Principle-Derived Ought: Objective Action Guidance from Natural Science and the Six-Level Framework of Good and Evil

How scientific knowledge of the world can tell humans how they ought to act is a fundamental question of human philosophy. Natural Human Philosophy (NHP) calls oughts deductively derived from scientific principles and natural laws Principle-Derived Ought (PDO); ought here means how one ought to proceed and is not confined to moral obligation. Engineering practice shows that once a goal is specified, the real world determines objective conditions for achieving it, which human wishes cannot cancel. This paper distinguishes two connected kinds of requirement. The first consists of objective action requirements conditional on a goal, specifying necessary conditions, action constraints, and feasible routes to that goal. The second consists of normative action requirements under the Six-Level Framework of Good and Evil: the given six-level normative premises make a substantive contribution to the inference, science establishes causal and conditional relationships, and means–end connections yield governance requirements. The fundamental ethical orientation, basic human needs, and natural dependencies jointly support the six-level framework and its cumulative constraints. Once argued for in a concentrated foundational discussion, this basis is applied to concrete problems through successive scientific assessment of facts and derivation from principles. The paper maintains the distinctions among necessary conditions, alternative options, and probabilistic improvement, explains the different feasibility constraints imposed by natural laws and actual capacities, and connects the requirements to humans with Human Superposition, organized Superpowers, and Comprehensive Cultural Reordering and Error Correction. Intangible Superpowers shape factual understanding, goals, rules, and legitimacy, making them important objects of governance. A recording structure and proposed tests appear in the appendices as aids to application. The paper argues that science can derive objective action requirements under explicit goals, normative premises, and real conditions, enabling governance after the transgressions to move from understanding consequences to warranted action and sustained correction.