Taboo

[Theophylact]

The aim of this activity is to tell you something about your moral intuitions. It was first developed for the games and activities section of The Philosophers' Magazine web site. This version has been specially programmed for Butterflies and Wheels. It includes a number of questions that are not asked in The Philosophers' Magazine version, which allows for more sophisticated analysis of data. It will take about five minutes to complete.

This was a very interesting test, Theo. I took it while at work {eek:lol : now I've done it} and found it quite thought-provoking.

I scored rather low {or, in the rather low right of the x,y grid} but I'll try to find time to take the test again later and post the results.

Somewhat surprised no one else has posted their results or commented on it.

[jerrygarcia]

I scored rather low and just left of the xy.



Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.53.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.40.

[novadragoon]

that sexy chicken picture at the end was just disturbing

[nomaxim]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.60

First run thru.

Test seems skewed?

You must agree that God is a women early on. Why is this? (If you believe in God, should it not be unisexual?)

Ps Sogal; I ended up in the bottom center.
Theo; I hate Philo!

[John Prophet]

As might be expected, I pegged all the way maxed out high and right.

Frankly I think a little bit of a warning of the nature of the questions might be in order...even though the site mentions they are of an "adult" type..i think they should have clarified it a bit more than that....maybe they should have been honest, lol....if you wanna vote on beastiality and incest..then do this test. ( I didnt read the whole blurb on the site...maybe it did mention it more thoroughly than just saying "adult" but I doubt it. and I have been around plenty of adults..Christians, sinners, atheists etc....we usually dont discuss incest and eating our pets and having sex with them etc...so for them to just say the questions are "adult" is pretty misleading)

I would add a few questions of my own to it which I would also answer yes too...so actually I would be off the scale high and right.

Is it wrong to refer to God as "she"...Yes.

Is it wrong to even put such scenarios of incest and beastiality etc in people minds and to offer up a suggestion that it could be anything BUT wrong............yes.

Will people answer for the ways in which they attempt to shape the world.....yes

JP

[Aaron_J]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.


Basically my answers to all of those questions were along the lines of:

No, the action does not harm anyone.
Yes, it would bother me to see the action.
No, the action is not "wrong".
No, we shouldn't interfere with, or stop the action.
The customs of both countries are "Ok".

Isn't morality in the eye of the beholder, like an opinion?

Ok, here are my results, the same as earlier..

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.


How did you do compared to other people?


Your Moralising Quotient of 0.10 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.21. 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 0.12. 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 1.00 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).

[nomaxim]

"Your Inteference Factor is: 0.00"

If you see something is wrong (applies to all who posted above me) do you not speak up?

How did we rate a 0.00?

Exception given to JP, maybe God had something to do with it.

[John Prophet]

I dont remember what my numbers were but they would have been the highest possible, lol....for interference factor mine said "oh no, run, he has a baseball bat in his hand"