Moral Graph

John Uskglass

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm

I seriously doubt anyone did'nt expect this from me.

moral_musings8.jpg



Taboo - The Results

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.90.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.80.

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. It is likely that you think that what makes any of these actions morally problematic has to do with 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. There is nothing contradictory then in a claim that the actions depicted in these scenarios are morally problematic. However, there is a tension in your responses in that you indicated that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here. Given that the actions described in these scenarios are private and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm, it isn't clear where you think the harm might lie. More about this below...
 
I scored the bottom right corner. I generally hold myself to a higher standard than I do others. The rundown they give at the end is crap though; it hardly describes at all how one thinks of morality. Besides lying about two of my results of course.


moralmusings46de.jpg
 
moral_musings3.jpg

[url said:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm[/url]]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.
Sovz said:
what People do in private is their own fucking business
What all the people of a nation do in private is that nation's culture.

Sovz said:
live and let live.
You wish (me too, actually)...
 
Just like Sovz, fully permissive.

Great site BTW. Has anyone checked the games or café section?
 
Fully permissive. Pretty innacurate, I'd think, since the only example of someone harming another only asked what you felt.

My morality quotient was .28, though. I guess that means something.
 
moral_musings10.jpg


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 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...

Fireblade said:
The rundown they give at the end is crap though

I agree; didn't feel it described me at all.

Also, i thought they gave you too few answers to choose from to really make a good judgement. Though i understand giving a larger amount of options would probably be difficult.
 
Sovz said:
moral_musings12.jpg


what People do in private is their own fucking business

live and let live.

I got the same.

I hate things like this. In just about every question I said that they should be able to do what they want, but I reserve the right to think they're sick fucks. But the final conclusion acted like I was some repressed, confused idiot who had no idea what my beliefs were. Sure, they can have sex with as many chickens as they like, as long as I don't have to eat the damn thing, see it, or think that they're an awesome example of humanity for doing it. Fucking philosophers.
 
our Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.


Heheh. Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent.

I loved the "cutting-flag-to-pieces to-use-it-as-bathroom-cleaner" bit, though.
 
moral_musings11.jpg


I agree with ya Sovz. Dont interfere in other people's lives if you dont want THEM to interfer in YOURS...
 
moral_musings12.jpg


Taboo said:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

The questions didn't make much sense to me because I think morality is entirely relative to the society in question.
If something is a common practice in one country, but the opposite is common practice in another, what do I know whether it's morally right or wrong in their society?
What I personally deem morally right or wrong doesn't have an awful lot to do with that.

I think this only works if you believe in universal morality, but then the resulting graph wouldn't make much sense.
 
Results: Falls right on the 'Personal Morality' X. Which is accurate, since I ascribe to my own personal morality and believe everyone needs to find their own way concerning morality.


Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.27.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

What do these results mean?

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 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...
______________________________________

It is funny - since the above talks about my responses being 'puzzling'. No, I don't have a problem with someone fucking a chicken in their own home, but would it disturb me to watch it? Some guy fucking a frozen chicken? Hell yes it would! It makes my dick hurt just thinking about it. What is so ambiguous about not caring if he does, but not wanting to watch it?
 
surprisingly enough i was fully permissive............I dont care what others do in their private spaces, i only care when it has effects on the public and others who might not share or believe in what ever fantasy someone might engage in privacy.
 
Bah! You bunch of amoral sinners! You will all burn when day of reckoning comes! The power of Christ will smite you!
 
Even though you or i dont care about what people do in their private lives, doesn't the thought of someone screwing a dead chicken make your skin crawl........ sure it doesn't hurt anyone but couldn't you picture Jebus doing something simular........with a gumball machine? isnt that even just a little disturbing?
 
Back
Top