The theoretical interpretation of human behavioral motivation has long been constrained by the traditional dual parallel cognitive framework of benefit pursuit and harm avoidance. Rooted in empirical cognition and classical theoretical constructs, this framework classifies benefit pursuit and harm avoidance as two independent, coequal dual driving logics of behavior. It remains confined to the superficial induction of behavioral phenomena, failing to penetrate beyond appearances to the essential nature of underlying behavioral motivation. This ultimately leads to the fragmentation of behavioral interpretation (...) and the non-self-consistency of theoretical construction. Centered on a single, empirically verifiable axiom, Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism conducts a fundamental deconstruction of the dualistic cognition of benefit pursuit and harm avoidance, establishes the core proposition that generalized harm avoidance is the sole ultimate motivation for all conscious human behaviors, and completes the unified reconstruction of the system of human behavioral motivation. It provides a new, logically closed theoretical framework for understanding the fundamental logic of human behavior. This paper strictly adheres to the principle of value neutrality, and only carries out an objective academic interpretation of behavioral motivation at the level of what is, without involving value judgments or behavioral norms at the level of what ought to be. (shrink)

Since Bentham systematically constructed the ethical system of utilitarianism and Kant established the core framework of deontology, Western ethics has fallen into a two-hundred-year impasse of dualistic opposition between these two paradigms. Existing reconciliation schemes have failed to break away from the dualistic analytical framework, achieving only limited compatibility at the level of formal logic, without touching the underlying motivation of moral behavior, and thus cannot fundamentally resolve the core conflict between the two paradigms. Taking Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism as the (...) core analytical tool and the core meta-proposition that "generalized harm-avoidance is the sole ultimate motivation of all human conscious behaviors", this paper first gives a normative overview of the core theory, and then proves from the origin of behavior that utilitarianism and deontology are not opposing ethical paradigms; essentially, they are differentiated harm-avoidance strategies at different scales under the same underlying logic of harm-avoidance, thereby completely dissolving the two-hundred-year ethical dualism. Using Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism as a unified criterion, this paper provides a closed-loop solution to classic ethical dilemmas such as the trolley problem. Meanwhile, it finds that the integration and assimilation of the two paradigms by Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism is highly consistent with Hare’s double-level moral model in conclusions. The core difference between the two lies in that Hare takes universal prescriptivism of moral language as the analytical path, while this paper takes the deconstruction of the underlying motivation of human behavior as the core path. Finally, with the unitary logic of generalized harm-avoidance, this paper supplements the underlying ontological and motivational support that Hare’s double-level moral model lacks, providing a brand-new, closed-loop unitary analytical paradigm for basic theoretical research in ethics. (shrink)

In the debate between objectivism and subjectivism about reasons in contemporary metaethics, Derek Parfit’s "Agony Argument", with its strong intuitive force, has become the core theoretical weapon for objectivism about reasons to refute subjectivism about reasons. Taking "the extreme future agony necessarily provides an objective reason for harm avoidance independent of the subject’s desires" as its self-evident premise, the argument attempts to falsify the position of subjectivism about reasons, which holds that "all reasons for action ultimately stem from the agent’s (...) subjective desires", through the logic of reductio ad absurdum. In 2025, Wang Baofeng published his paper The Childbirth Experience Machine and Parfit’s "Agony Argument" in Morality and Civilization, challenging the core premise of the Agony Argument with the thought experiment of the "childbirth experience machine", yet failing to complete the underlying logical construction of the connection between agony and action. Existing research has always been confined to the normative framework of "reasons" for offense and defense, but failed to examine the applicability boundary of this framework itself. From the core analytical perspective of the original Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism, this paper systematically reveals the threefold structural dilemma of Parfit’s Agony Argument from the underlying dimension of evolutionary ontology: the misplacement of extreme cases, the fiction of rational subject, and the category transgression between ontology and normative theory. Meanwhile, with the core logic of Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism, this paper supplements the theoretical foundation of Wang Baofeng’s counterexample, and finally realizes the integration of Parfit’s and Wang Baofeng’s seemingly mutually exclusive theoretical positions within the monistic framework. It provides an ontological foundation with more explanatory power for the connection between agony and action, and also offers a brand-new analytical paradigm for the debate between objectivism and subjectivism about reasons in metaethics. (shrink)

The problem of free will has been trapped in a theoretical deadlock among determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism for more than two thousand years. The root cause lies in the fact that all three parties share an unexamined core presupposition: there exists a "will" subject that can operate independently of the causal chain. This paper takes the Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism proposed by Yang Yuming (Yang, 2026) as a new analytical paradigm, arguing that the ultimate motivation for all conscious human behaviors is (...) generalized harm-avoidance. The traditionally recognized "pursuit of benefit," which is considered parallel and equivalent to harm-avoidance, is essentially a subordinate concept of indirect harm-avoidance, and there is no ultimate motivation independent of harm-avoidance. Under this framework, free will is reduced to the subjective experience generated during the operation of the harm-avoidance algorithm, and the "sense of freedom" is merely a user interface at the conscious level, not a real existence in the ontological sense. Through the causal constitution of preferences, the inevitability of behaviors in extreme environments, the dynamic transformation model of priorities, and neuroscientific empirical evidence, this paper deconstructs the illusory nature of free will layer by layer, systematically responds to core objections such as randomness saving free will and pragmatist defenses, and finally proves that free will is a pseudo-problem arising from conceptual confusion. This deconstruction is not a repeated debate on the old battlefield, but a complete dissolution of the problem itself through a paradigm shift, providing a new theoretical foundation for the reconstruction of ethics and legal philosophy. (shrink)

Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism has proved that generalized harm-avoidance is the sole ultimate motivation for all conscious behaviors of the mainstream human group, and seeking benefit is essentially indirect harm-avoidance. On this basis, this paper systematically proposes and demonstrates the complete mechanism of the transformation from conscious harm-avoidance to unconscious harm-avoidance, revealing its status as the core underlying logic of life evolution and individual adaptation. Firstly, this paper defines the categories and dialectical relationship between the two types of harm-avoidance behaviors, and (...) clarifies the core concepts of "Harmless Baseline" and "Preemptive Negative Drive". Then, it systematically reveals the internal mechanism of the transformation from two dimensions: neuroscience (automated coding of basal ganglia, amygdala warning system, mirror neuron system) and evolutionary biology (epigenetic modification, Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics, cultural evolution). Logical verification is completed through typical cases such as dietary adaptation of Inuit, domestication of domestic animals, carbohydrate mouth rinse method of athletes, and human empathic behavior. Finally, it clearly distinguishes two types of subjective experiences, homeostatic pleasure and high-arousal pleasure, for the first time, pointing out that existing neuroscientific research has only fully explained the former, while the "overdraft" and "sense of disparity" nature of the latter constitutes an important direction for future research. This paper improves the theoretical architecture of Generalized Harm-Avoidance Monism, and provides a unified and verifiable explanatory framework for understanding the origin of human instincts, habits, culture and emotions. (shrink)