Whether directed at race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or generation, collective condemnation of individuals based on shared demographic traits dehumanizes people and erodes the foundational dignity of the human person. Today, we address a particularly insidious and increasingly normalized prejudice: the blanket denigration of Baby Boomers as a group. Labeling an entire generation—roughly those born between 1946 and 1964—as selfish, out-of-touch, economically greedy, or culturally obsolete is not harmless banter. It is a moral failing equivalent in principle to racism or antisemitism. Both reduce complex human beings to crude caricatures and substitute lazy groupthink for ethical judgment of individuals. Group judgmentalism operates through the same psychological and rhetorical mechanisms regardless of the target. It deindividuates. It strips away personal agency, character, choices, and circumstances, replacing them with a monolithic stereotype. A person is no longer John or Mary—parents, workers, veterans, artists, or neighbors with unique life stories—but simply "a Boomer." This shorthand dismisses their contributions, struggles, and moral worth in one sweeping gesture. History warns us of the consequences. When societies accept that entire categories of people can be collectively blamed or scorned, atrocities follow. The Holocaust, chattel slavery, ethnic cleansings, and cultural revolutions all began with the intellectual acceptance that some groups were inherently problematic, burdensome, or morally defective. While anti-Boomer rhetoric has not yet produced violence on that scale, it shares the same corrosive logic: the denial that every human being possesses irreducible individuality.Ethical individualism stands as the antidote. This principle holds that moral worth, responsibility, and judgment must attach to persons as individuals, not as avatars of demographic cohorts. Each human life is defined by personal decisions, virtues, flaws, and contexts—not by birth year, skin color, or ancestry. To praise or condemn someone primarily because they belong to a generational cohort violates this axiom. A young person who works hard, raises a family, pays taxes, and treats others with respect deserves admiration regardless of when they were born. Conversely, an individual who behaves selfishly or irresponsibly merits criticism on the basis of their actions, not their age bracket. Lumping millions together under "Boomers ruined the economy" or "OK Boomer" as a dismissal of legitimate perspectives ignores the vast diversity within that generation—progressives and conservatives, innovators and traditionalists, the wealthy and the working class, the kind and the cruel. This prejudice has become distressingly common in political discourse and cultural commentary. Pundits, social media influencers, and even elected officials casually deploy "Boomer" as a slur implying entitlement, environmental recklessness, or resistance to necessary change. Such language would be instantly recognized as unacceptable if applied to any racial or religious minority. We do not tolerate blanket statements like "Millennials are all lazy" without pushback in polite society, yet generational scapegoating of older Americans often passes without challenge. This inconsistency reveals the selective nature of contemporary equity rhetoric. True equality demands consistency: if group-based condemnation is wrong for protected classes, it is wrong for everyone. The Center for Human Equality rejects the notion that some groups are fair game for collective insult while others are shielded. Human dignity is universal or it is meaningless. The Baby Boomer generation, like every other, contains both profound achievements and regrettable failures. They witnessed and often drove technological revolutions, expanded civil rights in important ways, built economic prosperity that benefited subsequent generations, and raised families under the shadow of the Cold War. Many continue to work into their later years, volunteer in communities, and support younger relatives. Painting them uniformly as villains ignores these realities and fosters unnecessary intergenerational resentment. Younger generations face genuine challenges—housing costs, student debt, cultural fragmentation—but attributing these primarily to the moral failings of "Boomers" is both factually simplistic and ethically lazy. Solutions to societal problems require nuanced policy debate among individuals, not tribal warfare between age cohorts. We therefore call upon all politicians, journalists, commentators, and citizens of Oregon and the nation to abandon "Boomer" as a term of collective derision. Just as responsible voices refuse to traffic in racial or religious stereotypes, they should reject generational ones. Let us model a higher standard: evaluate ideas on their merits, hold individuals accountable for their conduct, and recognize the unique story each person carries. Public discourse gains nothing from lazy generalizations and loses the moral clarity that ethical individualism provides.The Center for Human Equality affirms that every American—Boomer, Millennial, Gen Z, or otherwise—deserves to be seen and judged as an individual endowed with inherent dignity. Group judgmentalism, in all its forms, diminishes us all. By rejecting it, we uphold the principles of a free and humane society where character, not cohort, defines the person. Oregon, and America, can do better. Let us begin today.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Stop Judging "Boomers"

Is our understanding of metaphysics being abandoned for technological progress. And if so, what is the harm and how to we reverse this existential threat for civilization in the world? Introduction: Circling the Palace We stand at a threshold no previous generation has faced. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the technical capacity to end civilization — not through some distant apocalyptic accident, but through deliberate, organized choice. Nuclear arsenals, autonomous weapons systems, engineered pandemics, and increasingly powerful artificial intelligence are no longer science fiction. They are operational realities. At the same time, our ancient tribal instincts — the urge to divide the world into sacred “us” and disposable “them” — have not only survived but have been supercharged by social media, identity politics, and resurgent nationalisms. We have god-like power paired with pre-civilizational ethics. This is an existential mismatch.Maimonides, the great medieval Jewish philosopher, understood this danger centuries before the atom was split. In his famous Parable of the Palace in The Guide for the Perplexed, he describes humanity’s relationship to truth and to God through the image of a royal palace. Most people never even approach the palace. Others circle its outer walls, mastering ritual and law but never venturing inside. Only a few enter the inner court, where they gain genuine understanding of reality itself. Today, we are a species that has mastered the outer gates of the palace — science, technology, industry, and global connectivity — while remaining stuck outside the inner court. We have learned how to manipulate matter and energy with astonishing precision, but we have not sufficiently deepened our understanding of what a human being actually is, what gives life inherent worth, or how we ought to relate to one another.This imbalance has become the central threat to humanity’s future. The twentieth century already delivered the warning. It was, by a wide margin, the bloodiest in human history. Between 200 and 262 million people were killed by war, genocide, engineered famine, and political terror — far more than in all previous centuries combined. What makes this fact so sobering is that these horrors occurred during an explosion of scientific and technological progress. The same era that produced antibiotics, airplanes, computers, and nuclear energy also produced the Holocaust, the Gulag, the Killing Fields, and the Cultural Revolution. The decisive factor was not insufficient technology. It was insufficient metaphysics. When human beings are reduced to members of groups — races, classes, religions, ethnicities, or ideologies — their infinite individual worth is erased. Once that dehumanization takes hold, technology does not restrain violence; it multiplies it. Gas chambers, machine guns, bomber fleets, and bureaucratic systems of extermination are simply tools placed in the service of a metaphysical failure: the belief that some groups of people matter less than others. We are now entering an even more dangerous period. Advances in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and autonomous weapons are lowering the threshold for destruction. Soon, small groups or even individuals may possess capabilities that once required the resources of entire nations. When that happens, the only meaningful restraint left will be ethical and metaphysical: a deep, internalized conviction that every single human life possesses equal and infinite worth, regardless of group identity. Without that conviction, further technological “progress” becomes a threat rather than a gift. This is why metaphysics — long dismissed by modern universities as abstract, outdated, or unscientific — has become critically urgent. Metaphysics is not merely speculation about invisible realities. It is the disciplined inquiry into the most foundational questions: What is a human being? What gives persons inherent dignity? What is the nature of right relationship between individuals? Can any group legitimately be treated as having lives worth less than our own? These questions cannot be answered by science. No laboratory experiment can prove the equal worth of every person. No algorithm can derive the principle that no group should be dehumanized. These are metaphysical axioms — foundational truths that must be grasped through reason, reflection on human experience, and honest engagement with history.Yet they are not arbitrary. As Russell McAlmond has shown in his development of Ethical Individualism, such axioms can be realistically grounded in what history and human nature repeatedly reveal: societies that affirm the infinite worth and uniqueness of every individual tend to be more peaceful, just, and flourishing; those that embrace group-based dehumanization tend toward atrocity. The central thesis of this book is simple but urgent: In the twenty-first century, metaphysical and ethical progress is more important to the continuation of the human race than further technological progress. We do not need more powerful weapons. We do not need faster ways to manipulate information or biology. What we desperately need is a deeper entrance into Maimonides’ inner court — a renewed commitment to foundational truths about human dignity that can restrain our worst impulses even as our power grows. The coming decades will test whether humanity has the wisdom to survive its own ingenuity. If we continue circling the palace — brilliant in technique but primitive in relational wisdom — the odds are poor. If enough people choose to walk through the inner gates and embrace a metaphysics centered on the equal, infinite worth of every unique human being, a different future becomes possible. This book is written in the hope of that better future. It examines the historical warning signs, diagnoses the metaphysical crisis of our time, and presents a practical path forward grounded in Ethical Individualism and a renewed commitment to human relational wisdom. The stakes could not be higher. Our ancestors survived ice ages, plagues, and world wars. The question before us is whether we will survive ourselves — armed with technologies that make our moral failures far more lethal than ever before.The time to enter the inner court is now.

Critical Need for Metaphysics in Education

Ethical Individualism: The Peaceful Human Relational PhilosophyEthical individualism, as developed by Russell McAlmond, stands as the peaceful human relational philosophy because it alone refuses to create superior classes of human beings. It judges every person solely by their unique individuality, never by group affiliation of any kind. This foundational commitment to absolute equality and uniqueness fosters genuine respect, trust, and peaceful coexistence. In stark contrast, Islamic concepts of human relations, as practiced and historically enacted, establish hierarchies that position Muslims as a superior class over non-believers ("infidels" or kafirs), men over women, and believers over outsiders. These distinctions have repeatedly justified subjugation, conquest, and differential treatment—patterns that parallel Nazism's racial supremacy and have led to centuries of conflict. For positive human relations worldwide, ethical individualism offers a peaceful, egalitarian alternative that eliminates the ideological fuel for wars of conquest and honors every human being as equal in intrinsic value.The Strength of Ethical IndividualismMcAlmond's philosophy rests on two unbreakable axioms: the horizontal line of equality, where every human holds identical intrinsic worth simply by existing, and the irreducible uniqueness of each person as a distinct "mosaic of experiences." Relations must always engage the other "qua human"—as an individual, stripped of any group labels. This leads to the categorical rejection of group judgmentalism in all forms. Judging, stereotyping, or assigning superior/inferior status based on religion (including Islam or Christianity), race, gender, nationality, or any collective is morally wrong. It dehumanizes individuals, erodes personal responsibility, and has caused humanity's most horrific tragedies—from genocides to systemic oppression. Ethical individualism permits no superior classes whatsoever. No religion, faith, or ideology elevates any group above others. This creates the conditions for truly symbiotic, win-win interactions built on mutual trust, honesty, and respect for each person's irreplaceable individuality. By refusing to carve humanity into ranked categories, ethical individualism removes the very motivation for subjugation. There is no doctrinal basis for conquest, domination, or treating outsiders as lesser. It promotes universal dignity and practical peace: when every person is seen as equally valuable, the impulse to impose rule, faith, or hierarchy through force dissolves. This makes it the optimal relational philosophy for a diverse, interconnected world.The Contrasting Realities of Islamic Human RelationsIslamic teachings begin with a shared origin in Adam and Eve and recognize diversity, yet they embed group-based distinctions. In practice across many societies and throughout history, Muslims are positioned as the superior class. Non-Muslims are often treated as lesser in status, with concepts such as dhimmi systems imposing taxes, restrictions, and subordination. Interpretations allowing deception toward outsiders or severe penalties for apostasy (including death) reinforce these boundaries. Gender relations frequently place women below men in legal rights, inheritance, testimony, and autonomy. Historically, Islam spread primarily through military conquest following Muhammad's death. Armies rapidly overran vast territories in the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, and beyond, establishing Muslim rule over conquered populations and creating systems of governance that embedded believer superiority. This mirrors Nazism's ideology, where Aryans were declared the master race entitled to rule and subjugate "inferiors," culminating in the Holocaust and aggressive wars of domination. Both frameworks rely on group supremacy—Muslims over infidels in one case, Aryans over others in the other—to justify expansion, control, and stratified relations. These are factual historical patterns, not anomalies. They demonstrate how group judgmentalism inevitably leads to hierarchies that rationalize violence, discrimination, and the denial of equal human value. Such philosophies create built-in incentives for conflict. When one class views itself as superior and divinely (or racially) entitled to rule, peaceful coexistence becomes conditional on submission or subordination. This has produced ongoing tensions, divisions, and cycles of conquest or resistance wherever these ideas dominate relational norms.Why Ethical Individualism Is Superior for Global Human RelationsThe core advantage of ethical individualism lies in its refusal to manufacture superior classes who then feel justified in subjugating others to their rule, faith, or worldview. By contrast, systems like practiced Islam institutionalize exactly these hierarchies, fostering division rather than unity. Ethical individualism offers a clear path to peaceful, egalitarian relations:It eliminates ideological justifications for conquest or domination. It treats every individual—regardless of background—as equally valuable, dismantling the "us versus them" mentality. It prioritizes unique personal qualities over group identity, encouraging curiosity, empathy, and constructive dialogue. It scales universally, applying the same standards to all humans without exceptions for religion or culture. Adopting this philosophy worldwide would reduce the root causes of many conflicts. Wars of conquest, religious imperialism, and group-based oppression lose their moral grounding when no class claims superiority. Instead of enforcing conformity to one faith or hierarchy, societies could focus on mutual respect and individual flourishing. This is not mere idealism; it is a practical, proven antidote to the dehumanizing effects of collectivist supremacism.In conclusion, ethical individualism is the superior and peaceful human relational philosophy precisely because it rejects all superior classes and group judgmentalism. It honors the equality and uniqueness of every person, creating the foundation for peaceful, trust-based interactions across the globe. Islamic concepts, as historically and practically realized, too often generate the opposite: stratified relations that have fueled conquest, subjugation, and conflict. For a better world—one free from the recurring tragedies of supremacist ideologies—humanity should embrace ethical individualism. It provides the only consistent, egalitarian framework capable of uniting us as equals rather than dividing us into rulers and ruled. This shift toward judging solely by individuality represents genuine progress in how humans relate to one another.

Islam and Ethical Individualism

The Collectivist Assault on the Individual: A Textual Analysis of Mein Kampf and Hitler’s Second Book and Its Radical Contrast with American Founding Values and Ethical IndividualismThe Center for Human Equality (CHE), founded by Russell McAlmond in Southern Oregon, advances Ethical Individualism as a 21st-century human relational philosophy. At its core, Ethical Individualism affirms that every human being is a “distinct mosaic of experiences,” irreducible to any group identity, deserving of respect, dignity, and equality not because of race, class, nation, or collective label, but because of inherent individual worth. This philosophy rejects all forms of group judgmentalism—whether rooted in identity politics, racial tribalism, or statist collectivism—and instead promotes mutual trust, voluntary relations, and the optimization of human interactions through respect for the unique person. It stands in direct lineage with the American founding values of classical liberalism: the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the Constitution’s framework of limited government, individual rights, and consent of the governed; and the Enlightenment-inspired rejection of hereditary or collective tyranny in favor of personal freedom and equal protection under the law.To help 21st-century Americans grasp the dangers of ideologies that subordinate the individual, this essay offers a detailed textual analysis of Adolf Hitler’s two major works: Mein Kampf (1925–1926) and the unpublished Zweites Buch (Hitler’s Second Book, written 1928). Both texts reveal Nazism’s explicit and unrelenting contempt for individualism and classical liberalism. Hitler consistently portrays the autonomous individual, liberal democracy, and bourgeois notions of personal rights as decadent, egoistic, and racially corrosive forces that must be crushed in service to the Volk (racial folk-community), the racial state, and the Führer principle. Where Ethical Individualism and America’s founders elevate the person as the moral and political unit, Nazism dissolves the person into a biological-racial collective whose “higher” value justifies any sacrifice, coercion, or extermination. The contrast could not be starker: one philosophy liberates the unique human soul; the other annihilates it.Mein Kampf: The Volk and Race as Supreme, the Individual as Subordinate or ParasiticMein Kampf is not merely autobiographical rant but a systematic ideological blueprint. In Volume I, Chapter 11 (“Nation and Race”), Hitler grounds politics in a brutal natural law that rejects any liberal notion of individual equality or rights. Nature, he insists, operates through eternal struggle and hierarchical selection; any doctrine promoting human equality or individual liberty is a Jewish-Marxist perversion that weakens the superior race. He writes that “the Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature” and that “all who are not of a good race are chaff.” The individual has no intrinsic worth outside the racial collective; mixing races or allowing “egotistical” individualism produces “mongrels” and national decay. Classical liberalism’s emphasis on personal freedom is implicitly condemned as part of the “Jewish-materialist spirit” that places self-interest above racial destiny. Volume II deepens this assault. In the chapter “Personality and the Conception of the Folkish State,” Hitler explicitly subordinates the individual to the Volk. He declares: “The unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual.” The state is not a protector of individual rights (as in classical liberal theory) but a “racial organism” whose highest duty is the preservation and elevation of Aryan blood. Economic or political liberalism—private property exercised for personal gain, parliamentary debate, or individual conscience—is tolerated only insofar as it serves the collective racial will. The Nazi slogan “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz” (“The common interest before self-interest”) is repeated as a moral imperative. Liberalism’s “benefit to the individual” is reframed as treasonous egoism. Hitler’s contempt for classical liberalism is most venomous in his treatment of democracy and parliamentarism (Volume II, Chapter 1 and elsewhere). Liberal democracy, he argues, replaces the “personality value” of exceptional (racially superior) leaders with the “majority principle,” which inevitably elevates mediocrity, cowardice, and compromise. The liberal individual—free to vote, speak, or pursue happiness—is not liberated but atomized and therefore powerless against racial enemies. Jews, in Hitler’s paranoid worldview, exploit liberal individualism precisely because “the Jew merely follows the call of his individual egotism,” lacking any genuine folkish loyalty. Classical liberalism’s universal rights are thus portrayed as a Jewish weapon that dissolves the racial bonds necessary for national survival. The American founders’ separation of powers, checks and balances, and protection of minority (individual) rights would have been, to Hitler, the ultimate proof of liberal decadence. Hitler’s Second Book: Democracy Destroys Personality Value; the Racial Collective Demands Total SubordinationWritten in 1928 as a sequel focused on foreign policy, Zweites Buch (often called Hitler’s Second Book) is even more explicit in its theoretical contempt for individualism and liberalism. Here Hitler refines the domestic ideology while applying it to geopolitics, but the core rejection of the autonomous individual remains unchanged.In Chapter III, Hitler directly attacks “present-day democracy in the Western conception” for damaging “the importance of the concept of personality” and blocking “the effectiveness of the personality value.” Democracy, he writes, is a “double curse”: it not only fails to produce creative achievements but actively prevents “those men who somehow threateningly rise above the level of the average.” Majorities are “too elusive to be grasped” for responsibility; they produce compromise and cowardice. The liberal individual voter or parliamentarian is not a rights-bearing citizen but a symptom of national decay. “Nations must decide. Either they want majorities or brains. The two are never compatible.” Classical liberalism’s faith in reasoned debate, individual conscience, and limited government is dismissed as a mechanical, bourgeois illusion that “destroys the personality value” while internationalism (another liberal cousin) “harms and thereby weakens the existing race value.” Pacifism and humanitarianism—hallmarks of liberal ethics—are “the expression of stupidity and cowardice.” Throughout the text, Hitler contrasts the “hero” who dies for the folk-community with the “wretched egoists who view the preservation of their own mere personal life” as the highest goal. Emigration, birth control, and peaceful policies are catastrophic because they drain the “best racial elements” while preserving the weak—precisely the opposite of liberal individualism’s protection of personal choice and life. The state is not a referee among free individuals but the instrument of racial self-preservation: “The instinct for the preservation of one’s own species is the primary cause that leads to the formation of human communities. Hence the state is a racial organism, and not an economic organization.” People and state must become one; any separation (as in liberal theory) is fatal. Hitler acknowledges “personality values” and “gifted individuals,” but only within a strictly racial and hierarchical framework. The exceptional person rises not to enjoy liberal freedoms but to lead the Volk in the eternal struggle for Lebensraum. Bourgeois-national circles, with their half-hearted liberalism, are contemptuously dismissed as “professional joiners” who lack the will for total racial mobilization. Democracy, liberalism, and individualism are not merely inefficient; they are racially suicidal. The Irreconcilable Contrast with American Founding Values and Ethical IndividualismThe American founding documents and Ethical Individualism stand as the philosophical antithesis. The Declaration of Independence grounds government in the protection of individual unalienable rights; the Constitution limits state power to safeguard personal liberty. Classical liberalism—Locke, Jefferson, Madison—views the individual as prior to the state, with rights that no collective (race, class, or Volk) may override. Pursuit of happiness is personal, not racially mandated. Equality means equal protection under law for unique persons, not enforced racial hierarchy or group subordination. Russell McAlmond’s Ethical Individualism radicalizes this insight for the 21st century. It rejects any grouping—racial, ethnic, ideological—that judges or subordinates the person. Where Hitler sees the individual as valuable only as a racial cell, McAlmond sees every person as a unique universe of value. Where Nazism demands blood sacrifice to the collective, Ethical Individualism demands respect, dignity, and win-win relations between sovereign individuals. Nazism’s contempt for liberalism produced the Holocaust, total war, and the destruction of millions of unique human lives. Ethical Individualism and American values produced the freest, most prosperous, and most innovative society in history by unleashing the creative power of the individual.A careful reading of Mein Kampf and Hitler’s Second Book therefore serves not as endorsement but as warning. These texts expose Nazism not as a distorted liberalism or mere authoritarianism, but as a deliberate, philosophically consistent rejection of the individual in favor of racial collectivism. For 21st-century Americans committed to the CHE’s mission, studying these works illuminates why Ethical Individualism is not merely preferable but existentially necessary: it reaffirms the dignity of the singular human being against every ideology—past or present—that would dissolve the person into the tribe, the race, or the state. Only by understanding this contempt can we fully appreciate and defend the revolutionary American and Ethical Individualist affirmation: the unique individual is the measure of moral and political value.

Mein Kampf and Ethical Individualism

Founded in Oregon by Russell McAlmond, the Center for Human Equality exists to advance a simple yet profound truth: every human being is a unique individual deserving of equality of respect, judged solely by their own character, actions, and humanity—not by the groups they are assigned to or choose to join. At the heart of our mission is Ethical Individualism Theory (EIT), the human relational philosophy McAlmond developed and articulated in his 2021 book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy. EIT stands as the direct antithesis to collectivism—the practice of judging people by group identity—and offers a superior framework for how humans should relate to one another in the 21st century.Collectivism, in its many forms, has inflicted profound and enduring harm on individuals and societies. Whether manifested as racism, antisemitism, tribalism, or modern ideological frameworks such as Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, collectivism reduces complex human beings to representatives of categories—race, ethnicity, gender, religion, politics, or class. It imposes stereotypes, assumes uniformity within groups, and assigns collective guilt or virtue based on traits over which individuals have no control. This group judgmentalism dehumanizes people by denying their individuality. It erases the reality that no two humans are identical; each person is a distinct “universe of value,” as McAlmond describes it, with their own unique mosaic of experiences, character, and potential.The consequences are devastating. Historically, collectivist thinking fueled the Holocaust, genocides, slavery, and countless wars by portraying entire groups as inherently inferior or threatening. It justified collective punishment and erased personal responsibility. In contemporary society, it fractures communities into competing tribes, breeds resentment, polarization, and injustice. When policies or social norms judge individuals by skin color, ancestry, or group affiliation rather than merit and conduct, they create hierarchies of victimhood and oppressor status—precisely the opposite of equality. Group judgmentalism makes human relations worse: it breeds suspicion instead of trust, division instead of unity, and selective respect instead of universal dignity. It turns neighbors into enemies and opportunities for mutual benefit into zero-sum conflicts. As McAlmond has noted, even well-intentioned group-based approaches rely on stereotypes that are factually untrue, because group members are never identical. Statements like “All [group] are [trait]” are not only inaccurate—they are ethically corrosive.Ethical Individualism Theory rejects this entire paradigm. EIT is explicitly not a group theory; it is an ethical framework for interpersonal relations grounded in two fundamental human truths: (1) every person is unique and irreplaceable, and (2) all human beings are equal in inherent value and dignity simply by virtue of being human. Under EIT, we approach every encounter with the presumption of equal respect. We judge individuals exclusively by their individual character, actions, and content of their character—not by the color of their skin, their ancestry, their politics, or any other group marker. There are no superior or inferior classes of people. There is no collective guilt for actions an individual did not personally commit. Groups themselves may be evaluated by their purpose or actions (a criminal organization, for instance, can be condemned), but their members are never homogenized or pre-judged. This philosophy is pragmatic and relational. McAlmond developed EIT from his experiences as a financial advisor, where treating clients as unique individuals—rather than statistics or group representatives—built trust and win-win outcomes. As a former rabbi, he connected this insight to the universal ethical imperative to “love your neighbor” as an expression of profound respect. EIT operationalizes these ideas into everyday practice: it creates symbiotic interactions where both parties benefit, fosters curiosity and compassion, and builds mutual trust and dignity. It is a secular, pro-human philosophy accessible to people of all faiths or none, designed for the realities of modern life.The superiority of EIT as a human relational philosophy is evident in both its moral clarity and its practical results. Where collectivism divides and dehumanizes, EIT unites and humanizes. It dismantles the root cause of relational dysfunction—group judgmentalism—without erasing cultural or personal differences. It honors diversity as the diversity of individuals, not demographic checkboxes. By insisting on character-based judgment and equality of respect for all, EIT creates the conditions for genuine inclusion, opportunity, and justice. It aligns with the American ideal expressed by Martin Luther King Jr.—a nation where people are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character—and extends it into a comprehensive relational ethic for the 21st century.In a world increasingly polarized by identity politics and collectivist ideologies, Ethical Individualism offers a path forward that is both idealistic and realistic. It does not demand we ignore differences; it demands we refuse to let those differences define or diminish any person’s humanity. The Center for Human Equality exists to promote EIT through education, advocacy, workshops, and community outreach. We invite individuals, organizations, and policymakers to embrace this philosophy: to treat every person they meet as a unique fellow human deserving of equal respect, and to reject the toxic practice of group-based judgment once and for all.True equality is not achieved by carving humanity into competing groups and assigning collective scores. It is achieved when we see each other as the unique individuals we truly are. Ethical Individualism Theory is not merely an alternative to collectivism—it is its ethical antidote and the superior foundation for human flourishing. The Center for Human Equality calls on all who value dignity, justice, and harmony to join us in making EIT the guiding principle of human relations. Equality for everyone is possible—when we judge by the individual, not the group.

Collectivism Versus Ethical Individualism

At the Center for Human Equality, founded by Russell McAlmond in Oregon, we advance Ethical Individualism as the philosophical foundation for genuine human equality. In his 2021 book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, McAlmond articulates a human relational ethic grounded in three infinite axioms: the infinite value of every human life, the infinite uniqueness of each person as an irreplaceable mosaic of experiences, perceptions, and inner life, and the infinite mystery of the private realm of consciousness that no label or group category can ever fully capture or reduce. Ethical Individualism rejects group judgmentalism—the practice of evaluating individuals primarily through collective identities such as class, criminal record, gender, or social status—and insists instead on equality of respect for every person based on their individual character and humanity.Victor Hugo’s masterpiece Les Misérables (1862) stands as one of literature’s most profound validations of these axioms. Set in post-Napoleonic France, a society fractured by rigid class hierarchies, legalistic rigidity, and social prejudice, Hugo’s epic exposes the moral and relational devastation wrought by group judgmentalism while dramatizing the redemptive power that emerges when individuals are seen in their full, infinite humanity.The novel’s central tragedy begins with group judgmentalism’s corrosive effects. Jean Valjean is sentenced to nineteen years of hard labor for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving family. Upon release, he is branded forever as “the convict.” Innkeepers, employers, and townspeople refuse him shelter, work, or basic decency solely because of this label. Hugo shows how such collective judgment does not merely punish past actions—it actively prevents rehabilitation, hardens the heart, and nearly fulfills the very criminal identity society has imposed. Valjean’s early bitterness and thefts are direct consequences of being reduced to a group category rather than recognized as a man capable of change.Fantine’s fate reveals the same dehumanizing mechanism applied to women who deviate from societal norms of “respectability.” Abandoned, impoverished, and desperate to support her daughter Cosette, Fantine is forced into prostitution. Society instantly labels her “the fallen woman,” stripping her of dignity, selling her hair and teeth, and ultimately destroying her life. The Thénardiers’ exploitation of young Cosette as an unwanted “orphan” or financial burden further illustrates how group-based dehumanization targets the vulnerable, treating children as interchangeable members of an inferior class rather than unique souls deserving protection.Inspector Javert embodies group judgmentalism raised to a philosophical system. For Javert, a person is their legal or social category—thief, prostitute, revolutionary, or ex-convict—with no room for mercy, transformation, or personal depth. His rigid adherence to the law as an expression of group order leaves no space for the infinite value or uniqueness of the individual. When Valjean’s goodness shatters Javert’s worldview, Javert’s only recourse is suicide. Hugo demonstrates that a justice system built on labels rather than individuals is not only unjust but ultimately self-destructive.In luminous contrast, Bishop Myriel’s encounter with Valjean dramatizes the liberating power of Ethical Individualism. When the released convict is turned away everywhere else, the Bishop offers him food, shelter, and—most radically—trust. By addressing Valjean not as a convict but as a brother capable of goodness, Myriel affirms his infinite value. This single act of individual recognition breaks the cycle of judgment and ignites Valjean’s moral regeneration. He becomes Monsieur Madeleine, a benevolent mayor and industrialist devoted to the welfare of others. Hugo illustrates McAlmond’s insight that acknowledging the infinite worth of even one person can ripple outward to heal entire communities.Throughout the novel, Hugo’s narrative technique itself affirms the axioms of infinite uniqueness and infinite mystery. He repeatedly plunges into the inner consciousness of his characters—Valjean’s tormented conscience, Fantine’s maternal devotion, Javert’s unyielding sense of duty, Marius’s idealistic fervor, Cosette’s gentle resilience, and even the street urchin Gavroche’s irrepressible spirit. By revealing their private thoughts, longings, regrets, moral struggles, and hidden capacities for change, Hugo proves that no external label can encompass the boundless interior life of a human being. Each soul is portrayed as a distinct, irreplaceable mosaic whose depths remain ultimately mysterious. This literary method directly validates McAlmond’s third axiom: we can never fully “know” or categorize another person through group stereotypes; true relational ethics demands humility, empathy, and openness to the infinite mystery within every individual.The redemptive arcs of Les Misérables further affirm Ethical Individualism’s promise. Valjean’s lifelong commitment to protecting Cosette, his self-sacrifice at the barricades, and his final moments of grace show the triumph of individual moral agency over deterministic group fate. Even amid the revolutionary fervor of the barricade scenes, Hugo sympathizes with legitimate grievances against systemic injustice while cautioning against subsuming unique persons into ideological collectives. True equality, Hugo suggests, arises not through group conflict but through personal acts of love, mercy, and recognition of shared humanity.In our own era—still beset by identity politics, cancel culture, and various forms of collective judgment—Les Misérablesspeaks with undiminished urgency. The Center for Human Equality exists to champion the alternative Hugo dramatized so movingly: a society that judges individuals by their character and actions rather than by group labels. McAlmond’s Ethical Individualism supplies the clear philosophical foundation for this vision—one that honors the infinite value, uniqueness, and mystery inherent in every human being.By embracing these truths, as Jean Valjean ultimately does, we move closer to the genuine equality and human flourishing both Victor Hugo and the Center for Human Equality envision. As Hugo writes, “To love another person is to see the face of God.” In Ethical Individualism, we discover the practical and moral means to recognize that divine spark—the infinite worth—in every unique individual we encounter.

Blog

Stop Judging "Boomers"

Critical Need for Metaphysics in Education

Islam and Ethical Individualism

Mein Kampf and Ethical Individualism

Collectivism Versus Ethical Individualism

Les Miserables and the Truth of Ethical Individualism