Every so often, a simple question slices through the noise of politics, religion, and moral posturing with the precision of a scalpel.
One such question — so deceptively simple it borders on childish — is this:
“What if they did that?”
It sounds almost trivial, like something uttered in a playground argument. Yet it’s among the most powerful moral tools we have. It exposes hypocrisy, reveals double standards, and illuminates the fragile scaffolding upon which much of modern moral reasoning is built.
When someone criticizes your side — your clan, your political party, your nation, your church, your generation — the instinct is to defend. To rationalize. To find mitigating context, historical justification, or worse, to change the subject entirely. We are loyal creatures. We want to see ourselves and our tribe as the good guys. But this question — What if they did that? — forces an uncomfortable thought experiment: if your ideological opponents did the exact same thing, would you still defend it, or would you be outraged?
That pause — that split-second hesitation — is the sound of moral awareness trying to break through tribal loyalty.
Moral Consistency as the Rarest Virtue
In theory, morality should be symmetrical. What is wrong for one person to do is wrong for another, regardless of tribe or team. But in practice, we operate with moral asymmetry: we forgive our side’s excesses as “necessary,” “regrettable,” or “taken out of context,” while condemning the same behavior in others as proof of their depravity.
This double standard is not a bug of human morality; it’s a feature of human psychology. We evolved as social creatures who depend on in-groups for survival. Our moral sense developed not as a universal code but as a social glue — a way to keep our tribe functioning and cohesive. Tribal morality, not universal morality, was our starting point. The modern world simply scaled up the tribe.
That’s why we excuse the surveillance when our government does it but decry “authoritarianism” when theirs does. We celebrate whistleblowers when they expose the other side but call them traitors when they expose ours. We condemn “fake news” unless it flatters our worldview. And we preach “law and order” until our own break the law.
The Hypocrisy Test
Imagine, for example, a political scandal. A leader bends the rules to hold onto power, weaponizes an institution, or enriches allies. The loyalists rush to defend: “Everyone does it.” “The system’s unfair anyway.” “It’s for the greater good.”
Now invert the roles. Imagine your most despised political figure doing the same. Does your moral defense still stand?
If your principles vanish the moment the actors switch sides, you never had principles — you had preferences.
And that’s what the “What if they did that?” test exposes: not just moral inconsistency, but moral loyalty. You can tell whom a person serves not by what they condemn, but by whom they refuse to condemn.
This is not just a political phenomenon. It’s everywhere — in religion, business, academia, even family life. The CEO who defends corporate greed as “fiduciary duty” but rails against welfare cheats. The parent who excuses their own child’s bullying but demands expulsion for someone else’s. The church that preaches forgiveness for its sinners but eternal damnation for others.
The Comfort of Hypocrisy
There’s a reason hypocrisy thrives: it’s comfortable. It allows us to feel righteous while staying loyal. It allows us to indulge in moral outrage without self-reflection. Hypocrisy is emotional insulation.
The “What if they did that?” question strips that insulation away. It drags our comfortable excuses into the cold light of consistency. It is not an accusation but a mirror, one that does not flatter.
It forces us to see that the same behavior, viewed through the lens of identity, can shift from “defense of freedom” to “assault on democracy,” from “speaking truth to power” to “dangerous misinformation,” depending entirely on who is doing it.
We have become masters of conditional morality — principles that apply selectively, like dimmer switches we can dial up or down depending on the flag on someone’s lapel.
From Principle to Parody
The most dangerous stage of moral decay is not open corruption but selective outrage.
A society that only defends its own principles when convenient no longer has principles — it has branding.
You can see this in the language of justification. Listen for the tells:
“Yes, but what about…?” (deflection)
“That’s different.” (rationalization)
“You don’t understand the context.” (tribal translation)
When a people must contort language to excuse behavior they would condemn in others, their moral compass has spun itself dizzy.
It is not that they lack morality. It’s that morality has been privatized — franchised out to ideological camps where each version of “right and wrong” comes with team colors and a subscription fee.
A World Without Mirrors
In a sense, we’ve built a civilization allergic to mirrors. Social media, partisan news, curated communities — all serve to reinforce the righteousness of “us” and the wickedness of “them.” The very idea of checking our reactions against the mirror of equivalence feels like betrayal.
To ask “What if they did that?” is to risk exile from your digital tribe. It makes you sound disloyal, centrist, moderate — all dirty words in the age of purity politics.
Yet it’s the only question that keeps moral reasoning alive. Without it, every side becomes a parody of the other, justifying its sins through the memory of the other’s crimes. We become nations, movements, and communities built on recursive vengeance — moral logic replaced by moral bookkeeping.
The Courage to Be Fair
To apply this test honestly requires courage, because it almost always leads to discomfort. It may reveal that your side — your people — are not as pure as you want them to be. It may force you to acknowledge that the outrage you feel at others’ behavior is not moral superiority but projection.
And yet, this is how real moral progress begins: not in grand revolutions, but in quiet moments of self-interrogation.
The next time you find yourself defending something that feels off, pause and ask:
What if they did that?
Would you still rationalize it? Would you still wave the flag and chant the slogan? Or would you be furious, calling it corruption, abuse, or tyranny?
If your answer flips, then your moral compass is not pointing north — it’s pointing home.
The Universal Test
The test works everywhere:
What if another nation invaded under the same pretext?
What if another faith claimed divine authority to restrict yours?
What if another protest used the same tactics you called “patriotic”?
These are not rhetorical questions — they’re diagnostic ones. They reveal whether your morality is built on empathy or ego, on fairness or faction.
Civilization depends on our willingness to apply the same standard to ourselves that we demand of others. Without that, ethics collapses into tribalism, and justice becomes a scoreboard.
Conclusion: The Mirror and the Choice
The question “What if they did that?” may be the simplest moral device ever conceived — and the most underused. It doesn’t require theology, philosophy, or ideology. Only imagination. Only fairness.
It is the conscience’s mirror, the soul’s stress test, and perhaps the last remaining tool for recovering integrity in an age where everyone insists they already have it.
If we ever hope to rebuild a moral culture worth defending, it won’t begin with better arguments or stronger convictions. It will begin with better questions.
And this one — this little four-word mirror — may be the only one that matters.
What if they did that?
The Inner Monologue 
Leave a comment