Check your Morality - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**Alina20100** · 10-25-2006, 01:24 PM

This is interesting:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm

**CathBraun** · 10-25-2006, 01:59 PM

a lot of those questions were rather similar to eaxhother
Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 84%

What does this mean?

Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.

How to interpret your score

The higher your percentage score the more parsimonious your moral framework. In other words, a high score is suggestive of a moral framework that comprises a minimal number of moral principles that apply across a range of circumstances and acts. What is a high score? As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework. However, perhaps a better way to think about this is to see how your score compares to other people's scores.

In fact, your score of 84% is significantly higher than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably smaller range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally irrelevant that other people consider to be morally relevant.

Moral Parsimony - good or bad?

We make no judgement about whether moral parsimony is a good or bad thing. Some people will think that on balance it is a good thing and that we should strive to minimise the number of moral principles that form our moral frameworks. Others will suspect that moral parsimony is likely to render moral frameworks simplistic and that an overly parsimonious moral framework will leave us unable to deal with the complexity of real circumstances and acts. We'll leave it up to you to decide who is right.

How was your score calculated?

Your score was calculated by combining and averaging your scores in the four categories that appear below.

Geographical Distance

This category has to do with the impact of geographical distance on the application of moral principles. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied equally when dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in their geographical location in relation to the person making the judgement.

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

In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement.

Your score of 100% is a lot higher than the average score of 53% in this category.

It looks as if issues of family relatedness play have no significant role to play in your thinking about moral issues.

Acts and Omissions

This category has to do with whether there is a difference between the moral status of acting and omitting to act where the consequences are the same in both instances. Consider the following example. Let's assume that on the whole it is a bad thing if a person is poisoned whilst drinking a cola drink. One might then ask whether there is a moral difference between poisoning the coke, on the one hand (an act), and failing to prevent a person from drinking a coke someone else has poisoned, when in a position to do so, on the other (an omission). In this category then, the idea is to determine if moral principles are applied equally when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in whether the participants have acted or omitted to act.

Your score of 83% is much higher than the average score of 60% 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

This category has to do with whether scale is a factor in making moral judgements. A simple example will make this clear. Consider a situation where it is possible to save ten lives by sacrificing one life. Is there a moral difference between this choice and one where the numbers of lives involved are different but proportional - for example, saving 100 lives by sacrificing ten? In this category then, the idea is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in their scale, as in the sense described above.

Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.

It seems that scale, as it is described above, is not an important consideration in your moral worldview. But if, contrary to our findings, it is important, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

India and Australia

In Question 13 you were asked the following: You see an advertisement from a charity in a newspaper about a person in severe need in India. You can help this person at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so?

However, fifty percent of people undertaking this activity are asked a slightly different question, where the country Australia is substituted for the country India. The idea is to determine what kind of impact "culural distance" has on the moral judgements that people make. The important point here is that the vast majority of people who visit this web site are from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Consequently, in a comparison of the lives and lifestyles of TPM Online visitors, residents of India and residents of Australia, there will be bigger cultural differences between TPM Online visitors and residents of India than between TPM Online visitors and residents of Australia. Of course, whether a perception of cultural differences will enter into moral judgements, and if so, what its impact will be is entirely a matter of conjecture at this point. Indeed, whatever results we find here, they will only ever be suggestive of further avenues of enquiry. This aspect of the activity is simply not rigorous enough that it will be possible to draw definitive conclusions. It will nevertheless be interesting!

The Results

26% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were stongly obliged to help. This is exactly the same as the percentage who responded this way when asked about a person living in India.
43% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were weakly obliged to help. This is exactly the same as the percentage who responded this way when asked about a person living in India.
31% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were not obliged to help. This is exactly the same as the percentage who responded this way when asked about a person living in India. basically im rather moral, but i dont care about my family, and look to the greater good?
and i know a bit about the law on acts and ommissions

**UriDepkeeks** · 10-25-2006, 02:22 PM

a lot of those questions were rather similar to eaxhother

basically im rather moral, but i dont care about my family, and look to the greater good?
and i know a bit about the law on acts and ommissions

It does not measure morality but rather makes a stab at determining how, in relation to what they consider average, you might "utilise[d] a noticeably smaller range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tend[ed] to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally irrelevant that other people consider to be morally relevant."

In other words the "test" is pretty much meaningless.

**gtyruzzel** · 10-25-2006, 02:27 PM

Scale
This category has to do with whether scale is a factor in making moral judgements....In this category then, the idea is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in their scale, as in the sense described above.

Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category. Brought to you by the inventors of the Inquisition. Mr. Spock, however, is going to be pissed.

**kuklame** · 10-25-2006, 02:29 PM

In other words the "test" is pretty much meaningless.

Yeah...after taking the test a couple times, I have to agree.
I don't like the way they phrased the questions, such as "Do you feel you have a moral obligation to "XYZ."
I have an issue with the words "Moral" and "Obligation" in the same sentence.
I am not "obligated" to do anything except that which my body dictates I must do until die.
So I think the test concept is flawed.

**RedImmik** · 10-25-2006, 03:35 PM

I just took the test and answered as if I felt that I have no moral obligation to anyone and my score was:
Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 92%

I'm consistent.

**DiBellaBam** · 10-25-2006, 03:58 PM

Analysis
Your Parsimony Score is 38%

In fact, your score of 38% is significantly lower than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant. Hurm.. I guesse so.. I felt most of the questions were of Law and Common Sense.. not morality

**HarryMet** · 10-25-2006, 03:59 PM

I have an issue with the words "Moral" and "Obligation" in the same sentence.
I am not "obligated" to do anything except that which my body dictates I must do until die.

Immanuel Kant had something to say on this topic...embrace the turmoil of the categorical imperative.

**fereupfer** · 10-25-2006, 04:47 PM

Ahh, thinky brainy stuff.

**Evdokia** · 10-25-2006, 10:18 PM

Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 51%

In fact, your score of 51% is slightly lower than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant. i think its quite open to interpretation, and would have liked it to give options more than just "stongly obligated" "weakly obligated" or "not obligated". What if im moderately obligated??

**mikaelluioy** · 10-26-2006, 02:24 AM

What if you're not obligated, but she's hot...

**Fhgzmftq** · 10-26-2006, 07:18 AM

Immanuel Kant had something to say on this topic...embrace the turmoil of the categorical imperative.

Kant was NOT an optimist.

**Nikkytas** · 10-26-2006, 07:38 AM

Kant was NOT an optimist.

That's a fairly big statement...

I haven't really studied Kant in geat detail (and from my memories of it, I was quite glad at the time), but I think a lot of Kant's ideas could be seen as quite optimistic.

That said, it would depend what we mean by optimist...

**freeringsf** · 10-26-2006, 08:03 AM

haha, i got a 37%. In other words, i confuse people with my thoughts... which is true haha.

In fact, your score of 37% is significantly lower than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant.

**BenWired306** · 10-26-2006, 01:15 PM

I took this test twice, one following it strictly, that is to say whether i felt that there is a moral obligation on my part to do something. Which is pretty much always "no", except in the cases where my action would directly harm others (not fixing the machine). I also took one thinking it as "would you help person X in this case?/Would you do Y?"

I got a whooping 92% for the first

then i took the other and I got... another 92%

10-25-2006, 01:24 PM	#1
Alina20100 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 568 Senior Member	Check your Morality This is interesting: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 01:59 PM	#2
CathBraun Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 502 Senior Member	a lot of those questions were rather similar to eaxhother Analysis Your Moral Parsimony Score is 84% What does this mean? Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant. How to interpret your score The higher your percentage score the more parsimonious your moral framework. In other words, a high score is suggestive of a moral framework that comprises a minimal number of moral principles that apply across a range of circumstances and acts. What is a high score? As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework. However, perhaps a better way to think about this is to see how your score compares to other people's scores. In fact, your score of 84% is significantly higher than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably smaller range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally irrelevant that other people consider to be morally relevant. Moral Parsimony - good or bad? We make no judgement about whether moral parsimony is a good or bad thing. Some people will think that on balance it is a good thing and that we should strive to minimise the number of moral principles that form our moral frameworks. Others will suspect that moral parsimony is likely to render moral frameworks simplistic and that an overly parsimonious moral framework will leave us unable to deal with the complexity of real circumstances and acts. We'll leave it up to you to decide who is right. How was your score calculated? Your score was calculated by combining and averaging your scores in the four categories that appear below. Geographical Distance This category has to do with the impact of geographical distance on the application of moral principles. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied equally when dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in their geographical location in relation to the person making the judgement. 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 In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement. Your score of 100% is a lot higher than the average score of 53% in this category. It looks as if issues of family relatedness play have no significant role to play in your thinking about moral issues. Acts and Omissions This category has to do with whether there is a difference between the moral status of acting and omitting to act where the consequences are the same in both instances. Consider the following example. Let's assume that on the whole it is a bad thing if a person is poisoned whilst drinking a cola drink. One might then ask whether there is a moral difference between poisoning the coke, on the one hand (an act), and failing to prevent a person from drinking a coke someone else has poisoned, when in a position to do so, on the other (an omission). In this category then, the idea is to determine if moral principles are applied equally when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in whether the participants have acted or omitted to act. Your score of 83% is much higher than the average score of 60% 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 This category has to do with whether scale is a factor in making moral judgements. A simple example will make this clear. Consider a situation where it is possible to save ten lives by sacrificing one life. Is there a moral difference between this choice and one where the numbers of lives involved are different but proportional - for example, saving 100 lives by sacrificing ten? In this category then, the idea is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in their scale, as in the sense described above. Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category. It seems that scale, as it is described above, is not an important consideration in your moral worldview. But if, contrary to our findings, it is important, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework. India and Australia In Question 13 you were asked the following: You see an advertisement from a charity in a newspaper about a person in severe need in India. You can help this person at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so? However, fifty percent of people undertaking this activity are asked a slightly different question, where the country Australia is substituted for the country India. The idea is to determine what kind of impact "culural distance" has on the moral judgements that people make. The important point here is that the vast majority of people who visit this web site are from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Consequently, in a comparison of the lives and lifestyles of TPM Online visitors, residents of India and residents of Australia, there will be bigger cultural differences between TPM Online visitors and residents of India than between TPM Online visitors and residents of Australia. Of course, whether a perception of cultural differences will enter into moral judgements, and if so, what its impact will be is entirely a matter of conjecture at this point. Indeed, whatever results we find here, they will only ever be suggestive of further avenues of enquiry. This aspect of the activity is simply not rigorous enough that it will be possible to draw definitive conclusions. It will nevertheless be interesting! The Results 26% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were stongly obliged to help. This is exactly the same as the percentage who responded this way when asked about a person living in India. 43% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were weakly obliged to help. This is exactly the same as the percentage who responded this way when asked about a person living in India. 31% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were not obliged to help. This is exactly the same as the percentage who responded this way when asked about a person living in India. basically im rather moral, but i dont care about my family, and look to the greater good? and i know a bit about the law on acts and ommissions Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 02:22 PM	#3
UriDepkeeks Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 396 Senior Member	a lot of those questions were rather similar to eaxhother basically im rather moral, but i dont care about my family, and look to the greater good? and i know a bit about the law on acts and ommissions It does not measure morality but rather makes a stab at determining how, in relation to what they consider average, you might "utilise[d] a noticeably smaller range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tend[ed] to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally irrelevant that other people consider to be morally relevant." In other words the "test" is pretty much meaningless. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 02:27 PM	#4
gtyruzzel Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 430 Senior Member	Scale This category has to do with whether scale is a factor in making moral judgements....In this category then, the idea is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in their scale, as in the sense described above. Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category. Brought to you by the inventors of the Inquisition. Mr. Spock, however, is going to be pissed. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 02:29 PM	#5
kuklame Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 374 Senior Member	In other words the "test" is pretty much meaningless. Yeah...after taking the test a couple times, I have to agree. I don't like the way they phrased the questions, such as "Do you feel you have a moral obligation to "XYZ." I have an issue with the words "Moral" and "Obligation" in the same sentence. I am not "obligated" to do anything except that which my body dictates I must do until die. So I think the test concept is flawed. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 03:35 PM	#6
RedImmik Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 401 Senior Member	I just took the test and answered as if I felt that I have no moral obligation to anyone and my score was: Analysis Your Moral Parsimony Score is 92% I'm consistent. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 03:58 PM	#7
DiBellaBam Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 368 Senior Member	Analysis Your Parsimony Score is 38% In fact, your score of 38% is significantly lower than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant. Hurm.. I guesse so.. I felt most of the questions were of Law and Common Sense.. not morality Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 03:59 PM	#8
HarryMet Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 380 Senior Member	I have an issue with the words "Moral" and "Obligation" in the same sentence. I am not "obligated" to do anything except that which my body dictates I must do until die. Immanuel Kant had something to say on this topic...embrace the turmoil of the categorical imperative. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 04:47 PM	#9
fereupfer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 383 Senior Member	Ahh, thinky brainy stuff. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-25-2006, 10:18 PM	#10
Evdokia Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 463 Senior Member	Analysis Your Moral Parsimony Score is 51% In fact, your score of 51% is slightly lower than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant. i think its quite open to interpretation, and would have liked it to give options more than just "stongly obligated" "weakly obligated" or "not obligated". What if im moderately obligated?? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-26-2006, 02:24 AM	#11
mikaelluioy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 424 Senior Member	What if you're not obligated, but she's hot... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-26-2006, 07:18 AM	#12
Fhgzmftq Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 352 Senior Member	Immanuel Kant had something to say on this topic...embrace the turmoil of the categorical imperative. Kant was NOT an optimist. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-26-2006, 07:38 AM	#13
Nikkytas Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 378 Senior Member	Kant was NOT an optimist. That's a fairly big statement... I haven't really studied Kant in geat detail (and from my memories of it, I was quite glad at the time), but I think a lot of Kant's ideas could be seen as quite optimistic. That said, it would depend what we mean by optimist... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-26-2006, 08:03 AM	#14
freeringsf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 501 Senior Member	haha, i got a 37%. In other words, i confuse people with my thoughts... which is true haha. In fact, your score of 37% is significantly lower than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

10-26-2006, 01:15 PM	#15
BenWired306 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 471 Senior Member	I took this test twice, one following it strictly, that is to say whether i felt that there is a moral obligation on my part to do something. Which is pretty much always "no", except in the cases where my action would directly harm others (not fixing the machine). I also took one thinking it as "would you help person X in this case?/Would you do Y?" I got a whooping 92% for the first then i took the other and I got... another 92% Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)