Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.47.That puts me in the "personal morality" quadrant of the diagram.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.60.
May 11, 2005
That morality test.
Stephen Bainbridge points out this test of moral intuitions (via Tyler Cowen). Here's my score:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
I'd like to see how others scored. My scores were:
Moralising Quotient is: 0.20.
Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
As I interpret this, it means that I don't believe in moralizing or interfering in people's personal morals, but I do believe in foundational truth. I can live with that characterization.
Mine were:
Moralising Quotient is: 0.07
Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
I'm not sure what this means other than I don't like cats, even though they reportedly taste like chicken.
Moralising Quotient is: 0.47
Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Universalising Factor is: 0.60
Real close to Ann's which does not surprise me from reading her thoughts this last year.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.27.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
This was a fun quiz. I guess my results are about the same as Mark's.
Interesting:
I'm in the personal morality quadrant, too.
Your Moralizing Quotient is: 0.57.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalizing Factor is: 1.00.
Probably why I'm a prosecutor. I simply refuse to believe that someone isn't being harmed by some of these actions, despite what the site says about specifying no harm to anyone in the strongest possible terms. I mean, the chicken, really. On the other hand, the cat - I like cats, but protein is protein.
My scores:
Moralising: 0.13
Interference: 0.00
Universalising: 0.00
And I was worried I'd turn out to be more moralistic than Ann! (But stealing shopping carts doesn't faxxe me...)
I agree with Hogarth about those cats.
Richard: You are moralistic, as far as I remember, but about all kinds of weird, unpredictable things. This test was mostly about sexual matters and things that are disgusting to a person of conventional sensibilities (like eating the family pet or defiling the flag).
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.37.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67
There really isn't much granularity in the test. I have a feeling, for example, that I disagree with those who received a Universalising Factor of 1.00 only one issue.
Kathleen: Yes, there were a lot of places where the question of harm was more a test of your imagination than anything else. I kept thinking of people harming themselves even though they were doing something they chose. The test didn't specify harm to others.
Mcg: Also, I think a lot of people go into the test with a self-image they want to maintain, especially about universalism. And then there's Richard, worried about being moralistic. Well, if you were worried about being moralistic, you probably opted for the less moralistic answer a few times when it was a close question.
Leland: Maybe I took the test back then and have forgotten. But I think I would have remembered the chicken.
Your Moralizing Quotient is: 0.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.
Your Universalizing Factor is: 0.00.
...and remember
Kinky is with a feather.
Disgusting is with the whole chicken.
Ann, your memory is probably right, but I may have become less so over the years. Also moralism was often kind of an act with me. BTW, in my comment I meant "faze," not "faxxe."
Moralising Quotient is: 0.30.
Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
Meh. Deliver me from idiots who think they know what I mean. The analysis for my score was a steaming pile of condescension and cluelessness.
The majority of this derives, IMO, from fundamentally flawed construction for many of the questions. They treat the concepts of "harm" and "morally wrong" as if they are identities, when I consider them much more context-sensitive.
Take question 4: "Can an individual action be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no-one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it at all?"
Answering "yes" to this, and later judging situations as harmful to others even if they believe they are not harming themselves, leads to the snarky bolded analysis line:
Are you thinking straight about morality?
Yes, I am. Do your questions actually mean what you think they mean, for everyone who answers them? I think not.
I don't think there's a one-to-one correspondence between "harm" and whether I personally consider something "morally wrong"... and an even greater gap between that and trying to stop someone else from doing anything that I judge "morally wrong", and nothing at all to do with what a person's society thinks.
In short, my scores mean a few things to me, which don't correspond much with the purported analysis.
1. My opinions are my own regarding what I think is "morally wrong". Those opinions are not a function of that person's society, they are a function of my own judgement.
2. Simply judging the behavior of someone else as "morally wrong" doesn't give me or anyone else license to interfere.
3. The existence of "harm" (as I personally judge it) being present in a scenario is generally a sufficient condition for my finding it "morally wrong", but not a necessary condition.
Apparently, that leads these yahoos to guess that there is something "puzzling about your responses", and that I am apparently not "thinking straight about morality".
Not everyone fits into your pretty boxes, Philsopher's Mag, and not fitting well doesn't necessarily indicate a flaw in the person's thinking... it might indicate a horribly flawed measuring tool and grossly naive assumptions about what the results mean.
Ann,
Not to get off-topic, but The Huffington Post --day 3-- is getting worse. Less than zero is possible.
No one has nailed blogging like you. How would you feel if I were to recommend they contact you for a lesson or ten? Would you charge? Just let me know the specifics and I'll broker the deal. And even waive my usual ten percent.
I'm no Huffington fan, but I'd pull her from a burning building and this is close enough.
Bah... meant to say answering "no" to question 4.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.60.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
I find this outcome puzzling. I don’t think it’s wrong for people to eat dead animals, even if they are domestic pets. I didn’t think the “deathbed” promise was wrong either. I mean come on, you have to say you’ll visit, she’s dying. Doesn’t mean you’re really going to do it, life goes on. The flag and sex questions really pushed my score up though. I think a more comprehensive test would be appropriate. This was a little too generalized.
Dirty Harry: You're right about the Huffington Post. They didn't really know how to get it going, did they?
Ann:
You and RLC remind me of Maurice Chevalier's song "I remember it well" from Gigi...
...and do I feel old all of a sudden!
Moralising Quotient: 0.1
Interference Factor: 0.00
Universalising Factor: 0.00
According to this test and IF it were the only consideration, you might as well have married me.
And IF a seemingly insignificant scant 0.03 amount of moralizing was the tipping point in causing your marriage to break up (not that that is in the least bit any of my beeswax), I think I can safely say that you and I would be husband and wife still. Perhaps even blissfully husband and wife still.
Admittedly, those are some big IF's.
Lmeade: Yep, you've hit the nail on the head: those 0.03 points were the reason.
I am almost identical to Richard, but with moralizing down to .13. Otherwise, a perfect zip, zip.
I knew I had an extreme personality, but still...
How can anyone get upset at people eating fluffy, when fido isn't safe in many parts of the world?
Let me add that it is weird scoring almost identically to someone who not only gets, but appreciates that Henny Youngman joke.
Post a Comment