Begin 1/2

how do you consider this morally justifiable?

Well, at least you aren't asking me a hard one...

It's a bit to read, but you asked in earnest, I will respond in kind.

I'm going to try answering this with a series of hypotheticals. While you can find many people who will say straight up that there is some "Universal Morality" which all people would naturally follow if not for "evil," you will also find a great many differences in those people on the specifics of what that Universal Morality is. I mean sure, you'll find some agreements in generalities, but I suggest the agreements will disappear quite quickly in the details.

I am not going to suggest there is a Universal Morality. I don't know if there is or not. I have my opinions on that, but they are complex, and I most certainly can't say for sure. But my feelings on that aren't really important for this discussion. What is important is examining some of the potential details where people might disagree.

It is a common moral query to ask the following question:

Let's assume there is a train running down the track, you are standing right next to, and have your hand on a switch that will change the track to an adjacent one. On the track where the train is headed there are a hundred people. All random, regular people. On the other track, down which the train will go if you pull the switch stands a single person, also a random regular person.

Do you pull the switch and save the hundred, murdering the one, or do you not act, and relegate their fate to the Universe?

I don't know what the "moral" answer is here, but it's not clear, and you will almost certainly get different answers from those who believe in the Universal Morality.

Now let's say that you are not the person at the switch, but are a person assigned to sit in judgement of their action, or inaction, as the case may be. How do you judge their actions? Is it the same as if you were the one making the decision? Again, you may get different answers from thoughtful believers of the Universal Morality.

Now let's examine "active murder" or "letting people die" as a potential moral choice. Let's say that the train is headed towards the one. The choice now is, do you flip the switch to save the one, killing the one hundred? In this case, inaction results in a completely different outcome. It makes it a lot easier to choose to not act. In this case only the one is destined for death according to fate, so by not acting, the hundred will be saved. Does the ease of the decision to not act make for a "more moral" decision?

In this case all that is really being examined is whether or not inaction (as opposed to making an active choice) can itself be seen as a "decision" in the moral sense. I suggest that inaction, or action, are both moral decisions if the outcome is undeniable. That is not essential to this, but it is important enough that I am making the point. If you disagree, I can bring in another party to the hypothetical who would act as a coercing agent. A case can be contrived where there is no reasonable "inaction" choice (inaction is clearly less moral). For example, some Dr. Evil has planted a bomb under the seats of 100 people in a stadium, or one person sitting on the opposing teams side (they aren't a very popular team). Dr. Evil turns to you and says, "I'm GOING to kill one group or the other. You decide. If you do not decide I will blow up the entire city." The fate of the one, or the one hundred are both a part of an active decision tree.

Whatever your choices were, now let's expand it a little bit. What if "the one" is the most important person in your life (other than yourself). It could be a child, or a spouse, or best friend, or whatever. The hundred are just random people. Now is it moral to actively kill the most important person in your life to save a hundred random people? What if it isn't a hundred random people, but a hundred people that put your most important person in jeopardy in the first place? Like, 100 Dr. Evils are the hundred. What if it's only 50 Dr. Evils, and 50 random persons. What if it's one Dr. Evil and a school bus full of 99 kids (it's a pretty packed bus).

Now what if it's the opposite tracks. One hundred random people will be killed if you flip the switch, or your one most beloved. Flip it? Is that moral? Could you live with the consequences?

The point is, these choices of morality are anything but clear once the details of the choices are laid out. Is it ever right to actively murder the person you love most in this world? At first blush the answer is obviously no, but what if it's to save a hundred kids? How about a million? How about the entire human race for all of the future of the universe?

In Game Theory the main goal is to determine the best path to some specific outcome. We create a model and fill it with all of the initial conditions. We then let it play out numerous ways (similar to the Travelling Salesman problem) until we get the best path that achieves the goal with the fewest possible casualties (where "casualties" just means any negative effect within the framework of the model).

So now, another hypothetical. Let's imagine that a world exists that is something of a cross between 1984 and The Matrix. In 1984 all of the world is controlled by the information from Big Brother. There is only one party, and everyone belongs to it. There is only one voice, and one allowed set of beliefs, and everyone, or nearly everyone, buys into it completely. The masses are brainwashed to believe in a world that has almost nothing to do with Reality at all. Nevertheless, a world with such a single belief system is without war or strife. It is akin to Utopia, even if the occasional upstart needs to be dealt with in a less than ideal Utopian way.

In The Matrix movie there is a scene where Agent Smith is explaining why the world they created is so hard; why there is so much turmoil, strife, war, why everyone needs to work their asses off forty plus hours a week, then go home and lead distracted, divided, and in many cases, soulless lives. The controversy was essential he explained, because no one would believe in the Utopia's they had created in previous versions. The distractions, the divisions, the oppositions, the wars; they made the Grand Illusion believable, and thus controllable.

So what if there existed a world that was like the Matrix, where the division is purposefully created to keep people from seeing the real enemy. What if the left and the right were BOTH being led by the same voice, just like in 1984, but they weren't being told the same things. Instead, they were both being shown different pieces of the truth (though never the whole truth). Both would be seeing actual truths, both narratives would be playing on visceral truths to drive their respective beliefs in their respective boxes, both would be missing key elements to “wake up from the Matrix,” all stuck in the non-Utopian, but no less controlled world.

Let's further say that a part of the narrative seen by one side was of some terrible plan to “take over the world.” I'll give it a random name, say, The Great Reset, though I could just as easily call it WWII. Of course, this hypothetical world has already been taken over, long ago, but the one side would be led to believe that this was a new thing trying to impinge upon humanities "freedom." The other side would be fed a story, playing on their respective visceral truths, trying to make them believe that this “plan to take over the world” was actually for the greatest benefit for mankind. Once again, you would get tremendous division. Again, in this hypothetical world, the world was already long taken over by the Grand Illusion. We'll call the time frame 500 years of total control by The Matrix and its Big Brother With Many Voices for some hypothetical context.

So now we have two groups of people in opposition. In one case, they are seeing “the reality” of the evils of the world, and how they must be stopped from enacting their “grand plan to take over the world.” On the other side, they would be saying “we need to enact this grand plan to save the planet from ourselves!” Both sides are kinda right, though not necessarily in the way they think, however, both sides are missing some REALLY important information, like the fact that the world was actually 100% subsumed in the Grand Illusion five centuries before. Another piece of important information is that the latest play (the Great Reset e.g.) was really intended to be nothing more than any other large scale thumbscrew twist (like WWI, WWII, the Cold War, etc.), and the actual intended outcome would have been just one more increment on the path to tighter control. The most important part of the Grand Illusion is maintaining the Grand Illusion. The increments are always less than the greatest fears make them out to be, at least on the surface. When the outcome "isn't as bad as we feared" and there are "compromises," the Illusion remains fully intact. That is how all of the wars of the 20th century (and beyond) can be paid for on both sides by the same entity and no one bats an eyelash. We get a narrative that explains it all, and "it turned out OK in the end."

Now, what if you had the means and the desire to release humanity from the Grand Illusion? Would you use their own plan against them? Would you put in a bunch of fourth wall breaks in the Grand Illusion to get people to see that All The World's A Stage? Would you amplify one side, put out things that show the fraud, and weaken the other position, all to motivate a unification movement? How would you amplify one side? How would you motivate belief and unification?

Would you kill one random person? Would you kill a thousand? How many would you kill, or otherwise knowingly let die, to save all of humanity from the powers that have held the reins of the Grand Illusion for 500 years.

q521

We are FIGHTING for LIFE.

We are FIGHTING for GOOD.

We are at WAR [@].

NOT EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEAN.

[SCARE] NECESSARY EVENT.

Do you TRUST the US Military?

Do you TRUST the Chain Of Command?

Have FAITH - WE ARE IN CONTROL.

“NOT EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEAN”

What does that mean? It means that when it comes to certain decisions, the morality may be difficult for some people to justify. What is the price of the Game Theory outcome according to Q?

4-6% LOST FOREVER.

Q told us the cost of these “moral decisions” according to their best Game Theory model, the one with the fewest casualties. Somewhere in the range of half a billion people.

Would you kill, or otherwise let die, 500,000,000 people? Many of those will probably be loved ones. Would you do it under any circumstances? What if it were to save humanity from the hypothetical world I have painted above? What if the other path, the other train track, led eventually to a world with that many people left alive (killing off 7.5B), all living under fully twisted thumbscrews, the path to “Utopia” finally complete. The Grand Illusion finally, truly and FOREVER inescapable...

Maybe you would let humanity continue to live in such a hell, never realizing their potential. Half a billion more people may be left alive (for a while), but they would be half a billion people living soulless, purposeless, meaningless lives in the most complete and abject slavery imaginable, under an illusion so powerful and complete, they actually believe that they are free. A “freedom” so perverse that the 8B members of the global community kill each other at the commands of the string pullers in numbers, that over the years, are far in excess of the Game Theory tally, with far more intended to die in the not too distant future. The people alive, while it may be more for a time, will never have the opportunity to live up to their potential. It will simply never exist at all.

End 1/2