“Future” sharpens our mind’s attention on the implications of present action, just as “death” compels us to reflect on the significance of life itself.

Epistemology and axiology each erect interpretative boundaries to structure meaning: the former offers a causal—rather than merely chronological—perspective, while the latter intuits the socio-moral symbolism of our actions in their integral form. The encounter between the uncertainty inherent in future-oriented action and the demands of ethics is existential: to determine the “right amount” of risk to assume, we must judge not only the outcomes, but the acceptability of consequences for others and ourselves, as an expression of our own moral identity.

This is why “sustainability” is not simply a matter of time frames—an emergency brake applied just before the fatal crash—but a persistent summons to act with “the end in mind,” integrating freedom with responsibility. No sophisticated calculus or ESG metric can release us from the imperative of personal integrity.

But on what basis? Having lost the Archimedean levers of religion and metaphysics, we find ourselves ensnared in the self-referentiality of modernity. Morality is increasingly crowded out by the socialisation of reference-less, “psychological” self-love. Yet genuine reflection is impossible without foundational principles.

It may be possible to construct a normative basis for modern collective ethics without recourse to ethno-cultural universalism, but only if we are prepared to embrace a new conception of citizenship.

It is time to think again.

We must become proficient analysts of our reasons—not merely our predictions—in the present, if we are to become accountable architects of our future…