The Philosophical Foundation of America and Our Campaign

Ethical individualism, as championed by Russell McAlmond in his 2021 book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy and through his work as founder of the Center for Human Equality, represents a profound moral framework for human relations.

At its core are three inseparable axioms: every human life possesses infinite value (equal to any other life or combination of lives), infinite uniqueness (no person can be substituted, replicated, or reduced to a category), and infinite mystery (no mind, ideology, or science can fully exhaust another’s inner reality).

These axioms demand “human relational living”—an ethic of radical respect, permanent openness, and symbiotic trust in every encounter.

McAlmond, a U.S. Marine veteran, financial professional, and human rights activist, is running as a Republican for Oregon’s U.S. Senate seat in 2026. His campaign weaves this philosophy into its fabric as the antidote to polarization, identity politics, and group-based judgments.

It is no coincidence that McAlmond’s ideas have been compared to Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. The novel serves as a harrowing literary proof of ethical individualism’s truths, illustrating why every person must be seen as a unique individual of equal worth rather than judged by group, class, or utility.

Dostoevsky’s masterpiece demonstrates ethical individualism through the moral collapse of Rodion Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov’s “extraordinary man” theory permits transgression of ordinary morality if it serves a greater good. He murders the elderly pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna, dismissing her as a “louse”—a worthless parasite whose death could fund noble deeds for the poor.

This act embodies the very dangers ethical individualism rejects: ranking lives by finite utility or class (poor versus rich, useful versus burdensome), reducing individuals to group stereotypes or societal roles, and presuming godlike knowledge of others’ worth. The unintended killing of the innocent Lizaveta shatters his calculus.

Guilt, fever, nightmares, and confession follow—not as external punishment, but as the internal reassertion of the three infinities. Alyona and Lizaveta cannot be quantified; each possesses infinite value that no future benefit can offset. Their lives defy categorization: they are not interchangeable “types” but irreducibly unique.

Raskolnikov’s hubris in claiming omniscience over human motives crumbles before infinite mystery. Only in Siberian exile, through Sonya’s redemptive love and the convicts’ shared humanity, does he begin regeneration. Dostoevsky shows that denying any person’s equal, infinite worth—whether the poor pawnbroker or anyone else—leads to personal and societal crime.

Acceptance of ethical individualism restores human relational harmony. The novel thus proves McAlmond’s philosophy: no ideology of collective judgment (by class, race, or utility) survives conscience’s verdict. Every individual is of equal worth, judged solely on their unique character and actions.

This literary insight is not abstract for McAlmond; it is the beating heart of his Senate campaign.

Ethical individualism is “woven into the fabric” of his platform, rejecting the “divisive forces” that fracture Americans into competing tribes defined by race, gender, ideology, or class. Instead, McAlmond promotes a “common sense centrist” vision that serves every constituent as a unique individual.

His campaign website and materials repeatedly affirm: “Every human being is equal in value while still being unique,” echoing the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that all are “created equal” with unalienable rights. This philosophy directly defeats DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives and identity politics by insisting judgments rest on individual merit, character, and choices—not group guilt, privilege, or quotas.

McAlmond calls on the Republican Party (and all parties) to adopt ethical individualism as its “human relational standard,” reclaiming America’s founding emphasis on individual liberty and responsibility. McAlmond’s values for Oregon exemplify this individualism in concrete policy.

As a fiscal conservative and financial expert, he prioritizes reducing the cost of living and taxes for every Oregonian, recognizing that economic burdens fall on unique individuals and families, not abstract groups. On homelessness, he advocates ending it for all American citizens through practical support like mental health services and shelter—treating each person as a unique human in need rather than a statistic in a collective crisis.

Healthcare must remain a personal matter between patient and doctor, free from government overreach that lumps people into bureaucratic categories. He supports the Second Amendment as an individual right to self-defense for law-abiding citizens and opposes men competing in women’s sports to protect the unique fairness and opportunities due to female athletes as individuals.

Zero tolerance for antisemitism and hate flows from the same principle: every person—Jew, Muslim, Christian or otherwise—deserves iron-clad protection of their infinite value and uniqueness, not collective scapegoating.

McAlmond positions himself against extremism on left or right, pledging to represent Oregon’s moderate majority who seek safety, stability, and respect for each person’s dignity. These stances are not partisan talking points; they are practical applications of ethical individualism, fostering policies that honor every Oregonian’s unique story rather than pitting groups against one another.

Central to McAlmond’s vision is his proposal for a Human Rights Act (framed in his human relational philosophy as a codification of ethical individualism—sometimes referenced in campaign contexts as advancing a “human relational” approach to rights).

He explicitly desires legislation, grounded in the Declaration of Independence, that ensures “every American is only judged as a unique individual” with unalienable rights. This act would enshrine into federal law the three infinities: prohibiting policies that rank, categorize, or presume to fully define people by group identity; mandating equal respect and opportunity based on individual merit; and promoting human relational living in government, education, employment, and justice.

It would reject collective guilt or privilege, dismantle group-based preferences, and require laws to treat citizens as irreplaceable persons of infinite value and mystery. In practice, it would guide everything from civil rights enforcement to school curricula, ensuring government interactions foster trust and mutual enrichment rather than division.

For Oregon and the nation, this act would translate McAlmond’s philosophy into enduring policy, making ethical individualism the legal and cultural standard for human relations in the 21st century.

In conclusion, Russ McAlmond’s Senate campaign is not merely a political bid; it is a philosophical mission to revive America’s soul through ethical individualism.

Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment stands as its literary mirror, warning that judging people by group—poor versus rich, or any other divide—breeds crime against the human spirit. McAlmond’s platform for Oregon demonstrates this truth in action: fiscal responsibility, personal healthcare choices, fair individual rights, and zero tolerance for hate all flow from seeing every person as infinitely valuable, unique, and mysterious.

His proposed Human Rights Act (rooted in human relational philosophy) seeks to codify this vision nationally, ensuring government itself treats every American as the unique and equal individual they are. In an era of polarization,

McAlmond offers a path of radical respect and common sense—one that honors the Declaration’s promise and heals the nation one human relation at a time. Oregonians, and Americans, stand to gain a senator who fights not for tribes, but for the infinite worth of each person.