It is clear, as examples in the article demonstrate, that no human being consistently acts purely as a physicalist all of the time. On the other hand, what does exist beyond the physical is strictly a matter of personal conviction: others may or may not agree with one's convictions of that kind, but whether they do or not is strictly a matter of personal conviction for them.

That is why nothing transcendent can be the basis for a justly applicable ethic of justice: it must boil down to some imposing their arbitrary convictions on others — something no one on the receiving end of such a relationship ever thinks is just. So, without embracing physicalism, to eschew arbitrariness the ethic of justice must follow from observation within material existence, not anything transcendent.