## How ChatGPT Rates This Moral Model Compared to Major Religions (Seeking Critique)

My name is Tom Jump, I am the original creator of this model of morality. Full discloser I did use chat GPT to help me write this post (I am dyslexic and autistic, clear communication is not my strong suit).

I’m sharing a moral framework for open critique, not promotion.
The goal here is to see whether this model actually works, where it breaks, and whether it’s redundant with something that already exists.

The hook for this framework is:

When asked to compare moral systems like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, ChatGPT repeatedly rates this model unusually high on internal consistency, clarity about what counts as moral wrongness, and its ability to explain tragedy without assigning false moral guilt.

That doesn’t mean the model is correct.
But it does raise a real question: why does it score that way?

This post explains the framework in straightforward terms so it can be evaluated as a worldview, not just a technical proposal.

---

## The Core Idea

The framework is built on a single foundational claim:

All involuntary imposition on the will of a conscious being is immoral.
All voluntary assistance of the will of a conscious being is moral.

There are no other primitive principles.

No outcome maximization.
No divine commands.
No moral rules handed down by authority.
No virtue scoring.

Everything reduces to one question:

Was a conscious being forced against their will, or not?

---

## What “Imposition” Means Here

An involuntary imposition is any state or action that overrides, constrains, or frustrates the will of a conscious agent without their consent.

This includes obvious cases like assault, theft, coercion, and non-consensual use of someone’s body.

It also includes cases people usually don’t label as moral at all, like a rock falling on someone.

That sounds strange at first, but it leads to an important distinction.

---

## Moral Valence vs Moral Blame

This framework separates two things that are often mixed together.

Moral valence is about whether a state of affairs involves a violation of will.
Moral blame is about whether an agent is responsible for that violation.

If a rock falls on someone, their will is violated. That is morally bad in this framework.
But there is no agent responsibl...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments