Comparison With Other Moral Systems

How does this model of morality compare to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism in how it defines moral wrongness? 
 

How does it differ from utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and moral relativism?
 

In what ways does this framework agree with libertarian ethics, and where does it sharply diverge?
 

Does this model provide a clearer moral standard than “maximize well-being” or “follow moral duties”?

How does this system handle moral disagreements better or worse than religious command-based ethics?
 

Can this framework ground objective morality without appealing to God, karma, or divine enforcement?
 

Core Objections and Criticisms

If morality is about involuntary imposition of will, how does the model handle parenting, education, and caring for children?
 

Does this framework imply that all laws are immoral, including laws against violence or theft?
 

How does the model deal with emergencies where harm seems unavoidable?
 

If nature can be immoral, does that stretch the concept of morality too far?
 

Does removing blame and free will undermine moral responsibility?
 

How does the framework avoid collapsing into moral nihilism or indifference?
 

Is consent sufficient to make an action moral, even in extreme or harmful cases?
 

What about cases where someone consents but is misinformed or manipulated?
 

Edge Cases and Thought Experiments

Is it immoral for a rock to fall on someone?
 

Is birth an involuntary imposition, and if not, why not?
 

Is killing ever objectively moral in this framework?
 

Are prisons inherently immoral?
 

Is punishment ever moral, or only a lesser evil?
 

How does this model evaluate war, self-defense, and policing?
 

Would a perfectly moral world still allow risk, danger, or competition?
 

Structural and Philosophical Challenges

Does this framework depend on a particular view of consciousness?
 

How does it define the boundaries of a person’s will?
 

Can collective consent exist, or only individual consent?
 

How does the model handle conflicting wills without privileging one over another?
 

Is “involuntary imposition” a measurable, objective property of the world?
 

Motivational and Practical Questions

If morality does not involve enforcement, why should anyone care about being moral?
 

How does this model guide real-world decision-making under imperfect conditions?
 

What does moral progress look like under this framework?
 

How would society change if this model were widely adopted?
 

What technologies or social structures would move us closer to the moral ideal?
 

Exploratory and Interest-Building Questions

Why does this model reject intuition as a final authority?
 

Why is morality treated as a property of physical systems rather than intentions?
 

What makes this framework fundamentally different from “do no harm” ethics?
 

What problem in traditional moral philosophy is this model trying to solve?

​

What would be the strongest possible version of this model’s critics argue?
 

If this model is wrong, where is the most likely place it fails?