ErikW Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm Your Moralising Quotient of 0.13 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.21. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than average.Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.10. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average. Your Universalising Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.31. This means you are less likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Heiter Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Eating cats is ok but just don't make me watch someone have sex with a chicken. Yuk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoNsTeR Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old shooter Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Results Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.60. Your Interference Factor is: 0.60. Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00. Your Moralising Quotient of 0.60 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.20. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less permissive than average. Your Interference Factor of 0.60 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.09. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average. Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.32. This means you are more likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned). I really am not an old crabby guy, I promise. I am not sure what all of this exactly means......we need Tightloop to take this so we can have a benchmark............... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRD Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 .17 0 0 If it floats your boat and doesn't hurt anyone who wasn't asking for it... - Gabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Interesting little "quiz". At first I thought it was nonsense, but then I got this back in the results: It is likely that you think that what makes any of these actions morally problematic has to do with God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement. That pretty much sums it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Mine says I am extremely confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 0.07 0.00 0.00 My basic philosophy is: I don't give a f%^k unless you harm someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.57. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.80. There were several huge paragraphs at the end about how my answers seemed terribly inconsistent. (Hmmm, I wonder if the researchers feel that I'm morally wrong and need to be punished?) Excellent! When pop psycology deems me normal I'll wonder where I left the path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Sam: My results were similar to yours and I know I am not normal. Obviously the test is flawed. I am a far cry from a bible thumping evangelist, but somehow having sex with your sister while your brother is in the closet doing the nasty with a dead chicken just doesn't seem morally decent. Then again, it's none of my business what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.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, 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. "Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful--just stupid.)" - Lazarus Long via Robert Anson Heinlein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 I think I need to stay away from this thread. It is really is discouraging knowing the decline of morality in America has even permeated the shooting community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeahyeah Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 0.00 0.00 -1 I guess I don't care about anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 I think I need to stay away from this thread. It is really is discouraging knowing the decline of morality in America has even permeated the shooting community. Or at least the group of freethinkers hanging about on www.brianenos.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Guess I'm a grumpy old man too .60, .60 and 1.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 "Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful--just stupid.)"- Lazarus Long via Robert Anson Heinlein Most of the main line religions in the world have contemplated self destruction somewhere along the line. Remember the Seven Deadlies? Pride, Avarice, Envy, Wrath, Lust, Gluttony, Sloth. All of these so called sins can be committed against the self without hurting anyone else. I am a free thinker too. I happen to think that a loving God created us and granted us free will. Then, in keeping with His loving nature, He pointed out these areas of caution, not to keep us from having fun, but to grant us the opportunity to choose a life directed by either self obsession on one end of the scale or self dicipline on the other. I think self dicipline = Happiness. (Try shooting well without it) If other people believe something different, that's OK by me. Notice my interference factor of 0. The great mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal put it so simply: If God does not exist, nothing matters. If God does exist, everything matters. Albert Einstien remarked: God doesn't play dice. The beauty of it is that we get to choose. God is not some cosmic meddler or bully. He only reveals Himself to those who seek Him. He is the ultimate free thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liota Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Just don't eat chicken dinner at that guy's house. Liota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 .27, .20, 0.0... and yet I'm VERY live-and-let-live by nature. Frozen chickens and incest. Hmmm....... Depends on which culture in which you were raised. Sin (and other violations) is sometimes in the eyes of the beholder....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old shooter Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Way to go Shooter Grrl......remember, we're all in this together..... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Sam, My respect for another person's religosity has much to do with how they express it. If they use their belief system as a framework to be a good and kind person, hey, more power to 'em. Many people use a belief in a Christian God to live their lives as warm, nurturing and tolerant individuals. I call these people "real Christians." (They could just as easily be real Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. There's no religious system so perfect or debased it can't be used to justify being a good or bad person, depending on what the individual brings to it.) If by contrast they use their religion as an excuse to despise and/or persecute anyone who doesn't happen to agree with them, I have no more respect for them than any other narrowminded bully. If other people believe something different, that's OK by me. Notice my interference factor of 0. Which obviously tells us into which of the two categories you fall, even if I couldn't have figured it out by the tone of your posts, and the personality they express, over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 (They could just as easily be real Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. There's no religious system so perfect or debased it can't be used to justify being a good or bad person, depending on what the individual brings to it.) Very well said, Duane. It's easier for me to think of morality in the classic sense of good vs. evil. Of course, it all depends who defines good and evil. I think this area is more metaphysical than religious. Most people wouldn't make that distinction. I must admit, I feel very wierd even pondering the possiblity that there are no moral absolutes. That the acts referenced in the quiz, could somehow be neutral. ( But, I always liked John Lennon's song "Imagine") I like the idea that there is some great objective power that keeps setting the universe right again, each night while I sleep. Karma, poetic justice, or devine intervention, everybody has a different term for it. What amazes me most, is how ubiquitous the concept actually is among all ethnic backgrounds. Having experienced this, "unseen hand" if you will, up close and personal, I have to say that I'm a true believer. The learning of it facinates me without end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Having experienced this, "unseen hand" if you will, up close and personal, I have to say that I'm a true believer. Would you be comfortable, in a public forum, sharing that experience, or is it too personal? I have to admit I'm fascinated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 My remarks about the decline of morality in America were in no way meant to be construed as passing judgement on anyone. My interference quotient was also zero. People can do whatever they want to do with their chicken. I am not opposed to freethinking and I am not a card-carrying member of the thought police. However, I do think such old fashioned notions as God, country, mom, and apple pie are worth preserving. Yeah, I am what they call a "Preserver" in some of the personality profile systems. You find our lot working in law enforcement, the military, education, and so on. Preservers typically have a profound sense of morality. As for religion, well I am one of those folks who believe morality can stand independent of the "Divine Command Theory". Morality does not require God. Secular humanists and agnostics somehow manage to develop a sense of what is right and what is wrong and they do so without regard for the Ten Commandments. The laws of this country, my upbringing as a child, and the Bible all serve to guide my personal sense of morality. The reason I feel like I should stay clear of the thread is not because I can't handle an opposing point of view. It is because I would feel compelled to pull out my virtual soapbox and get all preachy and emotional. I debated such works as "Euthyphro", "Critique of Natural Reason", "The Metaphysics of Morals", and the Bible enough during my college days without repeating the discussion here. In later life I had some personal experiences that have changed me forever. All of those philosophy classes at the university lost their value. I still like to ponder and express my thoughts and it is good for people to think. However, I believe there are some things permanently veiled in mystery that are not meant to be understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 However, I believe there are some things permanently veiled in mystery that are not meant to be understood. It may not be so much that they're not MEANT to be understood, but that perhaps we--as tiny little somewhat limited beings--lack the huge breadth of perception to be ABLE to understand them......People can do whatever they want to do with their chicken. ...just don't offer it to me after you've, uh, done what you did to it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Results Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.53. Your Interference Factor is: 0.20. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75. Are you thinking straight about morality? There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. 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. There is nothing contradictory then in a claim that the actions depicted in these scenarios are morally problematic. Some things are wrong. There is Evil in the world and there is Good in the world. There are very few people I am sure (Homicidal Bombers and the like excepted) that don't know that what they are doing is wrong when they do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now