Moral System Stress Test

The tool treats a coherent objective moral system as more than a list of moral claims. It must explain what moral terms mean, whether moral claims can be true, what makes them true, how agents can know them, why they bind, how they guide hard cases, who falls under their scope, and how mistaken interpretations are corrected.

The word objective is used here in the demanding sense: the truth or authority of the moral claim cannot depend merely on personal feeling, group approval, bare command, social usefulness, or the convenience of a favored conclusion.

Each component blocks a different collapse. Moral Meaning blocks collapse into undefined language. Truth Maker blocks collapse into attitudes or slogans. Authority Check blocks collapse into mere obedience. Moral Access blocks inaccessible standards. Binding Force blocks practical advice. Case Guidance blocks abstract but unusable ideals. Consistent Scope blocks special pleading. Correction Method blocks ad hoc revision.

A view may reject one of these requirements, but then the burden shifts: it should explain how the system remains objective and coherent without the job that component was meant to perform.

The presets are only starting positions. They seed a claim, routes, strength ratings, and notes so the user does not begin from an empty screen. They deliberately do not check the substantiation boxes because those boxes are the actual argumentative work.

A checkbox should mean, "I can explain how my account really supplies this part." If a preset checked those boxes automatically, the tool would reward familiarity with a position rather than reflection on whether the position has supplied the needed support.

A substantiation route is the kind of resource being used to support a component: divine command, God's nature, scripture, Holy Spirit guidance, church tradition, conscience, human flourishing, natural law, or a hybrid account.

The route is not itself a proof. It tells the audit where the support is supposed to come from so the tool can ask the right follow-up questions. For example, a scripture route raises questions about interpretation and access; a conscience route raises questions about disagreement and emotional projection.

Support strength is an honesty control. It asks how much argumentative weight the selected route currently carries for that component. "None" means no support has been offered. Lower settings mean the component is asserted or gestured toward. Supported or Strong means the user is prepared to give an actual account.

A high strength rating should not be used as a confidence badge. It should mean the user can answer objections, define terms, handle rival interpretations, and explain why the support is not circular.

No. Completeness is not a truth probability. Each required component gets an equal score for three things: a route is chosen, support strength reaches Supported or higher, and the substantiation checks are completed. The page averages those eight component scores and rounds to the nearest percent.

A complete audit is the beginning of a more serious test, not the end. Once the structure is filled, the important question becomes whether the chosen substantiations survive boundary tests, challenge questions, and hard cases.

No. A failed boundary test identifies a collapse risk in the current construction. It says, "Given these selections, the account has not yet clearly distinguished itself from emotion, obedience, practical advice, or vague guidance."

The right response is not automatically to abandon the claim. The user can strengthen the relevant component, choose a better route, refine the claim, or explain why the boundary has been misread. The tool is designed to make those repair moves visible.

Obedience can explain compliance, but it does not by itself explain moral truth. If an act is good only because an authority commands it, the account must explain why command creates goodness rather than merely creating obligation to obey. If the authority commands it because it is already good, then the account must explain the standard by which goodness is recognized.

This is why Authority Check matters. A coherent moral system needs a way to identify legitimate moral authority without making "the authority says so" the entire argument.

Grounding morality in God's nature may avoid some problems with bare command theory, but it creates its own questions. The account still has to explain what "good" means, how God's nature is recognized as good without circularity, how humans access that standard, and how the standard decides disputed cases.

The tool is not asking whether "God's nature" is a familiar theological phrase. It is asking whether that phrase performs the needed work: truth-making, authority checking, access, obligation, guidance, scope, and correction.

Easy cases often hide the structure of a moral system because most people already agree on the answer. Hard cases expose whether the system has a method. They ask what happens when scripture is disputed, duties conflict, intuitions diverge, or an authority appears to command something morally troubling.

A coherent system should not only affirm conclusions after they are culturally safe. It should explain how users could have reached those conclusions by the stated method before the preferred answer was obvious.

Treat each counterfactual as a stress test, not a gotcha. A good answer should identify the relevant component, state the route that substantiates it, and explain why the answer does not rely on a special exception for the favored view.

If a counterfactual feels unfair, ask what would make it fair: a clearer definition, a better access method, a principled conflict rule, or a stronger correction method. That repair often reveals which component still needs work.

A strong response should do more than quote a conclusion. It should define the moral terms, name the truth-maker, explain authority without circularity, give an access method, distinguish obligation from benefit, decide hard cases, apply the standard consistently, and explain how moral mistakes are corrected.

The strongest version will also admit remaining costs. For example, if scripture is the access route, it should face interpretation and disagreement directly. If God's nature is the truth-maker, it should explain how goodness is recognized rather than merely renamed.

Use the audit as a map of questions, not as a scorecard to throw at someone. Start with one component: "What do you mean by objective moral wrong?" or "How do you distinguish duty from prudence?" Let the person choose their route, then ask how that route substantiates the component.

The most productive tone is collaborative pressure: "I am trying to see whether this is a full moral system or whether one part is doing too much work." That keeps the focus on coherence rather than personal accusation.