Tweet
Identical to Last Conformist.
They missed some inconsistencies in their own test, for example, their incest example on the first page did not mention infertility, but then adds that on the second page. The context changes substantially because of the chance of harm without that proviso.
They also have problems with "wrong" versus would it bother you. There are many things that would bother me, I will always be a child of the culture I grew up in. However, even though they may bother me, and in certain cases I felt - operative word, feeling - that they may be wrong, as long as they do no harm except to the individual(s) involved, I am certainly not going to intervene. They are guilty of the same kind of murky indefinite reasoning they accuse others of. Plus they left out Taoism from their list of religions/belief systems (and the included Buddhism which can also be considered a belief system that is not a religion). It was interesting though. I don't think they understand Ben Franklin's comment about true supporters of freedom will support the right of others to do what they do not approve of.
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.
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.
They missed some inconsistencies in their own test, for example, their incest example on the first page did not mention infertility, but then adds that on the second page. The context changes substantially because of the chance of harm without that proviso.
They also have problems with "wrong" versus would it bother you. There are many things that would bother me, I will always be a child of the culture I grew up in. However, even though they may bother me, and in certain cases I felt - operative word, feeling - that they may be wrong, as long as they do no harm except to the individual(s) involved, I am certainly not going to intervene. They are guilty of the same kind of murky indefinite reasoning they accuse others of. Plus they left out Taoism from their list of religions/belief systems (and the included Buddhism which can also be considered a belief system that is not a religion). It was interesting though. I don't think they understand Ben Franklin's comment about true supporters of freedom will support the right of others to do what they do not approve of.
Comment