Our Moral Framework

​

The moral framework of the Church begins with a single, foundational recognition:

Being forced against one’s will is morally bad.
 

From this recognition, everything else follows.

What Morality Is About

Morality, as we understand it, is not primarily about intentions, character, obedience, virtue, or blame. It is about what happens to conscious beings—specifically, whether their wills are respected or overridden.

A state of affairs is morally negative when it involves involuntary imposition: when a conscious being is forced into a condition they did not choose and could not reasonably refuse.

This remains true even when:

• no one intended harm,

• no one is at fault,

• or the harm was unavoidable.

Morality concerns what is imposed, not merely who caused it.

Imposition and Consent

At the center of our framework is the distinction between:

• voluntary interaction, and

• involuntary imposition.

When a conscious agent consents, interaction is morally neutral or permissible.
When consent is absent and a will is overridden, the resulting state is morally bad.

Consent matters because no one is obligated to surrender their body, choices, or experience to others.

Moral Valence vs Moral Blame

A key distinction in our framework is between moral valence and moral blame.

• Moral valence describes whether a state of affairs is morally negative, neutral, or positive based on whether it involves involuntary imposition.

• Moral blame applies only to agents capable of choice and responsibility.

This means:

• A natural disaster can be morally bad without anyone being guilty.

• A system can be immoral without malicious intent.

• Harm can matter morally even when no one deserves punishment.

This separation allows moral clarity without moral condemnation.

Unavoidable Harm and Moral Comparison

We recognize that some involuntary impositions cannot be avoided in the world as it currently exists.

When imposition is unavoidable:

• it does not become morally acceptable,

• it remains morally negative.

However, unavoidable harms can still be morally compared.

A state that imposes less on fewer wills, for a shorter duration, or in a reversible way is morally preferable to one that imposes more—even if both are imperfect.

This allows us to say:

• Some outcomes are less immoral than others
  without ever saying:

• Harm is justified.

Prevention Without Coercion

Preventing future involuntary imposition is not itself an imposition, provided it does not override an existing will.

This distinction is crucial.

It allows for:

• rescue,

• safeguards,

• harm prevention,

• and risk reduction,

while still rejecting coercion, forced compliance, or moral override.

Reducing future harm matters, even when harm cannot be eliminated entirely.

The Best Possible World

Our framework holds that coercion and suffering are not logically necessary for conscious existence.

A world in which:

• conscious beings exist,

• no one is forced against their will,

• and no imposition occurs,

is conceptually coherent.

This world—the Best Possible World—is not promised, predicted, or required. It functions as a moral horizon: a reference point that defines what “better” ultimately means.

The fact that our world falls short does not negate the standard—it clarifies it.

Moral Direction, Not Moral Purity

We do not treat morality as a test of purity or worth.

We explicitly distinguish:

• moral truth from human feasibility, and

• moral evaluation from moral expectation.

Living within an immoral world is not itself a moral failure.

Moral improvement consists in movement toward less involuntary imposition, even when perfection is impossible.

Every reduction matters.

Limits of Knowledge and Moral Humility

We acknowledge that current science does not fully explain:

• what a will is,

• how to measure will-frustration,

• or how to perfectly compare subjective experiences.

Rather than inventing false precision, our framework explicitly names these limits.

Where knowledge ends, we exercise restraint.
Where certainty is unavailable, we refuse dogma.

Moral fidelity takes precedence over algorithmic certainty.

What This Framework Rejects

Our moral framework explicitly rejects:

• coercion justified by outcomes,

• moral authority enforced through power,

• guilt-based obedience,

• harm excused by necessity,

• and systems that treat individuals as means rather than ends.

It also rejects the idea that morality exists to comfort, reassure, or simplify reality.

What This Framework Affirms

It affirms that:

• involuntary imposition is morally real,

• reduction without justification is meaningful,

• prevention without override is possible,

• blame is not required for harm to matter,

• and a world without coercion is worth orienting toward.

In Summary

Our moral framework is not about controlling behavior or assigning virtue.
It is about seeing clearly.

It asks one primary question:

Where is force being imposed that does not need to be?

And it offers one guiding answer:

Every avoidable reduction in involuntary imposition brings the world closer to the Best Possible World.

That is the moral framework of the Church.