Imagine a Djinn

Imagine you find a magic lamp.

Inside is a djinn who will grant you one wish.

Not three.
Not a loophole.
One wish, interpreted honestly.

What would you wish for?

Money?
Power?
Fame?
Immortality?
Curing disease?
Ending hunger?
World peace?

Each of these sounds good—until you notice something troubling.

Every one of them requires forcing someone to do something they may not want to do.

Money requires systems of obligation.
World peace requires stopping people who want to fight.
Ending hunger requires reallocating resources from those who may resist.
Even curing disease overrides the bodies of those who may not consent.

So the question changes.

What would be the most moral wish—not the most beneficial, not the most popular, but the most moral?

A Different Answer

My answer is this:

I would wish for the djinn to create the best of all possible worlds.

Not in the religious sense.
Not a paradise enforced by rules or gods.
But a world with one defining property:

It is physically impossible for any conscious being to be forced to do anything they do not consent to.

In this world:

• Every conscious being gets their own universe

• They can design it however they like

• Interaction with others is purely voluntary

• No one can override anyone else’s will—not by violence, not by law, not by circumstance

Nothing needs to be enforced—because imposition itself is impossible.

If this strikes you as more moral than the wish you initially imagined—or at least a serious contender—then you already understand the core of the model.

What This Reveals

This thought experiment exposes a simple but radical idea:

The deepest moral problem is not suffering, inequality, or bad outcomes.
It is being forced against one’s will.

Most moral systems focus on:

• Outcomes (utilitarianism)

• Rules (deontology)

• Character (virtue ethics)

• Authority (religion)

This model asks a different question:

Where, exactly, did someone’s will get overridden?

The Core Idea (Plain Language)

The model is built on a single foundation:

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

That’s it.

No divine commands.
No maximization functions.
No moral bookkeeping.

Just one question, applied consistently:

Was someone forced, or did they consent?

Why This Matters

This framework explains things that other moral systems struggle with:

1. Why nature can be morally bad without being “evil”

A rock falling on someone violates their will.
That’s bad—even if no one is to blame.

2. Why good intentions don’t justify harm

Saving five people by killing one non-consenting person is still immoral—because someone was used as a means.

3. Why minimizing harm doesn’t magically make actions moral

Reducing suffering matters—but it does not convert coercion into virtue.

4. Why consent is morally fundamental

If an action is voluntary, it does not violate morality—even if others dislike it.