An Ethics & Morality quiz

[Wiccan_Child]

I Stumbled Upon a quiz, and spent about ten minutes doing it. It's quite interesting. My results:

Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.


Are you thinking straight about morality?
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 wouldn'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.

I couldn't put it better myself

The link to the quiz is here. Enjoy, and, if you're up to it, post your results.

 

[3sigma]

Enjoy, and, if you're up to it, post your results.

Interesting quiz. My results were identical to yours.

 

[Supernaut]

I do not know how to paste my results. They were the same as Wiccan Childs'. "Fully Permissive".

 

[Mling]

Mine was similar, but not identical. I said that the son breaking the promise to his mother and the family eating their cat were a little wrong, but that there shouldn't be any attempt to prevent them from doing it.

Given those were the only two which bothered me on more than a "yuk," level, I'm pretty sure my issue has to do with loyalty and betrayal.

 

[nolongerhome]

I'm in the same area as well, I never interfered and I was 0.08 on the moralising quotient.

I had a slight problem with the son's actions but not with any of the others, at least not from a moral perspective.

 

[Hentenza]

So, none of you had a problem with a brother and a sister having sex?:o

 

[b&wpac4]

Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.21.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.


For me, I believe there are things morally wrong in the world, but I do not interfere with another person's decisions unless it is necessary to do so (for example, if someone thinks it's great to murder people in their homes, we should stop him from doing so).

 

[Supernaut]

So, none of you had a problem with a brother and a sister having sex?:o

I am not ok with it (as it pertains to myself alone) at all, but to subject others to my bounderies and take away their choices in any way is morally and ethically wrong within the bro/sis sex context.

 

[b&wpac4]

So, none of you had a problem with a brother and a sister having sex?:o

But the questions were not simply "Do you think this is wrong?" but also would you take steps to stop them. It said they were both over 21, so they have the rights as adults to make these kinds of decisions.

 

[aandb]

 

[nolongerhome]

So, none of you had a problem with a brother and a sister having sex?:o

The situation clearly stated that both engaged willingly and were of an age to make informed decisions. There was also no chance of reproduction. That knocked out all my possible problems with it, as I accepted that these initial premises were true (in a hypothetical I had no reason no to, in reality I would be concerned that all of this was really the case).

In that situation, what is morally wrong with it? What right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?

 

[3sigma]

So, none of you had a problem with a brother and a sister having sex?

Not in that particular case. I suspect, though, that as a religious believer who probably thinks morality is objective, you have trouble dealing with moral questions on a case by case basis. That’s the problem with treating morality as objective.

By the way, what was your score—or are you unwilling to reveal it for some reason?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I had 0.00, 0.00, and -1. I.e., same as Wiccan Child and 3sigma.

 

[sidhe]

0.00, 0.00, and -1. Fully permissive.

I'm shocked.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, none of you had a problem with a brother and a sister having sex?:o

I couldn't see anything immoral with it, though it's certainly icky. Incest is not immoral in and of itself, but it can include other actions which are immoral (abuse of power, rape, abuse of a minor, etc). The situation, as described, was quite clear that this was not the case.

Though, in my opinion, even if there was a chance she could have kids, I don't see that as an influencing factor. Such a child in an otherwise normal family tree would have almost no genetic abnormalities; it's only after generations of inbreeding when things start going pear-shaped.

 

[quatona]

So, none of you had a problem with a brother and a sister having sex?:o

Not per se.
On another note there are a lot of things I have a problem without conjcluding that they are immoral.

 

[chrisnu]

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


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.

I answered Yes/Wrong to every question, No regarding prevention or punishment, and that both customs are morally okay.

For me, I believe there are things morally wrong in the world, but I do not interfere with another person's decisions unless it is necessary to do so (for example, if someone thinks it's great to murder people in their homes, we should stop him from doing so).

I agree entirely.

In the scenarios provided, the only action where I believe that prevention or punishment may have been warranted was when the older girl pushed the smaller boy off the swing.

 

[david_x]

Taboo - The Results

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

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 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.

 

[trunks2k]

So, none of you had a problem with a brother and a sister having sex?:o

I'm ok with it because in the situation described, they were clear to say that both parties were fully consenting.

In real life, however, it's much more difficult. My problem with those sorts of relationships is that it makes it much too easy for one party to coerce the other in some way or another. I simply worry about the sort of environment of growing up in which an elder family member, especially when a person has some sort of authority, can look at you sexually.

 

[Blackmarch]

I Stumbled Upon a quiz, and spent about ten minutes doing it. It's quite interesting. My results:



I couldn't put it better myself

The link to the quiz is here. Enjoy, and, if you're up to it, post your results.

I found question 5 lacking (no option that fully satisfied me) so My results are somewhat skewed.

Also the questions pretty mucbh only followed 2 or three types of taboo so the graph isn't completely accurate.

Taboo - The Results

Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
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. 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. 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.


hmmm i'm having problems getting images to post ... anyone else having problems with CF recognising valid picture formats?

My graph had the 100% universalism, 100% permissive corner lit up (lower right corner).