Shamsaddin Amanov

This paper develops and defends a framework — here termed jurisdictional sovereignty — for evaluating claims of divine authority through the analytical tools of consent-based political philosophy. Rather than engaging the dominant ontological question of whether God exists, the paper argues that the logically prior and practically more tractable question is whether any being — real or hypothetical, proven or merely posited — possesses legitimate authority over rational agents in the absence of consent. Drawing on the social contract tradition (Locke, Rousseau, Rawls), the political theory of legitimate authority (Raz, Wolff), and constructivist metaethics (Korsgaard, Scanlon), this paper constructs a three-axiom framework grounded in the independence of legitimacy from ontology, the principle of interactive accountability, and the consent constraint. Its most philosophically distinctive feature is ontological invariance: the framework's normative conclusions are sustained regardless of how the metaphysical question of God's existence is resolved. The paper carefully distinguishes the position from atheism, apatheism, and misotheism; addresses sophisticated theological objections from Thomistic participatory metaphysics, skeptical theism, and the free will defence; and engages non-Abrahamic theological structures including process theology, apophatic traditions, and Advaita Vedanta. A sustained treatment of the axiom of shared vulnerability — grounded in Korsgaardian reflective endorsement and Scanlonian contractualism — provides a secular ethical foundation that does not derive moral obligation from divine command. The paper concludes with a nuanced treatment of political implications, engaging the Rawls-Wolterstorff debate on public reason, and a candid appraisal of the framework's limitations. The position discussed here has also attracted the designation Omittoism — a term I have introduced in broader discourse to name the principled refusal of unjustified jurisdictional claims — though this paper proceeds strictly within the norms of systematic philosophical analysis. Keywords: divine authority, jurisdictional sovereignty, consent theory, political theology, social contract, Omittoism, ontological invariance, jurisdictional turn, philosophy of religion, political philosophy, ethics, metaethics

This article situates Omittoism—a philosophical framework of jurisdictional sovereignty—within contemporary analytic philosophy. The article critically engages the work of ten major philosophers—including Stephen Law, A. John Simmons, Christine Korsgaard, Michael Huemer, Elizabeth Anderson, James P. Sterba, Erik Wielenberg, Mark C. Murphy, Wes Morriston, and Graham Oppy—to demonstrate how Omittoism's central theses stand in convergent, divergent, and dialectically productive relationships with the contemporary landscape. Unlike the ontological (existence) or theodicial (goodness) axes, Omittoism asks whether any entity possesses legitimate authority over rational agents without their consent. The paper argues that jurisdictional sovereignty is analytically independent of divine existence and develops the Cosmic Audit to evaluate divine governance by the standards of liberal political philosophy.

“The Manifesto of Omittoism" speaks to those who feel stranded between the rigid dogmas of religion and the cold silence of atheism—a group it identifies as "The Philosophical Orphans." It proposes that for centuries, humanity has been trapped in a vertical debate over whether God exists, missing the far more vital political question: by what right would such a being rule? The text argues that we have confused power with authority. Just as we eventually learned that a King’s army does not give him the moral right to own his subjects, Omittoism asserts that a Creator’s power does not give Him the moral jurisdiction to command our private thoughts or demand our worship. By conducting a forensic audit of the universe—examining the immense suffering, structural flaws, and infinite threats found within it—the manifesto concludes that the entity in charge, if He exists, has failed the basic standards of legitimate governance. Consequently, this work serves as a formal declaration of independence. It outlines a way to build a meaningful, ethical life not by looking up for orders, but by looking across at one another with empathy and reason. It describes the transition of the human species from fearful subjects waiting for a savior into responsible citizens who have finally accepted the beautiful, terrifying liberty of governing themselves.

Universal Basic Income has become a popular idea in the last few decades even though one can find its roots in the earlier centuries. In this thesis, I have examined the position of UBI in the works of the most influential contemporary philosophers. By connecting the idea of UBI with some certain concepts from different philosophers, I aimed to improve the overall understanding of UBI. I have mentioned the concepts such as "labor", "leisure", "idleness", "boredom", "poverty", "inequality", "distribution", "happiness", "power", "needs", "truth", "alienation", etc. I have used a literature methodology for my research. I have tried to read and relate the concept of UBI with the works of 10 philosophers: Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, William James, Bertrand Russell, Michel Foucault, John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Noam Chomsky, Slavoj Zizek, Peter Singer.