The rule could be anything, as funny or as serious as you want. The universe will progress in a similar way that it has up until this point, unless your changed rule prevented it from doing so.
Some examples might be:
- The invention of currency is not allowed.
- Iron is slightly less stable.
- The Ancient Greeks are able to cultivate Silphium, which does not go extinct now.
How is “being bad” decided?
If it’s decided internally (“bad” is what you believe is bad), then all the objectivists get a free pass for being assholes. Hitler is a supermodel, etc.
If it’s decided externally (there’s an universal definition of “bad”), how far into the future does it propagate? If I rescue from drowning someone who will genocide all the Dutch in the future, when do I go bald?
That said, beauty pageants would be much funnier, with trolley problems instead of talent competitions.
This is why this one wouldn’t work in any meaningful way. Good and bad is a human creation subject to the individuals perception.
Removed by mod
I think what we have is something much better. A flexible morality which is taught from generation to generation and adapted as needed. An absolut moral code wouldn’t work.
Funny enough, that’s exactly the way it actually is. And I believe this system still works; not that we could change it anyway.
Still, this is how it is. It discourages immoral actions even when nobody sees them happening, because the person doing them still knows and feels bad/shame/worries.