An Ethics & Morality quiz

[Mystman]

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.

Well yeah, that's the thing that makes this quiz difficult.

The same action (e.g. sending someone to jail for some crime) can be seen as "punishment for some moral wrong" or as "treatment attempt for socially undesired behavior".

I object to the former, but might agree with the latter. (especially because both reasonings might come to the same conclusion in THIS situation, but in a different situation the mentalities of treatment vs. punishment might come to completely different conclusions).

 

[Mystman]

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

Nope. And neither should a man who likes to touch using a pumpkin or apple pie or something.

It's the "dead animal" thing that sets of my "maybe there's something wrong with your wiring." alert. I'm not a psychologist though, so my unsubstantiated gutfeeling might be wrong. =)

 

[Kalevalatar]

Nope. And neither should a man who likes to touch using a pumpkin or apple pie or something.

It's the "dead animal" thing that sets of my "maybe there's something wrong with your wiring." alert. I'm not a psychologist though, so my unsubstantiated gutfeeling might be wrong. =)

You know, I'm tempted to ask, how about a woman using a "good luck" rabbit's foot, but alas, I refrain.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think the quiz does a good job of asking the question, Are some things intrinsically morally wrong, or does there need to be actual harm before an action is considered immoral?

I agree with some of the above that some behaviors are disturbing, but the setup for each question (except for the child being pushed off a swing--which I take as a base-lining question) makes it very clear that no-one was harmed or even potentially harmed by the hypothetical situation.

 

[revanneosl]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.29.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

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. You did not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong. And anyway 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.

 

[Steezie]

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

Not necessarily. It isnt something I'd engage in but if there are steps taken to avoid pregnancy I dont see the problem.

 

[kiwimac]

Here are my results which seems to be similar to others here:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

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 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. Yet the actions described in these scenarios are 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 act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios wrong in terms of your moral outlook. It is a bit of a puzzle!

I suppose that for myself I draw a line between what might be inadvisable and what is morally wrong. An example is smoking, medically it is a very bad idea but if you are harming no one but yourself then I have no problem with it per se.

The test does ask us to consider what things are morally wrong in themselves, that is wrongness is inherent in the action regardless of who or what is doing it and simply the 'yuck' factor, ie. this is wrong because it upsets my digestion. Are there some things so wrong that there can be no good reason to do them?