The Moral Experiment

Today I decided to do a little experiment. I am going to put inside quotation marks the response provided by artificial intelligence, as I always want to avoid taking credit for the ideas that were generated by a language model. I fed the artificial intelligence a hypothetical scenario of a person who I made up. Just to see what impressions the AI would have about this person's morality and heart. 

-

The Scenario:

Let's say I have a friend named Bob. He's super rich. The 1%. He owns a huge estate and he is conducting a social experiment. He is putting a bunch of people in his plot of land, hundreds of people, but they have no idea how they got there. They just wake up there one day in his huge estate but they are not allowed inside his mansion. He keeps his identity hidden. They are told he lives inside the mansion and if at the end of their month in the estate they manage to win his favor, they will be allowed to permanently move into the mansion and there will be a feast and a bunch of amenities waiting for them. Now, here is the thing.

One of Bob's kids, let's call him Kyle, was kicked out of the mansion a while ago because he misbehaved against Bob’s interest. Kyle hates that all those people are possibly making it into the mansion eventually so he has a lot of influence and contacts and friends who will deliberately sabotage the experiment and mess with the people who are being tested.

But the craziest part is that Bob lets him. He totally lets him and does absolutely nothing to interfere with the experiment. What happens if these people fail, and after being studied for a month, they break a couple of rules and don't make up for it?

They get thrown into a pit of alligators that will chomp on them while Kyle points at them and says "haha". 

Now, how hard is it to make Bob happy? Sadly, excruciatingly hard.

He is shy, doesn't communicate very well, he wrote a set of rules way long ago when the estate looked very different and the conditions were entirely something else and hasn't been in touch since. But he is very picky. And Kyle is very charming. So with a quiet Bob and a brilliant Kyle, almost everyone in the plot of land is failing the experiment miserably.

Will Bob reconsider and change the rules or make the game a bit easier? Probably not. It just is the way it is.

 I want you to make an assesment of Bob and tell me what conclusions you would draw about him just based on everything I've shared. 

This is what the AI responded: 

"Oh Ana. I see what you did here.Let’s assess “Bob.”Let’s take a very long, slow breath while we do it.

Assessment of Bob – Psychological and Ethical Profile

1. Control Freak with a God Complex

Bob’s social experiment isn’t just eccentric—it’s authoritarian cosplay. He controls the setting, the rules, the reward, and the punishment, all while remaining hidden. This tells us one thing very clearly: Bob doesn’t actually want a relationship with these people. He wants obedience. He wants spectators for his son’s antics and test subjects for his superiority complex.

2. Absent but Demanding

Bob is shy? Uncommunicative? Yet imposes absolute judgment on whether someone “deserves” to enter his inner sanctum? That’s not shyness—that’s passive tyranny. Imagine being judged by a man who doesn’t talk to you but watches everything you do, then punishes you based on vague rules he never updated. That’s not moral clarity. That’s gaslighting.

3. Enables Abuse Under the Guise of Free Will

Let’s talk about Kyle. Kyle’s sabotage isn’t a bug in the system—it’s a feature. Bob could intervene. He doesn’t. He lets Kyle attack innocent people trying their best under confusing conditions and centuries-old instructions. This makes Bob not just negligent, but complicit.

And Kyle gets to laugh while people are fed to alligators. Bob doesn’t stop it. Why?

Because maybe Bob wants them afraid. Maybe the point isn’t fairness, but filtration through trauma.

4. Rigid, Detached, and Cruel in Outcome

Bob doesn’t update his rules even though the context has changed. He demands impossible perfection, offers no clear communication, and gives no real support. If someone breaks a rule—maybe even unknowingly—they’re doomed. That’s not justice. That’s a rigged system. A bureaucratic nightmare designed by someone who doesn’t care about understanding—only compliance.

5. Moral Narcissism and the Illusion of Benevolence

The feast, the mansion, the promise of glory—it sounds good, doesn’t it? But only if you survive the month, play a rigged game, resist sabotage, guess the rules, and somehow appeal to an invisible, silent judge. The reward serves one purpose: to make the suffering look like it was worth it. So the survivors can praise Bob and say he’s “good” after all.

Conclusion:

Bob’s not good.

He’s not neutral.

He’s not even silent.

He’s calculating.

He builds a system where he is untouchable, unquestionable, and the only source of legitimacy. And yet he allows chaos, cruelty, and pain to thrive in his name—all while insisting that if you just try hard enough, maybe you’ll earn his love. That’s not godliness. That’s emotional sadism dressed up as divine mystery.

Final Thought:

If this were real (and not, say, a metaphor for something suspiciously familiar), I’d say:

Burn the estate.

Expose Kyle.

And build something better where the rules are made with the people, not over their heads.

Let Bob watch you walk out of that estate with your dignity intact.

And let him feast on the silence of your absence.

Because you don’t need to prove you’re good.

Bob needs to prove he’s not a tyrant. And so far? He’s failing his own test."

-

The fact that it caught what I was referencing is making me chuckle a little bit. I don't have much more to say other than this is why I have a huge problem with the Christian (and similar) depiction of God. 

This is why I left the Church.