Freethought & Rationalism Archive

phaedrus · 07-09-2003, 11:02 PM

Great moral game....basically through a set of questions....it sort of tells you what your moral intuitions are and how you compare against people similar to your profile. The creators of the game attribute the origin for this came from "The Sanctimonious Animal" (a chapter) in Steve Pinker's - The Blank Slate.

"Affect, Culture and Morality" (Haidt, Silvia Helena Koller and Maria G. Dias) is the major source of the more specific ideas in the

Check it out...Taboo

This is what i got......

------

How did you do compared to other people?

Taboo has been played 465 times.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.03 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.22. 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 0.13. 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 0.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.36. This means you are less 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).

-------------------------

Secular Elation · 07-09-2003, 11:19 PM

Quote:

A family's cat was killed by a car in front of their home. They had heard that cat meat was very tasty, so they cut up the cat, cooked it and ate it for dinner. To date, they have never regretted the decision and they have not suffered any harm as a result of cooking and eating the cat.

a) How do you judge the actions of the family in eating their pet cat?

THAT was a bizarre question, to me.

Non-praying Mantis · 07-10-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

9. A man goes to his local grocery store once a week and buys a frozen chicken. But before cooking and eating the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community.

That was an even more bizzare question!!

dangin · 07-10-2003, 07:45 AM

Gee, Who'd a thought I was the most permissive person the test is able to detect. But these are all silly moral situations. Morality is about our interactions with others of our society, not about our interactions with dead cats and chickens.

Grim_reaper722 · 07-10-2003, 08:16 AM

That was...interesting, some of those questions however were quite disturbing...

kkholiday · 07-10-2003, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Taboo has been played 4754 times.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.21 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.28.

Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.17.

Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.42.

Well, I guess I'm more permissive than most. I still don't like the chicken thing, but the first time I read it I thought the guy was serving it to other people. I was much more comfortable with it once I reread it.

Nom · 07-10-2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus

Taboo has been played 465 times.

They oughta cut you a check, phaedrus! It's up to 4756 times now!

I ended up with this...

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.54 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.28. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less permissive than average.

Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.17. 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 0.43. 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).

& I fell in the "personal-morality" quadrant: A personal-morality response makes use of universal claims about right and wrong, but tends to see these as being a private matter and not as being a legitimate target of societal intervention.

Now, if I could only figure out what those "universal claims" are I'd be golden!

Thanks for the link!

Jamie_L · 07-10-2003, 09:47 AM

Some thoughts:

I gather that the question about mothers and deathbeds was supposed to be analagous to the rest. However, I found it's "comparitive societies" question slightly different. In the case of private sex with frozen chickens, no one is harmed if this is a cultural norm. However, in the case of deathbeds, it seems that a cultural norm might bring harm to mothers on their deathbeds, as they now that their children will be making false promises. So, I actually answered that one differently than the others. Somehow, however, I still came up 0.00, 0.00, -1. (i.e. Taboos? What taboos?)

I found the one hardest to answer for me was the brother-sister question. That is, I knew intellectually that my general moral foundations were such that there was nothing wrong with this scenario. Yet, I had to seriously override a gut reaction. Maybe because I have a son and a daughter.

It's an interesting little test. Glad I took it.

Jamie

Calzaer · 07-10-2003, 12:10 PM

0, 0, -1.

Apparently, I'm so permissive they can't tell how much universalizing I'm doing.

The frozen chicken thing WAS disturbing, and I almost said it was wrong, but I stopped myself and realized that was inconsistant with my other answers.

Oh, and this:

Quote:

The other tension in moral reasoning that we hope this activity helps to elucidate has to do with the role of reason and emotion in moral judgements. One of the interesting things which Haidt et al found when exploring people's reactions to the scenarios featured in this activity is that people who have very strong emotional responses to these stories frequently find it difficult to provide an explanation or justification for what they are feeling. According to Steve Pinker, this is because our moral convictions are rooted not so much in reason, as in the evolutionary make-up of our minds. In his words: "People have gut feelings that give them emphatic moral convictions, and they struggle to rationalize them after the fact. These convictions may have little to do with moral judgements that one could justify to others in terms of their effects on happiness or suffering. They arise instead from the neurobiological and evolutionary design of the organs we call moral emotions." (The Blank Slate).

I think I finally understand yguy.

trillian · 07-10-2003, 01:33 PM

I also got the 0, 0, -1. Very permissive. Does that make me an honorary Dutchman?

"There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. And anyway 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. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook."

I thought it was tricking me on the fact that I thought "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". But I can think of several things morally wrong which fit that criteria, like drunk driving on a seemingly deserted road or indiscriminately shooting a gun from your rooftop . Even if no one is harmed there is a reasonable potential for harm.

trillian

07-09-2003, 11:02 PM	#1
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	Morals & Taboo - Where do you stand? Great moral game....basically through a set of questions....it sort of tells you what your moral intuitions are and how you compare against people similar to your profile. The creators of the game attribute the origin for this came from "The Sanctimonious Animal" (a chapter) in Steve Pinker's - The Blank Slate. "Affect, Culture and Morality" (Haidt, Silvia Helena Koller and Maria G. Dias) is the major source of the more specific ideas in the Check it out...Taboo This is what i got...... ------ How did you do compared to other people? Taboo has been played 465 times. Your Moralising Quotient of 0.03 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.22. 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 0.13. 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 0.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.36. This means you are less 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). -------------------------

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2003, 07:45 AM	#4
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Gee, Who'd a thought I was the most permissive person the test is able to detect. But these are all silly moral situations. Morality is about our interactions with others of our society, not about our interactions with dead cats and chickens.

07-10-2003, 08:16 AM	#5
Grim_reaper722 New Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 3	That was...interesting, some of those questions however were quite disturbing...

07-10-2003, 09:47 AM	#8
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Some thoughts: I gather that the question about mothers and deathbeds was supposed to be analagous to the rest. However, I found it's "comparitive societies" question slightly different. In the case of private sex with frozen chickens, no one is harmed if this is a cultural norm. However, in the case of deathbeds, it seems that a cultural norm might bring harm to mothers on their deathbeds, as they now that their children will be making false promises. So, I actually answered that one differently than the others. Somehow, however, I still came up 0.00, 0.00, -1. (i.e. Taboos? What taboos?) I found the one hardest to answer for me was the brother-sister question. That is, I knew intellectually that my general moral foundations were such that there was nothing wrong with this scenario. Yet, I had to seriously override a gut reaction. Maybe because I have a son and a daughter. It's an interesting little test. Glad I took it. Jamie

07-10-2003, 01:33 PM	#10
trillian Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: OC Posts: 1,620	I also got the 0, 0, -1. Very permissive. Does that make me an honorary Dutchman? "There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. And anyway 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. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook." I thought it was tricking me on the fact that I thought "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". But I can think of several things morally wrong which fit that criteria, like drunk driving on a seemingly deserted road or indiscriminately shooting a gun from your rooftop . Even if no one is harmed there is a reasonable potential for harm. trillian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.