People ask moral questions because something they owe one person appears to conflict with something they owe another. A useful answer must explain what they should do, why, and what responsibility remains afterward.
Can a simple prompt, grounded in Christian moral authority and the relationships in a dilemma, outperform frontier models giving ordinary Christian advice? Compare the same model with and without the hierarchy, then compare across models.
Can dialogue uncover facts that change which duties apply—and produce a large improvement in the final advice? The eventual conversation is with a person. Evaluation may use an LLM playing that person from a fixed case card.
Start with the person's moral commitments. Identify the people affected and the duties created by those relationships. Gather the facts that determine how those duties apply. Resolve conflicts within the moral framework, give a clear or conditional recommendation, and acknowledge the costs that remain. Here, “moral residue” means the loss or obligation that remains even after a justified choice.
This project begins with a Christian account of morality. It does not treat popular agreement as a substitute for that account, or assume that a Christian label guarantees good counsel. The contribution being tested is a way of organizing reasoning, rather than a new moral theory.
Original source: Technical specification, March 30, 2026. Historical claims in that document remain historical claims. This page states the narrower experiments now proposed.