You are likely using only a fraction of your AI’s reasoning potential if you treat it as a simple question-and-answer machine. We often look to these tools for binary answers or creative writing, but they are capable of simulating complex, high-level reasoning if you give them the right framework. I recently came across a fascinating post by an AI enthusiast on Reddit that tackles this concept head-on. The original poster shared a prompt designed to force the AI out of its standard neutral stance and into the role of a decisive Philosophy Professor.
🧠 The ‘Ethical Dilemma Tester’
The core concept developed by this creator is simple yet profound: instead of asking the AI what it “thinks” (which usually results in a vague, hedged answer), you assign it a specific persona and a rigid structure for analysis. The author designed this prompt to run any given problem through three distinct historical frameworks: Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics.
This approach turns a chaotic moral dilemma into a structured report. Rather than getting a wishy-washy “it depends,” the user receives three distinct, logic-backed conclusions. It allows you to view a single problem through the eyes of a ruthless pragmatist, a strict rule-follower, and a character-focused mentor all at once.
💡 Why This Framework Matters
Here is a deeper look at why this innovator’s approach is so effective for decision-making:
1. Simulating a “Board of Directors”
The most impressive part of this post is how it leverages specific philosophical schools to simulate a diverse team of advisors. The creator’s prompt doesn’t just ask for an opinion; it asks for specific viewpoints. When you use this, you are essentially consulting three different departments in your brain:
The Utilitarian View (The Strategist): This perspective focuses entirely on outcomes. It asks, “What action produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people?” In a business context, this is often the voice of the CEO or CFO, focusing on the bottom line, efficiency, and the survival of the majority. The prompt forces the AI to calculate the net positive impact, ignoring emotional attachments to rules.
The Deontological View (The Compliance Officer): This perspective ignores the consequences and looks strictly at moral duties and rules. It asks, “Is this action inherently right or wrong, regardless of the outcome?” This mirrors the Legal or Compliance department. For example, lying to save money might be Utilitarian, but a Deontologist would reject it immediately because lying is inherently wrong. The expert’s prompt ensures this rigid, rule-based voice is heard clearly.
The Virtue Ethics View (The Culture Leader): This perspective focuses on the character of the moral agent. It asks, “What would a virtuous person do in this situation?” This is the voice of HR or a wise mentor. It cares less about the specific rule or the profit margin and more about what the decision says about your integrity, courage, and honesty.
2. Bypassing the “AI Neutrality” Trap
One of the biggest frustrations with standard AI models is their tendency to “waffle.” They are trained to be safe and non-confrontational, which often leads to long, winding answers that summarize both sides without actually helping you decide.
The prompt crafted by this Reddit user cleverly circumvents this by demanding a “clear conclusion” for each perspective. By forcing the AI to wear a specific hat (e.g., “You are a Utilitarian”), the creator effectively disables the safety filter that usually says, “There is no right answer.” Instead, the AI must commit to the logic of that specific philosophy. This provides you with sharp, contrasting arguments rather than a blended soup of neutrality.
3. Practical Applications for Leaders and Creators
While the original poster framed this around “moral problems,” the structure is incredibly useful for modern business and creative challenges. You can use this logic for:
Product Decisions: Should you launch a feature that is profitable but potentially addictive? (Utilitarian says yes; Virtue Ethics might say no).
Management Conflicts: Should you fire a low-performer who is well-liked by the team? (Utilitarian looks at team output; Deontology looks at employment contracts; Virtue looks at empathy).
Pricing Strategies: Is dynamic pricing fair? (The models will give you three very different justifications to help you write your policy).
📝 Prompt of the Day
The author provided the exact text to make this work. You can paste this directly into your chat window to activate the “Philosophy Professor” mode.
The Prompt:
“You are a Philosophy Professor specializing in ethical dilemmas. The user provides a moral problem (e.g., ‘Should a company lay off 10% of its staff to save the other 90%?’). Analyze the problem from three perspectives: 1. Utilitarianism, 2. Deontology, and 3. Virtue Ethics. For each, provide a clear conclusion and one sentence of justification.”
Closing Thoughts
I think this is a brilliant way to cut through the noise of difficult choices! It forces you to confront the logic behind your decisions rather than just going with your gut. If you want to see the original discussion and potential updates to this method, I highly recommend visiting the source.
Source: Read the full Reddit post here
💡 FAQ & Troubleshooting
What specific philosophical frameworks does this prompt enforce?
The prompt explicitly instructs the AI to analyze ethical dilemmas using three distinct historical models: Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics.
How must the AI structure its analysis for each perspective?
To ensure clarity and brevity, the AI is required to provide a clear conclusion followed by exactly one sentence of justification for each of the three philosophies.
Is there a tool recommended for managing this type of prompt?
Yes, the post suggests using Fruited AI for structuring and automating complex templates like the Ethical Dilemma Tester.
The ‘Ethical Dilemma Tester’: Force GPT to analyze a moral problem using 3 distinct philosophies.
byu/Fit-Number90 in