Taboo and Morality Quiz

[molly bloom]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.


Golly.

[Frankychan]

our Moralising Quotient is: 0.73.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.80.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.



WTF? According to the test, I'm a closest conservative!!!

[aneeshm]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00

Sounds about right .

[Ben Kenobi]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.


I don't consider the treatment of flags to be a moral issue, rather it is a preference one. Therefore, I would not burn a flag in a country that thought burning flags was wrong, out of respect for the practices of the country.

I also said the same for eating one's own pet. I don't see it as a moral issue either. I wouldn't eat my own pet, not because it is wrong to eat your pet, but because I wouldn't want to eat a pet that I have loved and cared for.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.43.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

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. However, there is a tension in your responses in that you indicated that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here. Given that the actions described in these scenarios are private and it was specified as clearly as possible that they did not involve harm, it isn't clear where you think the harm might lie.


To be honest Im not sure what all of this means.

[Jon Miller]

first number is something like do you think things can be wrong that don't harm anyone else..

second is whether state or other people should be involved in enforcing morality

third number is whether you think that do you beleive in morality independent of culture...

Jon Miller

[Odin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Only human beings are capable of doing wrong, and only human beings are capable of having wrong done to them.

Wrong, Chimps can lie, and can be angered by being lied to.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
first number is something like do you think things can be wrong that don't harm anyone else..

second is whether state or other people should be involved in enforcing morality

third number is whether you think that do you beleive in morality independent of culture...

Jon Miller

Thank you the explanation. I want to know about the numbers too. High numbers good or bad?

[Jon Miller]

it is out of 1...

whether that is good or bad, is up to you

a lot of people feel that the second number being high is bad.. (you think the state should enforce morality the higher it is)

3rd number had a lot to do with whether you think morality is absolute (you think it is absolute if you are more towards 1)

the first number is completely up to the person..

Jon Miller

[BeBMan]

Not really a question of good and bad - the test is IMO too general here to make such statements. The numbers just tell you were you stand in a certain field. Let's say you have a high number in 2) (whether state or other people should be involved in enforcing morality as JM wrote) that just means you would agree more and sooner (than others) that the state should do it. But as such this is not good or evil per se - it depends a lot on the details. For example outlawing murder would probably nobody see as bad, yet it means state enforced morality. OTOH a state making racist laws would probably seen as evil by many.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I guess by my numbers im kinda in the middle. For instance the two questions that disturbed me was eating the pet after it was killed. I couldnt do it. I might Its wrong for me but otoh it might not be wrong for others. The same with the chicken and the bro and sis having sex. Now that is down right wrong i dont care who you are.

[Carolus Rex]

Ok, what if the dead chicken is a dead person? What do you guys think about that one?

There's a swedish philosopher (controversial needless to say) who wants Sweden to abolish the law against this act (ie sex with dead persons) as nobody is hurt by it...

Thoughts (and I think I know Mrs. Tuberski's position on this one!)?

Carolus

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Ok, what if the dead chicken is a dead person? What do you guys think about that one?

There's a swedish philosopher (controversial needless to say) who wants Sweden to abolish the law against this act (ie sex with dead persons) as nobody is hurt by it...

Thoughts (and I think I know Mrs. Tuberski's position on this one!)?

Carolus

I think they both harm the individual who is doing it. Even if not through pscyholgical "damage" then through fostering negative behaviours through association. Screwing a dead animal and then cooking and eating it is an incredibly symbolic act and not far removed from rape/murder.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Yes you do. That behavior is not only wrong but sick as well. So you are correct when you guess my position.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
Ok, what if the dead chicken is a dead person? What do you guys think about that one?

There's a swedish philosopher (controversial needless to say) who wants Sweden to abolish the law against this act (ie sex with dead persons) as nobody is hurt by it...

Thoughts (and I think I know Mrs. Tuberski's position on this one!)?

Carolus

We have the same kind of dilemma if we change the pet by a person (dead in the same way, etc).
Yep. is disgusting, make me sick, and I don't want to see it (well, that part about the chicken, maybe... ).

But morally wrong? I don't see why.