Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
Posted: 01:35 Jun 20 2003
A matter of morality: Mary Whitehouse or the Marquis de Sade?
I've found a very interesting test to gauge how much of a moraliser you are.
Some of the questions are of an adult nature
www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
My score was:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
(Answers explained at the end of the test)
Very much verging to de Sade territory here!
Some of the questions are of an adult nature
www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
My score was:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
(Answers explained at the end of the test)
Very much verging to de Sade territory here!
19 Replies and 1907 Views in Total.
Posted: 01:35 Jun 20 2003 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
Posted: 02:00 Jun 20 2003 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1
Hmmm....
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1
Hmmm....
Posted: 02:39 Jun 20 2003 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 1.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.75.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
As a Christian, "Human beings are God's creations. Their sexuality is a gift from God to be enjoyed only in the context of a monogamous union between one man and one woman. Chickens, frozen or otherwise, are not part of the picture. Therefore, to have sex with one is to abuse the gift of sexuality, and will necessarily harm a person's relationship with God. It follows that having sex with poultry is a moral wrong." pretty much covers my opinion which probably helps to explain my score.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.75.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
As a Christian, "Human beings are God's creations. Their sexuality is a gift from God to be enjoyed only in the context of a monogamous union between one man and one woman. Chickens, frozen or otherwise, are not part of the picture. Therefore, to have sex with one is to abuse the gift of sexuality, and will necessarily harm a person's relationship with God. It follows that having sex with poultry is a moral wrong." pretty much covers my opinion which probably helps to explain my score.
Posted: 07:47 Jun 20 2003 Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
Posted: 08:36 Jun 20 2003 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.46.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00
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 have no idea what that all means.....
Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00
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 have no idea what that all means.....
Posted: 10:37 Jun 20 2003
I must say I'm rather surprised by the results here. The frozen chickens of the world must be terribly cheered 
So what did you all find morally objectionable?
So what did you all find morally objectionable?
Posted: 11:56 Jun 20 2003
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
Posted: 12:13 Jun 20 2003 
Well well well, what a surprise. I'm the odd one again!
Yonder Morality Test says:
Moralising Quotient = 0.33
Interference Factor = 0.25
Universalising Factor = 0.33
Posted: 12:18 Jun 20 2003 Pushing small children off swings. It was the only one where one person's actions were directly detrimental to someone elses.
by Demona
So what did you all find morally objectionable?
Posted: 12:33 Jun 20 2003 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
*shrug*
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
*shrug*
Posted: 13:15 Jun 20 2003 
The swing, and the promise to the dying person. Not so much that the promise was broken, but that the person didn't feel at all guilty about breaking their word to someone on their deathbed.
by Demona
I must say I'm rather surprised by the results here. The frozen chickens of the world must be terribly cheered
So what did you all find morally objectionable?
Frozen chickens of the world can indeed rejoice.
(Naigler: Does that mean you think it should be illegal to interfere with dead chickens? Even though no one's being harmed by it. Is it the law's place to enforce morality on a person even when there's no victim?)
Posted: 13:35 Jun 20 2003 Sounds to me like you want to legislate for what goes on inside people's heads.
by Byron
The swing, and the promise to the dying person. Not so much that the promise was broken, but that the person didn't feel at all guilty about breaking their word to someone on their deathbed.
If it isn't morally wrong, why should they feel guilty about it?
Posted: 15:51 Jun 20 2003 There's a difference between illegal and immoral. I think if someone has the urge to "interfere with dead chickens" they need help, don't think prison is the answer though.
by Byron
(quotes)
Naigler: Does that mean you think it should be illegal to interfere with dead chickens? Even though no one's being harmed by it. Is it the law's place to enforce morality on a person even when there's no victim?
Posted: 19:38 Jun 20 2003 Where did I mention legislation?
by Incandenza
(quotes)
Sounds to me like you want to legislate for what goes on inside people's heads.
Posted: 20:16 Jun 20 2003 Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
Posted: 23:14 Jun 20 2003 Again with the swing. Also, I felt making a promise you didn't keep was 'a little wrong'. Had they asked if it was immoral I would have said no, as no one was hurt. But I have a thing about keeping promises, especially when made to a loved one, even if they cannot know if you kept it. Hence I went for a little wrong, rather than a full on one. But that's a personal value, rather than a full on moral one, hence the following questions were answered 'no' and 'both ok' respectively.
by TPM Online
Taboo - The Results
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
As for chickens, well being an atheist and believing the act was none of my business, I had no such issues with the necro-foul-philia.
But, wouldn't it have been a bit .. cold?
P.S. Oh, on the whole Marquis De Sade bit, seeing as he found rape to be an acceptable activity in the pursuit of pleasure I don't think I personally have anything in common with him personally. Jean-Paul Sartre would seem a better comparison.
(Edited by Jayjay 21/06/2003 21:02)
Posted: 20:59 Jun 21 2003
I would say the swings thing, the not keeping a promise, and eating the cat were morally wrong.
The other actions were presented as causing no harm whatsoever, but they were deliberately put like that, a bit like BT's "if only life were so simple"
ad campaign. In reality, I think the harm caused by the other events might not be ovbious, but still be there in a subtle form, therefore there is some ground to say those actions were also morally wrong.
The other actions were presented as causing no harm whatsoever, but they were deliberately put like that, a bit like BT's "if only life were so simple"
ad campaign. In reality, I think the harm caused by the other events might not be ovbious, but still be there in a subtle form, therefore there is some ground to say those actions were also morally wrong.
Posted: 08:35 Jun 22 2003 Never provide a rational example when a sensationalist one sounds better.
by Jayjay
P.S. Oh, on the whole Marquis De Sade bit, seeing as he found rape to be an acceptable activity in the pursuit of pleasure I don't think I personally have anything in common with him personally. Jean-Paul Sartre would seem a better comparison.
Posted: 09:12 Jun 22 2003