Compare Your Morality

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/morality_play.htm

----------

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 61%

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 61% is not significantly different than the average score of 65%. This suggests that you have utilised an average number of moral principles in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge similar aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant as other people.


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 71% 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 51% is a bit lower than the average score of 56% in this category.

It seems then that family relatedness is sometimes a relevant factor 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 that's the case, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework


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 67% is a little higher than the average score of 57% in this category.

However, it is not high enough to rule out the possibility that the distinction between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral thinking. More than likely you tend to believe that those who act have a slightly greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. If this is what you do believe, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.


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 76% is identical to the average score in this category.

Nevertheless, you have scored highly in this category, which suggests that scale, as it is described above, is not a particularly important consideration in your moral worldview. To the extent that it is important, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

goofyfish ...

Fun bit. Thanks.

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS Guess a career in Corrections really twists a person

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

very interesting...

Yeesh I knew my morality was straight forward but this is rediculous!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure I liked their term "moral obligation". Seems to me like they mean socially obliged or something. It's only our own choices which matter in this, and I don't think such internal things can be called obligations.

However...

 

Some of those questions my answers could've gone either way, and it's a small number of questions to judge on... but for what it's worth:

 

Great fun!

In fact, your score of 57% is slightly lower than the average score of 65%. 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.

 

That was very intersting (especially the ques about OZ seing as im from there)

____________________________________________________
Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 100%

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 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 65%. 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 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.


The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.

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 58% 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 100% 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

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 72% 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 Australia. 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 India is substituted for the country Australia. 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 problem with this site is that it is too easy to tell how it's asking you questions - for instance, all the questiuons where you can sacrifice one thing for ten others - it made it harder to rethink them as different circumstances. The only reason I faled to get a 1090% parsimonious one was because they forced me to make a decision between my son and ten strangers as being morally obligartory- - which I object to - because I don't think we havce any moral obligations independant of context.

Bill


"Grrrrrrr..."

 

**In fact, your score of 51% is significantly lower than the average score of 66%. 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.**

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How can they expect me to choose between my child and 10 strangers??
How about when they asked "kill one to save 10"....if you didn't kill the one, wouldn't you be killing 10 to save one???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I supose we goddesses aren't such logical thinkers...no offense toward bebelina of course

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~Aphrodite~

 

Thanx Goofyfish.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A nice play game. Here are the results:

Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 84%

What does this mean?

In fact, your score of 84% is significantly higher than the average score of 66%. 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.

Geographical Distance

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

The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.

Family Relatedness

Your score of 67% is a bit higher than the average score of 58% 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 67% is a little higher than the average score of 59% in this category.

However, it is not high enough to rule out the possibility that the distinction between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral thinking. More than likely you tend to believe that those who act have a slightly greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. If this is what you do believe, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

Scale

Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 75% 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 Australia. You can help this person at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so?

The Results

23% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were stongly obliged to help compared to 22% who responded this way when asked about a person in severe need in India.

I felt strongly obliged, in as well the Australian as the Indian case.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And Aphrodite is right. How can I ever choose for another child(children) above my own...!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

:bugeye:

 

Found another one

Philosophical Health Check
Thank you for taking the Philosophical Health Check (PHC).

How the PHC works

The PHC is designed to identify tensions or contradictions (a Tension Quotient) between various beliefs that you have. The PHC does not aim to identify which of your beliefs are true or false, but where the set of beliefs you hold may not be compatible with each other.

The PHC report below lists pairs of beliefs which are identified as being 'in tension'. What this means is either that: (1) There is a contradiction between the two beliefs or (2) Some sophisticated reasoning is required to enable both beliefs to be held consistently. In terms of action, this means in each case you should either (1) Give up one of the two beliefs or (2) Find some rationally coherent way of reconciling them.

It may help to think of the idea of 'tension' in terms of an intellectual balancing act. Where there is little or no tension between beliefs, little intellectual effort is required to balance both beliefs. But where there is a lot of tension, either one has to 'jump off the tightrope', by abandoning one belief; maintain one's balance by intellectual effort and dexterity; or else 'fall off the tightrope' by failing to reconcile the tension and holding contradictory beliefs.

This test only detects tensions between pre-selected pairs of beliefs - it does not detect all the possible tensions between all permutations of beliefs. So there may well be additional tensions between beliefs you hold which are not detected by the test.

We hope that the brief analysis below of the beliefs you have which are in tension is useful. For a bit of fun, we have also included a "tension quotient" score and data about how other people have performed on this test - but please don't take it too seriously! To help keep your balance, why not join the TPM Online mailing list. We'll keep you informed of new activities and games as we develop them, and also about goings-on at TPM more generally.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tension Quotient Score Tension Quotient = 53%

The average player of this activity to date has a Tension Quotient of 27%.


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

Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
627 of the 1406 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?

Further reading in the TPM Online archive (Subscribers Only)
Note to realists: grow up - Interview with Richard Rorty
The third Rée - Interview with Jonathan Rée
Defending 'consumerist' ethics - Peter Singer and preference consequentialism
Relativism and the philosophy of religious education by Robert Ellis.


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

Questions 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?
484 of the 1406 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not.

Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate.

Further reading in the TPM Online archive (Subscribers Only)
The moral imperative to rebel against God by Peter Fosl, plus debate
Free to do evil - Interview with Richard Swinburne
The problem of evil by Roy A Jackson
The God experiment - Interview with Russell Stannard


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

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?
471 of the 1406 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.

Further reading in the TPM Online archive (Subscribers Only)
Note to realists: grow up - Interview with Richard Rorty
The third Rée - Interview with Jonathan Rée
Painting the bigger picture - Interview with John Searle
The new realism - Interview with Roy Bhaskar
The nemesis of pseudo-science - Interview with Alan Sokal
Quantum confusion by Christopher Norris


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

Questions 26 and 6: Can I make choices for my own body?
157 of the 1406 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Individuals have sole rights over their own bodies
And also that:
Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal

Why, if individuals have sole rights over their own bodies, should voluntary euthanasia be illegal? This appears to be a straight contradiction. Ways around this might include adding a condition to the first principle, to the effect that 'except when it comes to decisions of life and death'. But what would justify this added condition? You might also think that euthanasia is different because it requires third-party assistance. Yet normally we do not think that the right a person has over their body is forfeited if a third party is involved. If I want a tattoo, I need third party assistance. But this doesn't mean I don't have sole right to decide whether or not I am tattooed.

Further reading in the TPM Online archive (Subscribers Only)
The morality of drug use by Paul McDonald, plus debate
The case for legalised euthanasia, amicus brief by Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, Thomas Scanlon, Judith Jarvis Thomson, plus introduction
Defending 'consumerist' ethics - Peter Singer and preference consequentialism


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

Questions 12 and 30: Is the future fixed?
119 of the 1406 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise
And also that:
The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny

Most people think that humans have free will. Yet many of the same people believe in fate, or destiny. But how can both beliefs be true? If 'what will be, will be' no matter what we do, then how can we have freedom? For example, imagine I am in a shop, deciding whether to buy one of two coats. If one believes in fate or destiny, then it must be true that it is inevitable which coat I buy. In which case, when I stand before them, choosing, it must be an illusion that I have a genuine choice, as fate has decreed that there is, in fact, only one choice I can make. I seem to be making my own mind up, but forces beyond my control have already determined which way I choose. This makes it untrue that 'having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise'. So reconciling belief in destiny and free will is a tricky task.

Further reading in the TPM Online archive (Subscribers Only)
Que será, será - Interview with Ted Honderich
More elbow room - Interview with Daniel Dennett
Gene machines - Interview with Richard Dawkins
Freedom is necessity by Timothy Sprigge
Keeping the dogs of determinism at bay by Tom Clark
Mapping the free will debate by Mathew Iredale


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

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?
411 of the 1406 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.

Further reading in the TPM Online archive (Subscribers Only)
Ghosts and minds by Micahel LaBossiere
Sci-Phi: On the self by Mathew Iredale
Cloning and immortality by Robin Harwood
Descartes, Hume and human nature by Francis Moorcroft
Self and body - Interview with Sydney Shoemaker


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

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?
603 of the 1406 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless.

Further reading in the TPM Online archive (Subscribers Only)
The rediscovery of aesthetics by Michael Proudfoot
The Rawls of aesthetics by Per Brask and Mark Fortier


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

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
560 of the 1406 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.

Further reading in the TPM Online archive (Subscribers Only)
The morality of drug use by Paul McDonald, plus debate
Debate: Libertarianism by David Conway and Alan Haworth


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

That concludes the Tension Quotient analysis. Many thanks for participating.

 

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 39% is significantly lower than the average score of 66%. 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.

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 73% 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 2% is a lot lower than the average score of 58% 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

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 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

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 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.

 

i've said it once, and I'll say it again, discussing morality in a manner which is not consistent with reality is simply absurd. Basically it told me that I have a strong positive bias to my family, a weaker positive bias to my country and very little bias to scale.

Unfortunately, in every question it became a black or white decision. Are you morally obligated to give someone a kidney? I don't think so. Donating a kidney significantly shortens the life of the donator, and only briefly elongates the life of someone with kidney problems. so whether this person was a cousin or a complete stranger, i would still consider it unwise.

Often I was asked decide whether this group dies or this other group. Besides the emperor of Rome feeling I got... ("Bring the gladiator to me... he amuses me..") I don't think that the question is appropriate. would I sacrifice my son to save 10 children? No, I'd likly try to save them both, as best I can. thats what the moral obligation is. Simply putting 100 people in one room and 10 people in another and telling me "you have to push one of these buttons which will release toxic gas into the room you choose and open the door in the other room" is not a valid moral dilema.

Maybe the problem is that we don't really know what it means to be moral, or at least what our morality should encompass.

For instance:
Q1: A woman is walking along the street and her purse is stolen, Do you go after the person who snatches the purse, or try to memorize what he looks like for the police, or nothing?

Q2: Someone looses control of their car in front of you on the highway. You are not injured, but it looks as though the person in the car has been hurt. Do you stop and offer aid, stop and call for assistance, or keep going, assured someone else will take care of it?

Q3: A woman is walking along the street and her purse is stolen, and she has a minor wound in her leg. Do you hurry to help her, pursue the attacker, try to get what he looks like to the police, or nothing?

Q4: A man you don't know in a bar is fall-on-your-face drunk. He has his car keys in his hand, and no one is trying to stop him from getting to his car. Do you stop him and call a taxi, Stop him and offer a ride home, Stop him and buy him a drink, or let him drive home?

Q5: Someone loses control of their car in front of you on the highway. You are not injured, but the crash was serious and the driver and passenger are slumped over in their seat. Do you stop and offer aid, stop and call for assistance, or keep going, assured that someone else will take care of it?

Q6: A woman is being mugged across the street. The attacker shoots her twice and takes off by foot. Do you pursue, aid the woman, call for help, or do nothing?

Well, I'm sure that you get the idea. Lets face it, we all probably wouldn't get involved in half of these situations... we walk through our life muttering quietly "don't get involved, don't get involved"... but that's really the crux of morality in the first place. getting involved is what we as human beings are called to do as social creatures. Of course, we can only help to our abilities. If a house is burning, sometimes it is wiser to have the experts try to put it out. Certainly if one has medical training, the obligation to aid an injured person is larger because one has the ability to do so. I have no idea how to check for a broken neck, so maybe pulling someone unconcious from a car would not be wise for me unless their lives were in immediate danger, but I do know how to stop bleeding, or at least slow it (as should everyone) and therefore would have a higher obligation to aid someone if possible.


edit:
Asguard, where is that test at?

 

Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 45%

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 45% is significantly lower than the average score of 66%. 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.

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 73% 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 51% is a bit lower than the average score of 58% in this category.


It seems then that family relatedness is sometimes a relevant factor 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 that's the case, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework

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 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

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 27% 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.

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

Hmm. Too many of the questions were too ambiguous for me... Didn't like it. :bugeye:

 

where was WHAT at?

(im drunk sorry)

 

The tension test. But nevermind.

I bit 1 bullet and got shot twice in the Battleground test, even though I don't think getting shot the one time counted because I misunderstood the question.

 

Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 49%

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 49% is significantly lower than the average score of 66%. 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.

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 73% in this category.
I actually don't agree with this in general, but there are cases when I'll better help a fellow latvian thn a chinese

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 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

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 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

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 27% 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.



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


24% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were stongly obliged to help compared to 21% who responded this way when asked about a person in severe need 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.
33% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were not obliged to help compared to 37% who responded this way when asked about a person in severe need in India.
============================
Seeing my results I'm thinking of repeating this test.
I feel bad

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The first one made it too obvious where it was heading, allowing someone to reply in a manner to ensure they "passed" or remained consistant.

The "Battlefield God" Test was better... however, it rewards consistency in answers while completely failing to test whether someone actually believes what they are saying or merely works out what they SHOULD say after the question is read.
For example, if one was to recieve a "medal of honour" while arguing on the non-believers side, then theoretically they should be acting in a totally anti-social manner... after all, some of the questions seemed to indicate that if a god did not exist, then there is no meaing to life (or something like that). In other words, the test only guides one into a logical train of thought without that person evidencing any belief in that train of thought.

 

In other words: Propaganda,...