My name is Tom Jump, I want to share a moral framework I’ve been working on and get genuine philosophical criticism. I’m not trying to convert anyone or claim this is “the answer.” I want to know where it fails, where it’s redundant, or where it produces unacceptable conclusions. (I published book on it and talk about it for years on my YouTube channel, just as evidence the model is not ai generated)

Core idea

The entire framework is built on one claim:

All involuntary imposition on the will of a conscious being is immoral.  
All voluntary assistance of the will of a conscious being is moral.

There are no other foundational rules.

No outcome maximization.  
No divine commands.  
No moral authority.  
No virtue rankings.

Everything reduces to one question:

Was a conscious being forced against their will, or not?

---

What “imposition” means here

An involuntary imposition is any state or action that overrides, constrains, or frustrates the will of a conscious agent without their consent.

That includes obvious cases like assault, theft, coercion, or using someone’s body without permission.

It also includes cases people don’t usually label as moral at all, like a rock falling on someone. That sounds strange, but it leads to an important distinction.

---

Moral badness vs moral blame

This framework separates two things that are often mixed together.

Moral badness is about whether a state of affairs violates a will.  
Moral blame is about whether an agent is responsible for that violation.

If a rock falls on someone, their will is violated. That is morally bad in this framework.  
But no agent chose it, so no one is morally blameworthy.

This allows the model to say something many systems struggle with:

Something can be morally bad without anyone being morally guilty.

---

Why outcomes don’t justify coercion

Under this framework, killing one non-consenting person to save five others is still immoral.

Even if total suffering is reduced.  
Even if the intention is good.  
Even if the outcome looks better overall.

The reason is simple: someone’s will was used as a means.

Reducing harm can matter when comparing unavoidable tragedies, but it doesn’t magically turn coercion into moral action. “Less bad” does not become “good.”

---

What this framework seems to handle well

Supporters (and critics) often point out that it cleanly explains things like:

Why consent feels morally fundamental  
Why good intentions don’t excuse violations  
Why tragic outcomes can be morally bad without implying moral failure  
Why nature can cause morally bad states without being evil  
Why many moral disagreements collapse into disputes about coercion versus permission

It also avoids a lot of internal tension around exceptions, rule-breaking, aggregation problems, or appeals to authority.

---

What this framework is not

It is not utilitarian.  
It is not deontological.  
It is not virtue ethics.  
It is not religious.  
It is not nihilistic.

It also does not say the world can be perfected, that tragedy can always be avoided, or that anyone is morally obligated to optimize outcomes.

It describes what moral wrongness is, not what must be enforced.

---

What I want criticism on

I’m looking for serious objections, not agreement:

Where does this framework break?  
What counterexamples make it collapse?  
Is it secretly smuggling in assumptions it claims to reject?  
Does it reduce to an existing theory under closer analysis?  
Are there cases where its conclusions are clearly unacceptable?

If you think the core axiom is wrong, I want to know exactly where and why.

There is a lot more to it this is just a summary, one of the things I did was I copied it into untrained chat GPT and asked it to rate my complete model vs other religions and models of morality and mine rated higher than any other.

Here you can find all the parts and all the stuff you need to copy it into Chat GPT:

https://www.churchofthebestpossibleworld.org/askchatgpt


Thanks for reading, and I’m happy to engage with criticism in the comments.