How would you conduct a morality test?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

1. they walk in room with a person tied up to a chair.

2. lock them in then pump gas into the room and say its poison.

3. tell them to shoot the innocent or let the innocent go in exchange but only one leaves or both die.

4.if they shoot they fail. if they let both die they fail. the moral person would let the innocent go. also the Gas would be revealed after to be a sedative.

What about Solomon evidently saying to cut a baby in half so two women can share, an one that gave up was assumed to be the babies actual mother? Then again, he was like the Tony Stark of religion, make both your friends and enemies rich an see which, which is which.

And there was or is a certain tribe in Africa that would judge them by heating up a blade, and burning them if they committed a crime or wrong. Funny thing is, it turned out it to be a lie too, and was the exact opposite of a sugar pill, meaning the perp would reveal themselves by believing it was going to burn them, when it wouldn't.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Only a fool would try to answer this, so...

Anyway, I'd set up a 4 dimensional game and force my potential servants to use avatars to explore it. Then I'd give them the rules on how to act "correctly", fill the game with different obstacles and tests, give the players free will so they could act as they choose, and then grade them on their results. The ones that passed would get to come to my real realm while the ones who failed would get scrapped/ or recycled.

It's not much different than employees having to pass competency assessment tests and psychological evaluations before being allowed to work in specific positions.

Excellent plan and very well written! I think it will work for ever and ever. I am guessing that God would be proud if we would just love one another as the number one rule. Anyone looking for a way to win the game might try that rule.

To answer the OP

The morality test is how you treat one another and there are tons of reasons to stick to that measuring stick.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Love the thread..

Great thought experiment!!!

Hmmmm.????

Subject to change upon more reflection, but....


I think I tie health to treating people well and not doing long term damage to ones environment.. maybe cancer specifically..

Maybe that is my way to tell people I actually exist and police the flock..

If they “sin” they get one of many various forms of cancer, or start a counter that leads to cancer.


However, I would only count physical/sexual assaults.


If you rape someone , you get genital cancer.


If you ever intentionally take a life without being in immediate danger of serious harm , you get lung cancer..

If you did something monsterous , it just explodes across your whole body..


......




Maybe at the same time, separately or instead .. lol for more civil matters such as theft , fraud, exc. I would tie it to the dopamine receptors..


Being a crappy person would just make you sad..

Being ubber generous would keep you flying like you were on dope.. but with none of the negatives.

About the only morality crime I would keep is infidelity.. specificlly cheating when your promising your partner your faithful.


This you could address by making ones genitals flaw a specific color for the person they last slept with.



That last ones my favorite !

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

About the only morality crime I would keep is infidelity.. specificlly cheating when your promising your partner your faithful.


This you could address by making ones genitals flaw a specific color for the person they last slept with.

That last ones my favorite !

The answer is to never promise in the first place...

Seems like a test the devil would do...lets see make people really horny then tell them they can not use it or they will be punished.

Monkeys screw like crazy to let the sperm duke it out for the best offspring...seems we were made the same way...

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

De ja vu moment here, 20 minutes ago I was thinking of this very scenario. I concluded that a test involving a complex decision making process that would require the participants to go into the test and not contradict but choose answers that were compassionate, intelligent and empathetic. As they get further into the roleplay/test you replace characters with their loved ones and see if they are light/love or more darkness in the process.

The deity should make Joe accidentally drop his money clip in front of the test subject while walking past. If the test subject picks up the cash and puts it in his pocket, said subject will be constipated for a week as punishment.

The diety will enable Joe to win the Powerball, as compensation for his $$$ loss, and for being an unwilling participant in the morality test.

a reply to: yuppa

Crikey yuppa; a person tied to a chair?

Tie the fellas up if you want, but not the cute girls . . .

It's all about the harem ending . . . .

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: yuppa

Crikey yuppa; a person tied to a chair?

Tie the fellas up if you want, but not the cute girls . . .

It's all about the harem ending . . . .

well i should had said the gun has blanks and the person tied up is a actor im paying.

Your answer is really quite simple.

Morality, much like the existence of any deity, is a man made fabrication.

So... go ahead and have fun with it. It's all a lie, so who really cares anyway.

Merry day of the holy and glowing feces to you...

a reply to: yuppa

Hmmm, you probably wouldn't make a good interrogator . . .

I forget where I heard this phrase but anyway; Mercy is a luxury I cannot afford.

In OP's moral test I would suggest one would have to live up to that sentiment to save the world from the corruptors of innocense .

That could be a litmus test on morality in OPs scenario.

That is if "servants" means "people" like us lot here on earth.



To clean the world of those who prey upon the innocent in order to corrupt them.

For instance the pimp who preys upon innocent girls in order to turn them to prostitution for his own gain not caring that he destroyed a life.

Probably a better idea then my first one.

a reply to: Xtrozero


Man I disagree..


Well I half way disagree..

See I agree we are not geared/designed for monogamy, that’s obvious.

So obviously monogamy shouldn’t be the base line, but I think should become the positive exception..or what some strive to.

A truely monogamous relationship should be the pentacle, not the average..

So instead of your relationship being considered HORRIBLE if you have cheated in the past. I think your relationship should be considered Amazing because they didn’t cheat.

a reply to: carewemust

How broke is the subject lol???


If it is bill gates, why would he care to keep it??

If it is some bum who hasn’t eaten in a day and a half???


Well that’s a TOTALLY different test.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

So instead of your relationship being considered HORRIBLE if you have cheated in the past. I think your relationship should be considered Amazing because they didn’t cheat.

What if you produced a lot of really bad offspring with all kinds of issues...

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

And what does that have to do with conducting a morality test?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

There would have to be someone who is of a pure moral character to conduct the test based on that pure moral character, who understands our moral dilemma, and knows we cannot stand up to the test because we all will fail the test.

Thereby, this higher moral character of a person, would find a way that all of us, who he already knows by his higher moral character, would fail and make a way that we all could have a passing grade, that is not based on our moral characters failings but on his moral character's higher standard.

Oh wait he did, by sending his own son to die for us that we may live through him, and that we could live a moral life from that moment we believe on his only begotten son, Jesus Christ.

Something involving kittens a hammer and a sack.

a reply to: testingtesting

better off that you neuter or spay your cat. So you wont need that.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I think you have to ask a couple different questions first...

1. What do you intend to do with the answer / results from the test?

2. A "test" implies a 'grade' (or a pass/fail). Is this 'grade' intended to establish a moral baseline for all people, or only the people loyal to that particular deity?

So, to clarify, a tiger would have no compunction about killing and eating an agent of the deity (priest, cleric, etc.), much the same as a tribal member in eastern Borneo would have no issue eating a Saint. In one context these are largely accepted as morally 'wrong', but in another context they are perfectly acceptable behavior.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

What!!?!?

Not in my world..

I would do all that myself, because I’m god..



I would have no need for a messagnger, because I could just show up and tell them myself.

Plus I would not leave my “cancer for committing violence” up to chance..

No one who wasn’t violent would EVER get cancer and EVERY time someone did something monsterous, cancer would explode across their bodies.



Since I am god in this thought experiment. Then I am omnipotent and omnipresent.. so that means that I can personally handle it all , no jesus required..

So I get to put my own arbitrary morality on the population, not the churches.. not the preachers..


Jesus and the church are an unneeded step for an omnipotent being.