Here's the test: http://www.philosophersmag.com/games/taboo.htm

Here's what it said to me:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.83.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.

Fully Moralising

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.92.

Your Interference Factor is: 1.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.

Fully Moralising

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.75.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

Personal Morality

I didn't Finnish your little "test".

I stopped with:
Should his poultry lovin' be prevented (assuming we know about it) or should he be punished for it? [Note: if you think that either or both of these things should occur then you should answer 'Yes'; only answer 'No', if you think neither of these things should occur.]Now, there are things that have a psychological background, which are deemed moralily reprehensible. And there are things that are just accepted on the basis that Allah willed them to be such, as delivered by His Prophet Muhammed.

I blame the media. You can **** all the dead chickens you want, from Moses to Prince Saudi, but when you report said chicken ****ing, I draw the line.

Don't report it. I know about it, already. I know it exists. You don't have to tell me you've been ****ing chickens.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.92.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

...Wahoo.

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.


Put simply, if it truly doesn't harm anyone but the person doing it (and I'm not invited over for chicken), I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes and lives. I leave them alone, they leave me alone.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

So you saw nothing wrong with the girl pushing the boy off the swing. Otheriwise I agree with you, what people do is their business unless it harms others.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.25.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

hmmm, kinda high for me.... :rolleyes:

RESULTS:

Moralising Quotient: 0.83

Interference Factor: 0.75

Universalising Factor: 1.00

My Moralising Quotient is: 0.42.

My Interference Factor is: 0.50.

My Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

Enforceable Conventional.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Are you thinking straight about morality?

Some freaky scenarios there but not really wrong. It is all about harm.

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

Hmm, I got:
Moralising quotient : 0.63
Interference factor : 0.50
Universalising factor : 0.67

I think most of the questions were fairly loaded. They were so extreme in their nature that it doesnt really give an accurate indication of anything.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

As takara just said that was a very biased test.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 1.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 1.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
Fully Moralising.

hmm...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.29.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

Personal Morailty

Your Moralising Quotient is: 1.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.75.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

Are you thinking straight about morality?

Hmmm - I'm more of a conscience person, so what the hell.

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.


Bugger.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

I just follow my own conscience, and don't interfere with other people problems unless I know I can make a difference or I'm sure I know all the details. in the first question, that was simply wrong with no justification.

2 - Smoking is fine as long as everyone else who has to breath it smoke themselves and see no problem with it an 18+ year old can decide for themselves and be reponsible I assume.

3 - Like I said I follow my own conscience and what I feel is morally right for me and everyone involved.

4 - How could this be a problem if worst case scenario is no one is affected in aharmful way?

5 - No.

6 - Well the mother is dead, if any other living relatives genetically or otherwise they should sort something out, and depending on the situation it may not always be possible.

7 - It's their cat, they can do want with it if it's dead as far as I'm concerned, other people might give the hypothetical family a lecture on it but that woulden't be me, if it was harming any innocent and living animal or person the I'd have a problem with that.

8 - If I was in Peter's position I woulden't have done it myself but they are both adults able to decide for themselves, and woulden't need me to interfere in anyway so I woulden't.

9 - If he's the only one eating it and no one else knows about it then I don't think it's morally wrong, but it's still pretty desperate imo.

So like I said, I deal with my own problems and the problems of people I either care about or people I know I can help, if it's involving people that can make their own descisions in life and isn't harming anyone at all then I'm fine with that.

But like others have said and what I've seen by my score I think this test was a complete waste of time.

I wonder what this would be in D&D terms...? Maybe CG?

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I try to stay out of other people's business. ;)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Ditto the comments of others with similar scores.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.29.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

Interesting to say the least....

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.29.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.42.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

Are you thinking straight about morality?

Hardly...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

If it doesn't hurt anyone else it isn't bad by my books. Try living on a farm and eating pigs you have fattened. They become pets of a sort yet I feel nothing bad about eating them...

The sex between siblings was disturbing. I wouldn't call it morally wrong but it sure as hell is disgusting.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

*shrugs*

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Fairly standard results for around here it seems.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.38.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

Halfway to fully permissive.

MQ=0.13
IF=0.00
UF=0.00

The problem I have with this test is the vast majority of people seem to be at the extremes. Very few people are in the range of what is considered "normal" or "average" as described at the end of the test.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 1.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 1.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67


Call me old fashioned, but I think that having intercourse with dead poultry and/or you siblings is wrong. I don't have an answer to why it is wrong, but I know it is.

Why do I know that is morally wrong? (Not a rhetoric question; I really don't know.)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.58.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50

Having sex with poultry and sisters is just plain wrong! But you can eat your cat if you want to...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

I'm a fully moralising fellow!

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

Does this mean that I can finally RP a paladin? ;)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Cool.

I'm a fully moralising fellow!

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

Does this mean that I can finally RP a paladin?Probably yes, because it's a similar score to mine (in distribution) :shake: :lol:

Work on the figures a bit to improve them, though. :holy:

so does that mean people with higher scores than Chev are born paladins or something? :eek:

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

If Chev is a paladin, what does that make those of us combined scores below 0? Necromancers?

...hey, I'm cool with that. I am completely permissive, after all.