Cotometism is a way of thinking about freedom—not the kind you find on bumper stickers or in speeches, but the kind that shows up in everyday life.
Cotometism starts with a simple truth: each of us has one life—fragile, but ours to shape. From that comes Life Autonomy (the freedom to steer our own lives) and Reciprocity (the choice to help protect that freedom in others). Institutions are valuable only if they provide people opportunities to shape their own lives. The goal isn’t some utopia, but something practical: a world where everyone has more room to live freely, sustained by mutual support.
Defines Cotometism by contrast—showing what it is not. Rejects identity-based, zero-sum, paternalistic, utopian, and authoritarian ideologies to preserve the framework’s commitment to Life Autonomy, Reciprocity, and adaptive cooperation.
Situates Cotometism in the wider philosophical landscape, showing how it converges and diverges from related traditions—capability theory, positive liberty, relational autonomy, non-domination, and mutual-advantage social contract thought—while maintaining a single evaluative axis: Life Autonomy sustained through Reciprocity
Critics might call cotometism contradictory, naïve, or utopian. This essay takes those objections head-on, showing how autonomy and reciprocity actually reinforce one another, why vulnerability makes reciprocity indispensable, and how institutions can be tools for liberty rather than ideals. Cotometism doesn’t promise perfection—it offers clarity about the real conditions that let lives remain free.
A table comparing the treatment of life autonomy and reciprocity in major frameworks outside cotometism.