How a sophism in the definition of egalitarianism broke world morality

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The traditional definition of egalitarianism has a sophism in it. It blurs understanding of legal crime vs moral crime, making people unable to understand: God judges not only action but also inaction.

If I am ever given a global platform—whether through the Wolf Prize, Abel Prize, Millennium Prize, or any other international recognition—this is the moral message I intend to deliver to the world.

• There is a human court, and there is the court of God.
• Human courts judge people according to laws, procedures, and visible actions. They distinguish between action and inaction, between what was done and what was not done. Human justice is therefore limited by what can be proven and categorized.
• God’s judgment is of a different order. If God is present in our universe, then His observation is not like that of a human judge. He does not see only social roles, reputations, or legal categories. He sees reality at its deepest level: the quantum events, the wave functions, and the physical processes that constitute everything that exists. People are made of atoms, and atoms are governed by quantum processes. In this sense, God judges not only “people” as social identities, but the full reality of their actions and non-actions.

Legal crimes and moral crimes

Human law does not cover the full moral landscape. There is a crucial distinction between legal crimes and moral crimes.

• Legal crimes are actions prohibited by the state.
  They are punished because they disrupt public order, safety, or the rights of others.
• Moral crimes are actions—or inactions—that are ethically wrong, even if the law does not punish them.

The two categories overlap, but they are not identical.

For example, many societies consider prostitution immoral, but making it illegal often produces worse consequences. When driven underground, it tends to increase the spread of sexually transmitted infections, exploitation, and violence. In such cases, an act may remain morally wrong, yet criminalizing it can produce greater harm. Therefore, not everything immoral should automatically be illegal.

At the same time, the absence of legal punishment does not remove moral responsibility.
A person who refuses to help the needy, though not violating any law, may still commit a moral crime.

For instance:

• Refusing to give any aid to the starving when one easily could.
• Ignoring suffering that one has the power to alleviate.
• Withholding support from those whose work could benefit humanity.

These are not legal crimes in most countries. But from a moral perspective, they are as serious as many acts that the law does punish. Human law is limited; moral responsibility is not.

The moral weight of inaction

In the human world, inaction is often treated as morally neutral. A person who does nothing may believe he has done no wrong. But in the physical universe, there is no true inaction. Every wave function evolves; every system interacts; every moment has consequences. From the standpoint of ultimate judgment, neglect is not empty—it is an event with effects. Therefore, in God’s court, inaction is also judged.

Human history shows again and again that neglect destroys as surely as cruelty. When societies ignore injustice, when institutions abandon talent, when the hungry are not fed and the oppressed are not defended, the result is suffering on a massive scale. Entire generations can lose progress because those who could help chose not to act.

I personally experienced this principle. Because of religious discrimination, I was left without a scientific degree and abandoned by the structures that were supposed to support science. As a result, I lived in poverty and hunger for years. A scientist who could have contributed more effectively to mathematics was left without recognition or resources. When science is delayed, medicine is delayed, agriculture is delayed, economies stagnate, and human lives are lost. The consequences of neglect are not abstract—they are measured in suffering and death.

In the Gospel, Jesus speaks very clearly about this moral law. He does not say that only murderers or tyrants face judgment. He says that those who fail to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or visit the suffering are also condemned. The sin is not only what is done, but what is refused. This is the same principle: the moral weight of inaction.

The sophism of egalitarianism

One of the roots of such neglect is what I call “sophistic egalitarianism.” Many people repeat the slogan that “all people are equal,” but they do not clarify what kind of equality they mean. Is it equality of rights, or equality of abilities, character, and contribution?

I support equality of rights. Every human being deserves justice, protection, and dignity under the law. But equality of persons in their talents, responsibilities, and roles is simply not a fact of reality. People differ in skill, discipline, intelligence, courage, and moral strength. Societies progress when they recognize these differences and support those who can contribute the most to the common good.

Sophistic egalitarianism confuses these two meanings of equality. It claims equality of persons, but in practice it often destroys equality of rights. Instead of ensuring that everyone has a fair chance, it discourages excellence, ignores exceptional contributions, and leaves real talent unsupported. Under such a mindset, helping a great scientist seems unnecessary, because he is treated as no different from anyone else.

But moral responsibility requires discernment. Justice does not mean blindness to differences; it means giving each person what is due:

• To the hungry—food.
• To the sick—care.
• To the gifted—opportunity.
• To the oppressed—defense.
• To the brilliant mind—tools to create, discover, and serve humanity.

When a society refuses to recognize excellence, it begins to resemble an anthill: a system of interchangeable units, each convinced that nothing higher exists. If every role is declared “the highest,” then no one strives upward. If no one strives upward, progress stops. And when progress stops, suffering spreads.

Principles of a sound moral order

True morality requires several principles:

• Responsibility for both action and inaction.
• Recognition of the difference between legal crimes and moral crimes.
• Compassion for the vulnerable.
• Recognition and support of excellence.
• Equality of rights, not denial of real differences.
• Courage to help those who can benefit humanity.
• Refusal to hide behind comfortable slogans while others suffer.

Every person will one day face judgment—not only for what they did, but for what they refused to do when they had the chance. The measure of a society is not how loudly it proclaims equality, but how wisely it uses its resources, how it treats the hungry and the gifted alike, and how seriously it takes its moral responsibilities.

If I ever stand on a global stage, this is the message I intend to proclaim:

Neglect is not neutral.
Inaction is not innocent.
And a just world requires both compassion for the weak and recognition of the strong, so that humanity as a whole may flourish.

👉 Please, support World Science DAO to give each scientist an opportunity.