Kinross

Ran across this today and thought it was interesting. Don't worry it doesn't pass judgement.

<a href="http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/morality_play.htm" target="_blank">http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/morality_play.htm</a>

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

100% parsimonious.

I rule.

David Gould

87%

I rule, but in a different way.

Arrowman

Ha! David got the Aussie Devil's Number.

61%. I may or may not rule, depending on the circumstances.

For me, the "test" confirms what I probably would have said about myself if I thought it through.

Oh, yeah - the breakdown:
- Geographical Distance: 51% = significantly lower than average (72%)
- Acts and Omissions: 83% = much higher than average (57%)
- Scale = 76% = exactly average
- Family Relatedness: 35% = much lower than average

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

excreationist

51% parsimonious!

Geographical Distance
Your score of 35% is significantly lower than the average score of 72% in this category.
This suggests that geographical distance is a relevant factor in your moral thinking. Usually, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people located nearby than towards those who are far away. To incorporate geographical distance within your moral framework as a morally relevant factor is to decrease its parsimoniousness.

Family Relatedness
Your score of 67% is a bit higher than the average score of 57% in this category.
But nevertheless, it is low enough to suggest that issues of family relatedness are still significant in your moral thinking. Probably, you think that you have a slightly greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. If you do think that, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

Acts and Omissions
Your score of 51% is a little lower than the average score of 57% in this category.
This suggests that the distinction between acting and omitting to act is sometimes a relevant factor in your moral thinking. Probably, you tend to believe that those who act have a greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. If this is what you believe, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

Scale
Your score of 51% is significantly lower than the average score of 76% in this category.
This suggests that scale, as it is described above, is an important consideration in your moral thinking. To insist on the moral significance of scale is to decrease the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

*

BTW, Jesus Christ, do you give lots (or all) of your money to overseas people then? I mean didn't your results mean that you treat your family the same as people overseas?

tronvillain

67% parsimonious.

I rule, but that's not related to the score.

Actually, I suspect my moral system may be 100% parsimonious and the test simply isn't set up for my type of system.


Family Relatedness: Your score of 35% is a lot lower than the average score of 57% in this category.

Acts and Omissions: Your score of 67% is a little higher than the average score of 57% in this category.

Scale: Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 76% in this category.

bonduca

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 67%

Geographical Distance:
Your score of 51% is significantly lower than the average score of 72% in this category.

This suggests that geographical distance is a relevant factor in your moral thinking. Usually, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people located nearby than towards those who are far away. To incorporate geographical distance within your moral framework as a morally relevant factor is to decrease its parsimoniousness.

Family Relatedness

Your score of 35% is a lot lower than the average score of 57% in this category.

It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced.

Acts and Omissions

Your score of 83% is much higher than the average score of 57% in this category.

It seems that you do not think that the distinction between acting and omitting to act has any real moral significance.

Scale

Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 76% in this category.

It seems that scale, as it is described above, is not an important consideration in your moral worldview.


It's a sham, I'm actually a sociopath.

Oolon Colluphid

Hmmm. I got an overall 59%, slightly below average. A bit below average on most points, a 100% on scale (one of the few types of question where the logic was straightforward, I thought), and an 18% for family relatedness. That's what comes of being Darwinian!

Cheers, Oolon

Writer@Large

67%. IMO it's a flawed test, only because I always take objection to the phrase "moral obligation," and therefore answered "no" on several questions not because I wouldn't help, but because I wouldn't feel "obligated" to do so.

--W@L

Queen of Swords

Overall : 79%, slightly higher than average.

Geographical distance : 67%, slightly lower than average.

Family relatedness was also 67%, higher than the average of 57%.

Acts and Omissions : a whopping 83%.