ADN

I love these things...!
Take The Quiz, post your results and as usual, DON'T CHEAT..! That's a great site by the way, if you find any more interesting quizzes, don't hesitate to post them...

[hr:44548800ff]

Results

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

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/ta ... mit=Submit

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.37. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than average.

Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.23. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average.

Your Universalising Factor of -1 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.48. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions)

Hahaha...I'm a piece of shit..! LoL...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.92.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.75.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.

The explanations go way over my head too...sorry...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.75.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.
---------------------------------------
Maybe I'm just an dirty old man! [-(

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.67.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.

Analysis:
"Your Moralising Quotient of 0.67 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.36. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less permissive than average.

Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.22. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average.

Your Universalising Factor of 0.75 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.48. This means you are more likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned)."

I think it's morally wrong to judge my morality by this

Taboo - The Results

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

What do these results mean?

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.

Taboo - The Results

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. 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 act 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.

Taboo - The Results

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.38.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

Although you do not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong, it is not entirely clear why you think that anything in them is morally problematic. You don't think an action 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 in some way harmed by them. But you don't think that an action 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 scare myself..................a lot!

QUOTEThe explanations go way over my head too...sorry...

luv, dahlin'...no sweat
the reason why there's so much discussion afterwards is that morality, like many other concepts of philosophy, is basically shaded in a nice neutral gray. No black, no white (except when you discuss an individual's views).
Dude's simply going over why we THINK we know how something can be objectionable on the basis of morality. He then goes on to mention different sources and examples of how we judge something to be morally "wrong" , whether we use God, social acceptance and emotion and how we attempt to justify our standpoint...in a nutshell.

Anyone else want to take the test? I took it again and got the same score. I STILL scare myself.

Thanks for digging this thread up...I will definitely do this when I get home.