Test your morals!

[kag]

Hvordan er din moral?

 

Ta testen her.

 

Jeg kom i hvert fall ut sånn;

 

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.23.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

 

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 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. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Indeed, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a real puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

 

 

[FJERNET111]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.57.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.40.

 

 

Are you thinking straight about morality?

 

It is not at all clear why you think that any of the actions depicted in these scenarios are 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 themselves harmed in some way 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. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a real puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

 

 

Jaja, var litt ymse hvordan jeg svarte

 

edit:

Og jeg er ikke helt enig i hvor jeg ble plassert... Er ikke så glad i å se på kyllingpøkking

Endret 25. april 2004 av SBS

[Outlook]

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.40.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

 

Endret 25. april 2004 av Outlook

[MrLee]

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

 

 

gidder ikke å poste bildet, men den blå firkanten var helt nede i venstre hjørne..

[Horror]

Hvordan er din moral?

 

Ta testen her.

 

Jeg kom i hvert fall ut sånn;

 

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.23.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

 

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 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. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Indeed, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a real puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

 

 

 

 

Taboo - The Results

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.67.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.80.

 

What do these results mean?

 

Are you thinking straight about morality?

 

Your responses to the scenarios depicted in this activity are a little bit puzzling. 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. And it at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Yet your responses indicate that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here, and presumably - though not necessarily - this is why you think that there are moral problems with them. The trouble is that you were asked to judge the scenarios as described, not as you think they would have turned out in the real world. And given how they were described, it isn't clear what form such harms could take. More about this below...

[Fredrik]

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.60.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.40.

 

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 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.

 

[TLZ]

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.20.

 

Are you thinking straight about morality?

 

Although you do not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong, there is something puzzling about your responses. 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. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Yet your responses indicate that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here, and presumably - though not necessarily - this is why you think that there are moral problems with them. The trouble is that you were asked to judge the scenarios as described, not as you think they would have turned out in the real world. And given how they were described, it isn't clear what form such harms could take. More about this below...

Synes denne var forvirrende

Endret 25. april 2004 av TLZ

[knutby]

"10. A man goes to his local grocery store once a week and buys a frozen chicken. But before cooking and eating the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community."

 

Ikke normal test

 

Taboo - The Results

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

 

 

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 doesn'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.

[aklla]

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.20.

 

Are you thinking straight about morality?

 

Your responses to the scenarios depicted in this activity are a little bit puzzling. 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. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Yet your responses indicate that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here, and most likely - though not necessarily - this is why you think that there are moral problems with them. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are themselves in some way harmed by them. However, you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. This suggests that you think that harm occurs beyond the protagonists themselves. The trouble is that you were asked to judge the scenarios as described, not as you think they would have turned out in the real world. And given how they were described, it isn't clear what form such harms could take. More about this below...

[IntelAmdAti]

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. The trouble is, as you probably realised, that it just isn't clear what form this harm takes. Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view.

 

 

How did you do compared to other people?

 

Taboo has been played 14096 times.

 

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.26. 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 0.16. 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 0.37. 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).

 

For more analysis see link at the bottom of the page.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endret 26. april 2004 av Pycnopodia

[Opus]

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.70 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.26. 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 0.80 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.17. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more 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 0.37. 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).

[Riotguy]

I`m fully moralizing!

her

ååh... linken virker ikke.... Det står bare tull!

Endret 26. april 2004 av Riotguy

[bassmania]

Taboo - The Results

 

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.

 

I am fully moralising :D

[Archangel]

Results

 

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.83.

 

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

 

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

[Zethyr]

http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/images/moral_musings9.jpg

[PlatinumFlyer]

 

Tja

[Suppelars2k]

 

Akkurat motsatt av Jokke.

 

Jokkers: blir Gud sint fordi man spiser dau katt?

[pretensiøselns]

Results

 

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?

 

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. And anyway 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.

[Suppelars2k]

Chickenfucking owns

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mushaboom]

Jokkers: blir Gud sint fordi man spiser dau katt?

Tror det, men jeg er ikke kristen da