In this world (otherwise the same as Earth), people would have an appearance based on their characters. If someone does something bad, his skin gets a red stain and if he does something good then his new stain is blue. The size of these stains are based on that how important the deed was. The richness of stains stands for how hard is to decide if it was bad or wrong. (The decision is made by some nature powers or god, the people don't know)

Probably nobody would be just blue or red, all people would by colourful.

How would this change the way people look at each other and what they think about each other? For example, would this have some impact on the judiciary?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is extremely difficult to do - "good" and "bad" are not defined by physics or science or nature, they're solely determined by the morals of the viewer. You could measure badness by the number of people who disagree with the event perhaps. $\endgroup$
    – Zxyrra
    Dec 17, 2016 at 17:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You would need pretty well defined good and bad. $\endgroup$
    – Mołot
    Dec 17, 2016 at 17:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can we answer the question by assuming an appropriate oracle without worrying about how it works? Or is it still too broad? I'm not sure. $\endgroup$
    – SRM
    Dec 17, 2016 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ @SRM, I think we can assume an oracle that works. The central question is, how does society change when the record of your acts is written on your skin? $\endgroup$
    – Green
    Dec 17, 2016 at 18:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It depends on the society and culture, what is wrong in one society is not wrong in another killing dozens of people would be a virtue in some societies while others would see it is a negative. Rape can be normal in one culture and abhorrent in another. Then you have context, does a state executioner look just like a serial killer? How about a soldier? $\endgroup$
    – John
    Dec 17, 2016 at 18:32

1 Answer 1


We see this kind of thing already with drug addicts

For the purposes of this question, the color of marks and location of marks don't really matter. The essential element is that a person's choices/actions are shown on their skin and face. For an example of this, search for "meth head portrait" (I'm not putting images here because no one wants to look at that.) Do you want to hang out with those people?

Humanity has evolved a strong tendency to distance themselves from individuals or groups that don't appear "healthy". Combine this with strong in-group bias that leads to preferential treatment for other humans "in your group", you'll see a clumping of "red skin" and "blue skin" individuals.

Depending on how the judgment of deeds goes, the society could be highly stratified (caste system in India) where your social ranking is based on how red or blue your skin is. Highly red or highly blue people will tend to clump together. Some will discriminate based on skin color, others won't.

Though, there's plenty of ways to game this system. Make-up, or falsely intended good deeds might cover some nasty red stains.

  • $\begingroup$ This is, to me, an excellent analysis of the question. We don't need to be concerned about what behavior is being recorded, only on the fact that behavior is recorded. $\endgroup$
    – SRM
    Dec 17, 2016 at 19:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .