Taboo and Morality Quiz

[OzzyKP]

This is a very interesting quiz, one that actually makes you think. I'd be quite interested in seeing everyone else's results.

The quiz is here: http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm

My results and description:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.40.

There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You did not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong. Where you have judged an act to be morally problematic, it is likely that you did so because you think that what makes it wrong comes from God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement. You indicated that an action can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.

I moralize more than the average which isn't a surprize; I know I'm a prude. I choose to interfere less (or not at all actually) with people's actions which also isn't a surprize as I very much a state and society that doesn't interfere with people's choices (regardless of whether I think they are wrong or not). And I am nearly average in my universalizing figure, though just a touch higher than average. I am usually fairly relitivist, and not ashamed of it, but in many cases I suppose I could go either way as this poll showed. Very interesting.

Any takers?

[Ninot]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. And anyway you indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.

[Mercator]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Are you thinking straight about morality?

You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. You don't think an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Indeed, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a real puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

[Last Conformist]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios at least seem to be private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

I don't think this is fair - the quiz appears to've interpreted my statements that I'd be bothered to see a man screwing a frozen chicken or siblings having sex as expressions of moral disapproval. I'm quite capable of being repulsed by something without making any judgement whatsoever to its morality.

[Dauphin]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

A few of my answers were difficult to give because I found it hard to accept that incest or sex with frozen chickens does not harm the person performing the act, at least a psychological level. Yet they wanted me to dissassociate my expectations and reality from the scenarios. Yet moralism requires reality and expectations imho.

[General Ludd]

Some of these questions are quite stupid. "Suppose you learn about two foreign countries. In one country, it is normal for a son to break a death-bed promise to his mother to visit her grave every week." ect...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I don't think this is fair - the quiz appears to've interpreted my statements that I'd be bothered to see a man screwing a frozen chicken or siblings having sex as expressions of moral disapproval. I'm quite capable of being repulsed by something without making any judgement whatsoever to its morality.

I found the same problem. If one wants to get nasty with a dead bird I really don't care, but by the same token I have no desire to see it.

[Starchild]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios at least seem to be private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

Same problem as Last Conformist. Being bothered by witnessing an act != expressing moral disapproval. I don't particularly want to see a man screw his dinner but I'm not going to stop him.

[Az]

A few of my answers were difficult to give because I found it hard to accept that incest or sex with frozen chickens does not harm the person performing the act, at least a psychological level. Yet they wanted me to dissassociate my expectations from reality. Yet moralism requires reality and expectations imho.

Precisely.

Btw, Gross!


Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.37.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

[General Ludd]

I got

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.20.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

And I have to agree that the quiz sucks.

[Tattila the Hun]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.23.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

Hum.

[DeathByTheSword]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33

Are you thinking straight about morality?




i think for me it was the yuk-factor read the site if you dont know what i am talking about...

interesting site, nice test

only problem i have is that in the explention they put morally wrong together with harm...with that information i would almost make the test again...

[Kassiopeia]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. Consequently, there is no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. However, it is interesting to note that had you judged any of these acts to be morally problematic, it is hard to see how this might have been justified. You don't think that an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. The actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. One possibility might be that the people undertaking these acts are in some way harmed by them. But you indicated that you don't think that an act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So, as you probably realised, even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios morally problematic in terms of your moral outlook. Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view.

[Bill3000]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, your responses are a little puzzling. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Yet your responses indicate that you do see some minimal harm in the activities depicted here, and presumably - though not necessarily - this is where you think the moral problems lie. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are themselves in some way harmed by them. However, you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. This suggests that you think that harm occurs beyond the protagonists themselves. The trouble is that you were asked to judge the scenarios as described, not as you think they would have turned out in the real world. And given how they were described, it isn't clear what form such harms could take. More about this below...

Have you guys read the "Yuk Factor" below the test results? Meh.

[Panda]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

The only question I answered differently was with the flag, because the woman's action showed insensitivity to me, and, unlike the fowl lover's act, I had to see it.

This does not mean I'm fully permissive.

Interesting analysis.

"And the good reasons for a moral position are not pulled out of thin air: they always have to do with what makes people better off or worse off, and are grounded in the logic that we have to treat other people in the way that we demand they treat us."