You may have heard the term “butterfly effect” in popular culture. It’s dictionary definition is, “A property of chaotic systems (such as the atmosphere) by which small changes in initial conditions can lead to large-scale and unpredictable variation in the future state of the system.” It is often summarized by the hypothetical example of a butterfly flapping its wings eventually causing a hurricane somewhere else in the world.

In a physical system, this is very interesting, but what about when it comes to our thoughts, ideas and moral judgments?

Butterfly Effect Morality:

The idea that any action or inaction by an individual that may cause some indirect risk, real or perceived, to someone else somewhere down the line in time can be deemed immoral because of this hypothetical causal link alone. The term is in reference to the butterfly effect concept related to chaos theory in physical systems.

I coined this term to describe this absurd bit of reasoning because it has been adopted as the ethical basis to justify real government policy that unjustly coerces individuals against their fundamental rights. Much of what we saw rationalized as acceptable government control during the COVID hysteria was based on this type of justification.

What is missing of course is the matter of the Will of the individual and a consideration of alternatives. It is in the Will, their intent, that morality or immorality of a person’s act is found. And practically speaking, in terms of harm to others, only a direct link of an individual’s action to harm upon another can be up for moral consideration and acceptable levels of blame. If any action or inaction can be deemed immoral on the grounds of the butterfly effect concept regardless of the Will of the individual or a direct link of the action or inaction infringing on the fundamental rights of another, then it destroys the very concept of morality. It is an inherent contradiction because nearly anything may be deemed immoral, dangerous, and therefore subject to government control. This destroys free will and consent. It destroys diversity of thought and action. It creates a mandate for the universalization of an act based on the decree of an authority rather than seeking the maxim of the act so that valid alternatives may be explored and applied to whatever the practical circumstances may be.

Those that seek to dominate and control others for their selfish purposes seek moral justification to legitimize their programs. They employ so-called ethicists that bastardize legitimate philosophical points to fit their ends. They intend to program the populace with their jaded morality so that their top-down coercion is accepted. Don’t let them do it. While it is always prudent to consider the possible negative consequences of actions or inactions, we cannot destroy what is good and right in an attempt to avoid potential evils. Such a path will surely lead to a worse situation over time.