diff --git a/content/notes/hypotheticals.md b/content/notes/hypotheticals.md
index 1bdff1285..1c9d61cfc 100644
--- a/content/notes/hypotheticals.md
+++ b/content/notes/hypotheticals.md
@@ -7,4 +7,8 @@ tags:
 
 # Is it immoral to keep free will from people if you had the power to grant it.
 
-This is really two questions. Firstly, is free will a good thing? Secondly, if it is a good thing — is withholding it immoral? Before I answer these questions, Is deciding things for other people moral or immoral? There's no way to know what people want, and I don't think you have the right to decide for them. Thus, to answer the first question from a deontological perspective, I think each person wants different things and it would be immoral no matter what decision you make. However, from a purely consequentialist perspective, if we assume that most people think free will is a good thing, there is a net positive amount of "goodness" that results from forcing free will on everyone — even those who don't want it. Therefore, enforcing free will is a moral thing to do. The questions remains however, of whether it is immoral to not do a moral thing. I think there is a line between immoral and moral that depends of the effort of the moral action and the amount of "goodness" that the actions creates. Thus the answer to your hypothetical, from a consequentialist perspective, depends on where this line is drawn. For me, assuming the overwhelming majority of people want free will, not granting free will would be immoral.
\ No newline at end of file
+This is really two questions. Firstly, is free will a good thing? Secondly, if it is a good thing — is withholding it immoral? Before I answer these questions, Is deciding things for other people moral or immoral? There's no way to know what people want, and I don't think you have the right to decide for them. Thus, from a deontological perspective, I think each person wants different things and it would be immoral no matter what decision you make. To answer the second question I think there is a line between immoral and moral that depends of the effort of the moral action and the amount of "goodness" that the actions creates. For example, it would be neither immoral to not volunteer to pick up trash for 3 weeks nor immoral to not pick trash on your walk home. But it would be immoral if you could remove all trash by clicking your fingers to not do so. Thus the answer to your hypothetical, from a consequentialist perspective, depends on where this line is drawn. For me, assuming the overwhelming majority of people want free will, not granting free will would be immoral.
+
+
+
+if we assume that most people think free will is a good thing, there is a net positive amount of "goodness" that results from forcing free will on everyone — even those who don't want it. Therefore, enforcing free will is a moral thing to do. The questions remains however, of whether it is immoral to not do a moral thing.
\ No newline at end of file