[FoRK] Moral Busybody Test
Contempt for Meatheads
jbone at place.org
Fri Apr 16 09:26:01 PDT 2004
Fun one... also check out the Battleground God test (test your
consistency / rationality -wrt- certain beliefs) and the
FWIW, my results:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
What do these results mean?
Your Moralising Quotient is an aggregate measure of your tendency to
condemn the actions described in these scenarios as morally wrong. A
score of 1.00 indicates a fully moralising position. A score of 0.00 is
a fully permissive response. (See below for more on these.)
Your Interference Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to
judge the actions described here as being the legitimate target of
societal interference in the form of prevention or punishment. A score
of 1.00 indicates that you think that every act described in these
scenarios is subject to societal interference. A score of 0.00
indicates that you think that these acts are essentially a private
matter, and that societal interference is inappropriate.
Your Universalising Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to
judge moral wrongdoing in universal terms. A score of 1.00 means that
every time you have determined one of the acts depicted in these
scenarios to be morally wrong, you have universalised the judgement of
moral wrongoing; that is, you have indicated that the act is wrong
regardless of prevailing cultural norms and social conventions. A score
of 0.00, on the other hand, means that where you see moral wrong in the
acts depicted in these scenarios, you have not once universalised the
judgement of moral wrongdoing; that is, you have indicated that whether
an act is to be thought of as wrong is largely a matter of social
norms, and that it is quite possible that what is wrong in one culture
may not be wrong in another. A score of -1 means that you saw no moral
wrong in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, and so it
is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which you
see moral wrongdoing in universal terms.
In line with Haidt, Koller and Dias (1993)* - though implemented in a
much less rigorous way in this activity - it is possible to combine the
interference and universalising factors to establish a more
sophisticated picture of a person's moral intuitions (see diagram on
main page). A fully moralised position endorses full interference, and
universalises across the board. A fully permissive position rejects
both interference and also any universalising tendency. An
enforceable-conventional response sees interference as legitimate
(presumably as a mechanism to enforce important social norms), but
rejects any universalising tendency. A personal-morality response makes
use of universal claims about right and wrong, but tends to see these
as being a private matter and not as being a legitimate target of
societal intervention. Where you fall in terms of these four factors is
indicated by the blue square on the diagram on the main results page.
*See the further reading section of this activity for the internet
location of this article.
Are you thinking straight about morality?
You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios.
Consequently, there is no inconsistency in the way that you responded
to the questions in this activity. However, it is interesting to note
that had you judged any of these acts to be morally problematic, it is
hard to see how this might have been justified. You don't think that an
act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even
the person doing the act, is harmed by it. The actions described in
these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly
as possible that they didn't involve harm. One possibility might be
that the people undertaking these acts are in some way harmed by them.
But you indicated that you don't think that an act can be morally wrong
solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So, as
you probably realised, even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the
actions described in these scenarios morally problematic in terms of
your moral outlook. Probably, in your own terms, you were right to
adopt a morally permissive view.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis
More information about the FoRK