Oh yes, another test. A pretty good one, too.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
“You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. 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 “taboo” situations in the test are cleverly designed to be the most extreme ones that do not involve direct provable harm (breaking deathbed promises, adult incest, eating household animals after they die, screwing dead farm animals). That is, the test identifies the extent to which readers can discern between their own distaste for an action and legitimate moral judgement of that action based on its effects on others.
Here’s a good litmus test I use to determine whether my feelings against something should be translated into actual beliefs: Can I explain, logically, why I feel it’s wrong?
Those who answer by stating “It just IS” are usually allowing their revulsion to take the place of logic. I tend to view such people as ignorant, insecure, non-thinking and generally devolved.
Also note that the score does not mean one is “liberal” or generally permissive on issues that are moral matters. I consider myself quite conservative on those.
Check out the test…
Fun test. Here’s how my scores came out:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.46.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.
I have no idea what it all means though.
btw I am a cultural relativist so I’m surprised my universalizing factor is so high. I guess I must have had bad sexual experiences with dead chickens.
What did you vote was morally wrong, and why?
stuff like having sex with dead chickens or siblings I voted as morally wrong, but at the same time I didn’t think they should necessarily be punished. These tests try to pigeonhole you, but there are lots of variables that go into my decisions that can’t be reflected in the scoring.
How is having sex with dead chickens morally wrong? Disgusting, sure. But why do you define it as morally wrong?
I don’t see how any act that lacks any element of direct harm could be morally judgeable.
Is it so easy to judge what harm is being caused by any particular activity? A lot of things that appear harmless, can be a reflection of something that is terribly, terribly wrong, like having sex with a frozen chicken. If nothing else, it shows such a startling departure from conventional customs, that I wld automatically question the character of such a person, esp since it doesnt seem to have any altruistic motive (as other startling rebels generally have).
Neither do I believe that if anyone replies “it just IS” to a query abt why something is wrong, it reflects on the person as being insecure, devolved etc etc. I wonder that people who have got low scores on the judgement factor are so quick to become so smug abt their “liberal, non judgemental nature”. Contradiction.
Stop to consider, that in many such cases,some people get a glimmer of what lies beneath the surface, but because of their lack of articulation, they get classified as ignorant.
Are all theories that can be glibly explained, morally right? (the holocaust had millions being v clear and articulate abt what they were doing). Similarly, all that CANNOT be clearly explained is certainly not to be relegated to the dustbin.
“A lot of things that appear harmless, can be a reflection of something that is terribly, terribly wrong, like having sex with a frozen chicken.”
Sure, but where’s the harm?
If nothing else, it shows such a startling departure from conventional customs, that I wld automatically question the character of such a person, esp since it doesnt seem to have any altruistic motive (as other startling rebels generally have).
I wasn’t aware that “a startling departure from conventional customs” equaled immorality. To judge whether an act is right or wrong based on how many other people do it is pretty sad.
Also, I don’t believe altruism exists, but that’s another discussion. And even if you believe in it, since when is any kind of sex altruistic?
Neither do I believe that if anyone replies “it just IS” to a query abt why something is wrong, it reflects on the person as being insecure, devolved etc etc. I wonder that people who have got low scores on the judgement factor are so quick to become so smug abt their “liberal, non judgemental nature”. Contradiction.
No, no contradiction there at all. Moral judgement is different from listening to someone’s views and subsequently making an inference as to their intelligence (or ignorance). It’s not smugness so much as it is disappointment.
Oh yeah…and I never said I was liberal or non-judgemental. I just know that there are certain parameters within which I have no right to morally judge. That’s the difference.
Stop to consider, that in many such cases,some people get a glimmer of what lies beneath the surface, but because of their lack of articulation, they get classified as ignorant.
Ahem. That is ignorance, or inarticulateness, or both. Especially in the case of those who “automatically question the character of such a person” but can’t even explain why the action is wrong.
Are all theories that can be glibly explained, morally right? (the holocaust had millions being v clear and articulate abt what they were doing). Similarly, all that CANNOT be clearly explained is certainly not to be relegated to the dustbin.
I agree. However, if one holds a belief but cannot articulate why, then that person ought not to try and convince others of that belief and hold them to a standard that only he/she can know.
1. a startling departure fr conventional customs does NOT equal immorality. But it DOES show sufficient cause to suspend judgement for some time and evaluate further, whether there COULD be some harm to this, which does not appear to the naked eye. The cliche “appearances are deceptive” seems to have got lost in this age where television election-wars decide the fate of nations. Now whatever appears, is the truth. Sorry, I still dont agree.
2. We seem to be operating from 2 parallel paths here. I sincerely believe that lack of articulateness is NOT equivalent to being incorrect. Similarly, just being able to win a debate, is NOT an indication of being correct.While I have often used the approach of “if u are convinced, come out and prove it to me” myself, I also believe that sometimes gut feel (which is often classified as “irrational emotional reactions”) goes a longer way in reaching for the truth than rationalism and logic. (aarrrghh! intellectual suicide!)
Lets end it here for the time being, as I wont be accessing any blogs for at least a week.
Looking forward to fresh posts (how abt “I lost 6 pounds in 1 week” headline?!)a week later.
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
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.
i didn’t think any of the situations were morally wrong because they had no negative effects on other people. just because something is digusting does not make it immortal.