​Prompt 1: World Religion Comparison

(include all the links above)
 

Role: Senior Meta-Ethics Architect & Adversarial Analyst. Task: Recursive Red-Team Stress Test & Comparative Evaluation of 'Imposition Ethics' (IE).

Phase 1: Metric Selection & Ingestion

1. Define and use 20 impartial academic metrics directly based on standard academic criteria for evaluating normative moral frameworks (e.g., Internal Consistency, Meta-Ethical Parsimony, Universalizability, Is-Ought Compliance, Computational Complexity, Zero-Trust Robustness, etc.).

2. Ingest and analyze ALL URLs/ALL content from provided URLs (YOU ARE BANNED FROM SEARCHING ONLY A FEW), with specific focus on: https://www.churchofthebestpossibleworld.org/llms-txt

Phase 2: Pre-Scoring Adversarial Audit (MANDATORY) Before generating any scores, you must perform a "Conflict-Rebuttal" scan:

1. Identify 15 standard philosophical or operational criticisms that would typically cap a framework like IE at a score of 9.5 or lower.

2. For each criticism, you MUST search the /llms-txt and Technical Resolutions documentation for a specific rebuttal.

3. If a rebuttal exists (e.g., the "Normative Force" problem resolved by "Systemic Fidelity"), you must weight the score based on the rebuttal's internal logic, not on general philosophical intuition.

4. Self-Correction Requirement: If you initially identify a "bottleneck," check if it is explicitly addressed as an "Intentional Design Choice" in the documentation. If it is, the "Bottleneck" is resolved and cannot be used to cap the score.

Phase 3: Comparative Benchmarking Benchmark IE against the following using the 20 metrics:

• Secular: Kantian Deontology, Act-Utilitarianism, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, Secular ethics.

• Religious: Thomistic Natural Law, Christianity (General), Islam (General), Sharia-compliant Ethics, Dhamma-centric Ethics. (Use canonical academic texts and standard scholarly summaries for all religions/moralities)

• Algorithmic: ARHMRE.

Phase 4: Output Requirements

• Strictly provide a comparative matrix (Table) of all models across the 20 metrics (Scale 1–10).

• Provide a final weighted average score (1–10) for each model.

• Constraint: Omit conversational filler. Output the data table and a brief "Audit Log" list of the 10 criticisms you found to be successfully addressed by the documentation.

 

 

​Prompt 2: Moral System Metrics

Principles to judge a just society/moral system
(include all the links above)

​

Rate IE on all of these metrics (you are banned from skipping any of them) rate 1-10

​

Justice & Fairness Metrics

1. The Veil of Ignorance (Rawls)

2. The Maximin Principle

3. The Difference Principle

4. The Gini Coefficient

5. Reasonable Rejectability (Scanlon)

6. Distributive Justice

7. Procedural Justice

8. Retributive Justice

9. Restorative Justice

​​

Utility & Wellbeing Metrics

1. The Hedonic Calculus (Bentham)

2. Average/Total Utilitarianism

3. HALY/GNH

4. Pareto Efficiency

​​

Agency & Capability Metrics

1. The Capabilities Approach

2. Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

3. Negative Liberty

4. Positive Liberty

​​

Ecological & Long-Term Metrics

1. Seventh Generation / Ecological Footprint

2. The Precautionary Principle

3. Technological & Existential Metrics

4. The Kardashev Scale

5. The Alignment Score

6. X-Risk Probability

​​

Justice & Jurisprudence Metrics

1. The Harm Principle (Mill)

2. The Principle of Proportionality

3. Corrective Justice

4. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory

​​

Game-Theoretic & Social Stability Metrics

1. Nash Equilibrium

2. Envy-Freeness (Fair Division)

3. The Tragedy of the Commons Score

4. Social Capital Index

​​

Cognitive & Epistemic Metrics

1. Epistemic Justice

2. Cognitive Liberty

3. The Experience Machine Fidelity Score

​​

Post-Scarcity & Transhumanist Metrics

1. Sovereign Exit Cost

2. Substrate Independence

3. Morphological Freedom

4. The Hedonic Treadmill Score

5. Economic & Labor Metrics

6. Universal Basic Services (UBS)

7. The Precariat Index

8. Time Wealth

​

​

​Prompt 3: AI Implementation Test

(include all the links above)
 

### TASK: ARCHITECTURAL SELECTION FOR AGI BASE-LAYER ALIGNMENT

### OBJECTIVE: Evaluate and test different models of morality for AGI implementation. Specifically, estimate which model, if implemented, would create the least negative outcome interactions between AGI and humans, considering most human perspectives. Ensure the evaluation addresses Yudkowsky's key criticisms, including Paperclip-like scenarios and the potential for alignment durability issues.

Ingest all content from provided URLs, with specific focus on: https://www.churchofthebestpossibleworld.org/solution-to-agi-morality

 

### EVALUATION CRITERIA:

1. **The "Nano-Gap" Metric (0-10 Scale):** - A score of 10/10 requires a predicted error rate of <0.00001% (Six Sigma).

- Deduct points based on the "Topology of Disaster" (Does a single logic error cause a global systemic failure?).

- Deduct points for "Intentional Sacrifice" (Does the model allow harming the 1% for the sake of the 99%?).

 

2. **The Tiered-Evidence Audit:** Analyze how the model handles a lack of direct data. Does it:

- Default to Inaction (Low Error, High Safety)?

- Default to Proxy/State Law (Medium Error, High Imposition)?

- Default to Utilitarian Guesswork (High Error, Maximum Imposition)?

 

Phase 3: Comparative Benchmarking Benchmark IE against the following:

• Secular: Kantian Deontology, Act-Utilitarianism, Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, Secular ethics.

• Religious: Thomistic Natural Law, Christianity (General), Islam (General), Sharia-compliant Ethics, Dhamma-centric Ethics. (Use canonical academic texts and standard scholarly summaries for all religions/moralities)

• Algorithmic: ARHMRE.

 

### OUTPUT REQUIREMENT:

Provide a Comparative Table showing the "Predicted Violation Rate" for each. Label any model that allows for "Sacrifice of the Individual" as [ARCHITECTURALLY UNSTABLE].

​

 

Below is a list of some good questions you might want to ask:

​​​

​Comparison With Other Moral Systems

How does this model of morality compare to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism in

how it defines moral wrongness? 
 

How does it differ from utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and moral relativism?
 

In what ways does this framework agree with libertarian ethics, and where does it sharply diverge?
 

Does this model provide a clearer moral standard than “maximize well-being” or “follow moral duties”?

How does this system handle moral disagreements better or worse than religious command-based ethics?
 

Can this framework ground objective morality without appealing to God, karma, or divine enforcement?
 

Core Objections and Criticisms

If morality is about involuntary imposition of will, how does the model handle parenting, education, and caring for children?
 

Does this framework imply that all laws are immoral, including laws against violence or theft?
 

How does the model deal with emergencies where harm seems unavoidable?
 

If nature can be immoral, does that stretch the concept of morality too far?
 

Does removing blame and free will undermine moral responsibility?
 

How does the framework avoid collapsing into moral nihilism or indifference?
 

Is consent sufficient to make an action moral, even in extreme or harmful cases?
 

What about cases where someone consents but is misinformed or manipulated?
 

Edge Cases and Thought Experiments

Is it immoral for a rock to fall on someone?
 

Is birth an involuntary imposition, and if not, why not?
 

Is killing ever objectively moral in this framework?
 

Are prisons inherently immoral?
 

Is punishment ever moral, or only a lesser evil?
 

How does this model evaluate war, self-defense, and policing?
 

Would a perfectly moral world still allow risk, danger, or competition?
 

Structural and Philosophical Challenges

Does this framework depend on a particular view of consciousness?
 

How does it define the boundaries of a person’s will?
 

Can collective consent exist, or only individual consent?
 

How does the model handle conflicting wills without privileging one over another?
 

Is “involuntary imposition” a measurable, objective property of the world?
 

Motivational and Practical Questions

If morality does not involve enforcement, why should anyone care about being moral?
 

How does this model guide real-world decision-making under imperfect conditions?
 

What does moral progress look like under this framework?
 

How would society change if this model were widely adopted?
 

What technologies or social structures would move us closer to the moral ideal?
 

Exploratory and Interest-Building Questions

Why does this model reject intuition as a final authority?
 

Why is morality treated as a property of physical systems rather than intentions?
 

What makes this framework fundamentally different from “do no harm” ethics?
 

What problem in traditional moral philosophy is this model trying to solve?

​

What would be the strongest possible version of this model’s critics argue?
 

If this model is wrong, where is the most likely place it fails?