Ronin

Taboo - The Results
Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1

Taboo - The Results
How did you do compared to other people?

Taboo has been played 5056 times.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.31. 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 0.20. 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 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.42. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions).

~~~~

On a related note, I recently got a call from a patrol officer regarding a woman who took a baseball bat to a car in the parking lot of a local apartment complex. She caved in the hood, smashed out every bit of glass and then punctured each tire with an ice pick.

He wanted to know if the value of the damage was over $500 should she be charged with felony malicious mischief. I asked him who the car belonged to and he told me she was the owner.

I advised him to tell her to have a wonderful night.

Rusting Car Bumper

The problem with the Taboo game is that it asked no questions to determine a meta-ethical framework.

For example, I believe that estimated or measured harm and and context are extremely important in deciding moral consequences. However, these qulaifications (and I'm sure others) were weeded out of any consideration.

However, the weird scenerios and questions all said things like "if nobody was harmed" or "there is absolutely no ill-effect" or "no other consequences" and so on.

Such qualifications make most of the questions moot.

DC

Amen-Moses

Hey cool, I got the same result. What a pair of permissives.

I did think the questions were a bit daft though. They didn't even say if he left the giblets in or not.

Amen-Moses

Hedwig

.04, 0, 0

I found that chicken question pretty frickin' disturbing.

I clicked on "a little wrong" on the question about the guy not visiting his mom's grave. Only because I have a problem with people who don't stick to their committments.

enfant terrible

0.04, 0.00, 0.00

It has been played 5109 times and the current averages are 0.30, 0.18, 0.43.

I have a logical problem with the chicken question:
If it is considered normal, why is it secret? Is the secrecy essential part of normalcy? I could not accept such a social norm as acceptable, although I don't find anything immoral in the individual action. The social norm seems rather anxiety-inducing. On the other hand, if "normal" just means "not condemned", that is a different issue.

My answer to the deathbed question also hinges on this definition of "normal", but in the opposite way, so my score would not change.

Taking "normal" as "usual", such a social norm seems fine - the mother should just know that it is pointless to expect the son to keep his promise. This does not hurt her in any way. But if "normal" just means "not condemned", the mother could still hope to rely on the promise, but would have a strong reason to doubt. If dying peacefully is considered better than dying anxiously (and I can't see why not), there is possible harm to mothers from such a norm.

Amen-Moses

I would have answered differently had he promised someone else to visit the grave, i.e his wife or brother. But once she popped her clogs she isn't going to know whether he is visiting or not is she?

Amen-Moses

yguy

This Steve Pinker?

Several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates are not persons, and thus neonaticide should not be classified as murder. Michael Tooley has gone so far as to say that neonaticide ought to be permitted during an interval after birth. Most philosophers (to say nothing of nonphilosophers) recoil from that last step, but the very fact that there can be a debate about the personhood of neonates, but no debate about the personhood of older children, makes it clearer why we feel more sympathy for an Amy Grossberg than for a Susan Smith.

So how do you provide grounds for outlawing neonaticide? The facts don't make it easy. Some philosophers suggest that people intuitively see neonates as so similar to older babies that you couldn't allow neonaticide without coarsening the way people treat children and other people in general. Again, the facts say otherwise. Studies in both modern and hunter-gatherer societies have found that neonaticidal women don't kill anyone but their newborns, and when they give birth later under better conditions, they can be devoted, loving mothers.

Gosh, a paragon of sanity like Steven Pinker thinks I'm in denial. I'm crestfallen.

trekbette

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

While I wouldn't choose to have sex with a chicken or my sibling, it's not for me to judge others for their private practices. If the siblings choose to have kids, maybe it would be a different story. But probably not.

The only thing I was very against was eating the cat. The idea of eating a family pet--a creature you've taken into your home and loved and taken care-- just seems wrong to me.

Ronin

If it harms none , do what you will.

Calzaer

yguy committing a fallacy? I'm so disillusioned. ( )

Or, to put it another way:

This yguy?

"Originally posted by Philosoft
So, to sum up: transsexuality and pedophilia are analagous because both are "weird"? Seriously?"

Yes.

Gosh, a paragon of sanity like yguy disputing a man with a Ph.d and several published works to his name. I'm crestfallen.