An Ethics & Morality quiz

[Chesterton]

Great thread. I'm going to use the results in my upcoming book, where I will demonstrate that all non-Christians and liberals eat family pets, are overly fond of poultry, and enjoy pushing little kids around.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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).

If you right-click on the image and select 'view image', the url is what you should put in the tags (i.e., img] url [/img]). That might help.

What did question 5 ask again? I've forgotten!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Great thread. I'm going to use the results in my upcoming book, where I will demonstrate that all non-Christians and liberals eat family pets, are overly fond of poultry, and enjoy pushing little kids around.

Hey, I saw those swings first!

 

[Belk]

Interesting test. While there where several questions I found disturbing personally, I did not see anything morally wrong with them.

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

 

[Blackmarch]

If you right-click on the image and select 'view image', the url is what you should put in the tags (i.e., img] url [/img]). That might help.

What did question 5 ask again? I've forgotten!

Basically whether you believe whether it was God/outside force that defined morality or whether it was man that defined morality (and the way it was worded made it seem as to the exclusion of the other). I would have preferred to answer that both can.







thanks for the suggestion i'll see if that works... I was trying to use the manage attachments.

Edit:

 

[Chesterton]

My test result was pretty good. It said (and I quote):

"Congratulations. You are a paragon of morality. You are a perfect person. People should pay complete respect to everything you say, especially on internet forums. People on internet forums who disagree with anything you say should be taken out and nibbled to death by an okapi."

 

[david_x]

My test result was pretty good. It said (and I quote):

"Congratulations. You are a paragon of morality. You are a perfect person. People should pay complete respect to everything you say, especially on internet forums. People on internet forums who disagree with anything you say should be taken out and nibbled to death by an okapi."

Eww, the tongue!

 

[exotic walrus]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Basically whether you believe whether it was God/outside force that defined morality or whether it was man that defined morality (and the way it was worded made it seem as to the exclusion of the other). I would have preferred to answer that both can.







thanks for the suggestion i'll see if that works... I was trying to use the manage attachments.

Eww, attachments

 

[levi501]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I found the son not keeping his promise a little wrong.
I believe something can be morally wrong even it's private and hurts no one...
(Reason: I believe intentions behind your actions are the key metric for morality)

I think that's where I diverge from the 0,0,-1.

 

[MoonLancer]

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

the only problem with bothers and sisters having sex is the genetic mutations it creates. If that was not present it would be a non issue.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.


I hit pretty well dead on "Personal Morality". Which I would say is about right, actually.

 

[Archer93]

I have a problem with people breaking promises. And pushing people off swings.
That's about it.

 

[Kalevalatar]

I have a problem with people breaking promises. And pushing people off swings.
That's about it.

One more in that corner:

Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.42.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

I believe that sex outside marriage is wrong but don't have a problem with someone's masturbating with the little help of a frozen object.

 

[*Starlight*]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

I only saw the one about pushing a child off a swing as wrong, and the person breaking his promise as a little wrong.

 

[Mystman]

The big problem in this quiz is their use of the term "morally wrong"; I have no idea what they mean with it.

Take the having sex with dead chickens thing: I don't think that it's "wrong" or that you should go to hell or something when doing that. But I do think that you might want to see a psychologist about the issue.

The lying to your dieing mother thing isn't wrong per se, but I would certainly think less of anyone who acts like that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The big problem in this quiz is their use of the term "morally wrong"; I have no idea what they mean with it.

Take the having sex with dead chickens thing: I don't think that it's "wrong" or that you should go to hell or something when doing that. But I do think that you might want to see a psychologist about the issue.

The lying to your dieing mother thing isn't wrong per se, but I would certainly think less of anyone who acts like that.

It seems you do know what they mean by 'morally wrong' .

 

[Mystman]

It seems you do know what they mean by 'morally wrong' .

eh

I don't think that the concept "wrong" exists.

Related: I also don't think that the concept of "punishment" is ever helpful.

So the questions of "should person X be punished for this wrong action?" are always going to be answered with "no".

While a question like "should person X be treated to correct his tendency to perform this unhelpful action" would be answeerd with a "yes".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

eh

I don't think that the concept "wrong" exists.

Related: I also don't think that the concept of "punishment" is ever helpful.

So the questions of "should person X be punished for this wrong action?" are always going to be answered with "no".

While a question like "should person X be treated to correct his tendency to perform this unhelpful action" would be answeerd with a "yes".

Arguably, the latter is punishment, if only for the individual being treated. If someone is sent to an asylum for 'treatment', I'd consider that punishment for their crime.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Take the having sex with dead chickens thing: I don't think that it's "wrong" or that you should go to hell or something when doing that. But I do think that you might want to see a psychologist about the issue.

Hmmm... Should then a woman who uses elongated vegetables for the same purpose see a psychologist about her masturbation "issue"?