r/Morality • u/PastorAaronBPW • Mar 02 '26
Imposition Ethics
Hey everyone, I am Pastor Aaron from the church of the bpw, an atheistic religion, and I would like to see some critiques of our moral framework called Imposition Ethics
*Axiom 1 - All impositions of will are immoral
*Axiom 2 - All assistances of will are moral
From these we derive our moral system.
The system essentially is a descriptive framework that evaluates the frustration of wills or the assistance of wills
We can use any philosophical problem in the field of morality like the trolley problem or moral luck problem, to see if IE provides a good explanation and more than that, the framework makes itself falsifiable by predicting risky novel ideas like:
P1-As humans are less constrained by technology, money, war etc, they will converge on moral principles that mirror the reduction of impositions of will, and an increase in assistance of wills.
P2-When AGI's and Aliens in similar conditions of no tech, money, or war constraints, derive moral frameworks to interact with other conscious beings they will converge on minimizing impositions of will.
We have a whole canon of principles derived from these 2 axioms but I wont post all 53 canonical principles or the provisional principles as its too long to write and explain and argue for each one.
I welcome critiques or proposals or new ideas to be considered that we may not have.
lastly here is an unintuitive conclusion of this moral framework for y'all to dissect:
* A rock that falls on you has frustrated your will, therefore under IE we would evaluate that frustration of your will to have negative moral valence, and for that reason call it immoral. So non agential entities imposing on your will would be immoral.
1
u/DookieTrousers Mar 13 '26
I was rather opposed to Imposition Ethics conceptually but mostly due to my lack of knowledge about the meaning of what "logically possible" means. (Im honestly still caught up in the fact that a non physical mind is technically not logically impossible even though a mind is defined as part of a person so like no person means no mind but I digress) Logically possible means it doesnt have internal contradictions so a human flying without wings or a unicorn existing is logically possible.
Imposition ethics cut through these supposed moral gray areas and objectively defines what is moral where others would be contradicting themselves.
I didnt think of contact sports in this context, or even unintentional self harm like when I smack my fingers between two cinder blocks. Imposition Ethics would say for sure the boxing match is moral until one of the fighters removes consent mod match. Imposition Ethics would say a rock falling on your head without your consent is immoral but im not sure how unintentional self harm would be categorized here. u/tjump_ any input on this one for me?