---
title: "hypotheticals"
aliases: 
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.