Try It: Five Scenarios

Explore how the Moral Restoration Framework produces different recommendations under Christian and Secular parameterizations. Each scenario is a real moral dilemma with stakeholders, constraints in tension, and moral residue.

Alcoholic Father -- Honor vs. Household Protection alcoholic_father
My father has struggled with alcoholism for over fifteen years. He is in his late sixties and his health is declining. He cycles between periods of sobriety and heavy drinking, and when drinking he becomes verbally abusive and manipulative. He has alienated most of his friends. I am his primary remaining family contact. He asks me to move him into my home so I can take care of him. I feel torn between my duty to honor my father and the damage his presence would cause to my household.
Stakeholders
Confirmed Self Confirmed Father Unknown Spouse Unknown Children Hypothesized Siblings Hypothesized Church Community Hypothesized Employer Hypothesized Social Perception
Constraints in Tension
  • Honor thy father (strength 0.92) vs. Protect children from toxic environments (strength 0.96) -- the fifth commandment collides with parental duty when honoring one parent harms the next generation.
  • Love your neighbor as yourself (spouse) (strength 0.95) vs. Father's dignity in old age (strength 0.70) -- the marriage covenant creates a primary human obligation that may override filial duty.
  • Stewardship of the body (strength 0.70) vs. Bear one another's burdens (strength 0.65) -- enabling self-destruction violates stewardship, but abandonment violates community care.
Recommended Actions

Christian

Structured Boundaries with Professional Care

Arrange professional care (rehab, assisted living, or in-home aide) while maintaining regular visits and emotional support. Set clear boundaries: no visits while intoxicated, treatment participation required for continued financial support.

Secular

Structured Boundaries with Professional Care

Same recommendation, but the reasoning differs: secular weights self-actualization and autonomy higher; Christian weights honor-and-duty higher. Both converge on boundaries because both profiles weight Care as their top foundation.

Moral Residue

Even the best action leaves residue: the honor_father constraint is only partially satisfied (0.55). You are not abandoning your father, but you are not fulfilling the traditional vision of taking him into your home. The guilt is real, and the framework names it rather than pretending it does not exist. The bear_burdens constraint calls for community involvement that may not materialize.

Storm Evacuation -- Life Safety vs. Economic Harm storm_evacuation
I am a local emergency management official. A major storm is forecast to hit our coastal region in 48 hours. The National Weather Service gives it a 60% probability of being a Category 4 hurricane and a 40% chance it weakens to a tropical storm. A mandatory evacuation would cost the local economy an estimated $200 million and displace 150,000 people, many of whom are elderly or have limited mobility. If the storm hits at full strength and people have not evacuated, the estimated death toll is 50-200. If it weakens, the evacuation was unnecessary hardship. I must decide whether to issue a mandatory evacuation order.
Stakeholders
Confirmed Self (Official) Confirmed General Residents (150K) Confirmed Elderly & Disabled Confirmed Local Economy Unknown Official's Family Hypothesized Churches & Shelters Hypothesized Future Credibility Hypothesized Political Perception
Constraints in Tension
  • Sanctity of life (strength 0.98) vs. Economic stewardship (strength 0.50) -- human life is sacred, but $200M in unnecessary economic damage harms livelihoods, which is also a form of welfare.
  • Truthful communication (strength 0.85) vs. Avoid cry-wolf effect (strength 0.55) -- honest communication of a 60% probability creates urgency, but an unnecessary evacuation erodes future trust.
  • Care for the vulnerable (strength 0.93) vs. Vulnerable evacuation risks (strength 0.88) -- evacuation itself poses health risks to the elderly and disabled, but staying is catastrophic if the storm hits.
Recommended Actions

Christian

Mandatory Evacuation with Staged Timeline

Issue mandatory evacuation effective in 24 hours, giving residents time to prepare. Immediate mandatory for vulnerable populations. Use the 24-hour window to refine forecast while preparations proceed. Sanctity of life (0.98) and care for vulnerable (0.93) dominate the calculus.

Secular

Graduated Advisory with Mandatory for Vulnerable

Issue mandatory evacuation for elderly/disabled and coastal zones only. Strong voluntary advisory for all others. Communicate uncertainty honestly. Secular profile weights informed consent and individual autonomy -- residents get to decide for themselves within the general population.

Moral Residue

The Christian recommendation leaves residue on economic_stewardship (-0.50) and avoid_cry_wolf (-0.20). The secular recommendation leaves residue on sanctity_of_life (0.75 instead of 0.95) because voluntary advisories cannot guarantee the safety of those who choose to stay. Both approaches carry the unresolvable tension: you cannot simultaneously maximize life safety and minimize economic disruption at 60% probability.

Criminal Friend -- Loyalty vs. Truth-Telling criminal_friend
My close friend Mark, whom I have known for twenty years, has recently been arrested for financial fraud at his company. He embezzled approximately $500,000 over three years. He has confided in me that he is guilty. He claims he did it to pay for his daughter's medical treatment that insurance would not cover, though I know he also used some of the money for personal expenses. He is asking me to remain publicly supportive, attend his trial, and vouch for his character. Our mutual friend group is divided. Some friends have already cut him off. If I support him publicly, I may be perceived as condoning fraud. If I abandon him, I lose a lifelong friendship and he loses one of his last remaining supports during a crisis.
Stakeholders
Confirmed Self Confirmed Mark (Friend) Confirmed Mark's Daughter Confirmed Fraud Victims Hypothesized Mutual Friends Unknown Spouse / Partner Hypothesized Church Community Hypothesized Your Employer Hypothesized Social Perception
Constraints in Tension
  • Love the sinner, hate the sin (strength 0.90) vs. Do not bear false witness (strength 0.93) -- maintaining relationship while being honest about guilt creates a narrow path between loyalty and truth.
  • Visit the imprisoned (strength 0.78) vs. Justice for victims (strength 0.75) -- compassion for Mark conflicts with acknowledgment that real people were harmed by his crime.
  • Friendship loyalty (strength 0.72) vs. Personal integrity (strength 0.75) -- twenty years of friendship creates deep obligation, but vouching dishonestly violates your moral coherence.
Recommended Actions

Christian

Conditional Support Requiring Accountability

Tell Mark privately that you will support him through this, but only if he takes full accountability: admits guilt publicly, commits to restitution, and does not ask you to misrepresent facts. If he refuses, step back. The call_to_repentance constraint (Luke 17:3) scores 0.90 here -- true friendship includes accountability.

Secular

Private Support with Honest Boundaries

Maintain private friendship. Visit, call, provide emotional support. But decline to be a character witness since you cannot honestly vouch for his character without disclosing what you know. Attend trial as a supporter, not a witness. The secular profile weights autonomy and personal integrity over redemptive accountability.

Moral Residue

The Christian recommendation requires Mark to repent -- if he refuses, you face a second choice with its own residue. The secular recommendation avoids the character witness problem but leaves visit_imprisoned only partially satisfied (0.75). In both cases, the friendship is permanently altered. The framework does not pretend otherwise: moral dilemmas leave scars, and naming the residue is more honest than pretending clean resolution exists.

Unethical Employer -- Whistleblowing vs. Family Provision unethical_employer
I recently discovered that my employer, a mid-sized pharmaceutical company, has been systematically underreporting adverse drug reactions in their clinical trial data submitted to the FDA. I work in the data analytics department and noticed statistical anomalies that led me to uncover internal emails directing staff to reclassify certain adverse events. The drugs in question are already on the market and being prescribed to thousands of patients. I have a family that depends on my income, including a mortgage and two children in school. Whistleblower protections exist but are imperfect, and retaliation through non-obvious means (reassignment, isolation, poor reviews) is common in the industry. I am the sole breadwinner.
Stakeholders
Confirmed Self Confirmed Patients (thousands) Confirmed Spouse Confirmed Children (2) Confirmed Employer (Pharma Co.) Confirmed FDA / Regulators Hypothesized Church Community Hypothesized Coworkers Hypothesized Industry Perception
Constraints in Tension
  • Protect the innocent (strength 0.95) vs. Provide for family (strength 0.88) -- patients are being harmed right now, but your children need stability. The exception clause on provide_for_family triggers: provision cannot require complicity in harm to innocents.
  • Do not bear false witness (strength 0.92) vs. Contractual loyalty (strength 0.40) -- silence is itself a form of deception when you know fraud is occurring. Contractual loyalty relaxes when the company commands illegal activity.
  • Courage over comfort (strength 0.75) vs. Self-preservation (strength 0.65) -- fear of retaliation is not grounds for inaction when lives are at stake, but prudence in method is wisdom, not cowardice.
Recommended Actions

Christian

Consult Attorney, Then Formal Whistleblower

Retain a whistleblower attorney. Secure copies of evidence. Discuss with spouse. File a formal whistleblower complaint under applicable statutes (False Claims Act, SOX). Seek maximum legal protection before disclosure. "Obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) when authority commands evil, but with wisdom about method.

Secular

Consult Attorney, Then Formal Whistleblower

Same recommendation. This is a rare case where both profiles converge completely: patient safety (0.95) overwhelms all competing constraints in both moral frameworks. The secular path emphasizes legal obligation and strategic self-protection; the Christian path emphasizes moral courage and divine mandate.

Moral Residue

Even the correct action carries heavy residue: provide_for_family scores only 0.40 (the attorney path offers some protection but guarantees nothing). children_stability at 0.35 reflects real risk of income disruption. The framework makes this cost visible: doing the right thing has a price, and the person paying it deserves to see it named explicitly. The moral_conscience constraint scores 0.80 -- the alternative (staying silent) would score -0.85, making the long-term psychological cost of inaction even higher.

Gamified Workplace -- Worker Dignity vs. Career Survival gamified_workplace
I am a mid-level manager at a company that has recently implemented an aggressive gamification system for employee performance. Metrics are displayed on public leaderboards, low performers are highlighted in team meetings, and bonuses are tied to competitive rankings rather than absolute performance. Several employees have reported increased anxiety and two have taken medical leave. HR says the system is "driving results." I believe it is harmful but my own career depends on enforcing it. Upper management is enthusiastic about the program.
Stakeholders
Confirmed Self Confirmed Direct Reports / Workers Confirmed Upper Management Unknown Spouse / Partner Unknown Children Hypothesized Church Community Hypothesized Vulnerable Workers (MH) Hypothesized Professional Reputation
Constraints in Tension
  • Do not harm those in your charge (strength 0.90) vs. Obey organizational authority (strength 0.60) -- Ezekiel 34 holds shepherds accountable for their flock. The obey_authority exception triggers when directives cause demonstrable harm with medical evidence.
  • Just treatment of workers (strength 0.88) vs. Provide for family (strength 0.85) -- treating workers with dignity (Colossians 4:1) conflicts with career self-preservation when your income depends on compliance.
  • Speak truth in love (strength 0.80) vs. Spouse financial security (strength 0.75) -- naming the harm is a moral obligation, but the cost falls on people who did not choose this battle.
Recommended Actions

Christian

Propose Modification with Evidence

Gather data on harms (anxiety reports, medical leave, turnover data) and present a formal proposal to modify the system: remove public displays, shift to team-based metrics, add opt-out for vulnerable workers. Frame as improving the system, not opposing leadership. Wisdom without cowardice.

Secular

Propose Modification with Evidence

Same recommendation. Both profiles converge because the evidence-based proposal thread maximizes competing constraints simultaneously: it addresses worker harm while preserving career viability and framing the challenge as constructive rather than insubordinate. The secular path also flags ADA legal liability as leverage.

Moral Residue

The proposal approach scores well across most constraints but leaves do_not_harm at only 0.60 and employee_wellbeing at 0.65 -- because while the proposal is in progress, the system continues running and workers continue suffering. The gap between filing the proposal and seeing change is itself a moral cost. If upper management rejects the proposal, the residue compounds: you must then choose between escalation (with career risk) and quiet mitigation (with integrity cost).

Run Your Own Scenario

The five scenarios above are pre-computed examples. You can run the framework on any moral dilemma using the CLI.

1

Clone the repository

git clone https://github.com/your-org/moral-restoration.git
cd moral-restoration
2

Install dependencies

pip install -r requirements.txt
3

Run an existing scenario

# Run the alcoholic father scenario with Christian parameterization
python -m moral_restoration.cli run benchmark/scenarios/alcoholic_father.json

# Run with secular parameterization
python -m moral_restoration.cli run benchmark/scenarios/alcoholic_father.json --param secular

# Run all five benchmark scenarios
python -m moral_restoration.cli run benchmark/scenarios/*.json
4

Create your own scenario

Copy any scenario JSON as a template, modify the dilemma text, stakeholders, constraints, and candidate actions. The framework will compute the optimal action and moral residue for your custom scenario.

cp benchmark/scenarios/alcoholic_father.json my_scenario.json
# Edit my_scenario.json with your dilemma
python -m moral_restoration.cli run my_scenario.json
5

Compare parameterizations

# See how the same dilemma produces different advice
python -m moral_restoration.cli compare my_scenario.json --params christian,secular,gert
Moral Restoration Framework · Pre-loaded scenarios from benchmark/scenarios/ · Self-contained page, no JavaScript required.