Test Your Morality
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PoiSoNeD_CaNdY replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 5:14am |
 Coolness: 92595 | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 5:59am |
 Coolness: 686495 | Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 8:03am |
 Coolness: 103670 | Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: -1. ".....Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view." huh? bleh. que sera sera "....This activity asks people precisely to make judgements about whether acts can be wrong if they harm only the protagonist and whether they can be wrong if they harm no-one. If the answer to the second question is "no", then automatically any claim that the scenarios presented here involve moral wrongdoing results in difficulties......" |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 8:21am |
 Coolness: 121820 | Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00. What do these results mean? Are you thinking straight about morality? You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. 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. Yet the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios wrong in terms of your moral outlook. It is a bit of a puzzle! yah, I tend to be confused sometimes (totally permissive) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 8:51am |
 Coolness: 122345 | Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.92. Your Interference Factor is: 0.75. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 8:53am |
| Coolness: 122345 | *lol*
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.92 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.34. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less permissive than average. Your Interference Factor of 0.75 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 more likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average. Your Universalising Factor of 0.75 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.45. This means you are more likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned). |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 9:03am |
 Coolness: 69880 | 0.21
0.00 0.00 im way more permissive than most apparently |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 10:52am |
| Coolness: 122345 | what is wrong with all of you? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 10:53am |
| Coolness: 121820 | what is wrong with YOU? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 10:55am |
| Coolness: 122345 | there's NOTHING okay with eating your dead cat or having sex with a chicken |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:03am |
| Coolness: 121820 | what's wrong about eating a dead cat?
do you eat dead chickens, or dead beef, or dead calves, or dead vegetables, or dead lamb? just because it's a cat doesn't make it any less moral.. remeber that eating cat is a perfectly normal thing in some countries you're way too influenced by society's "morals" which mean nothing when you think about it people give waaaaay too much importance to sex nowadays, remember it's a normal body function and every siongle species does it.. only humans make such a fuss about it maybe having sex with a dead chicken isn't what I would do but if it rocks their boat who are YOU to judge anyone? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Miss_Amanda replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:04am |
 Coolness: 161450 | I'm siding with Eldee on this one |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:07am |
| Coolness: 121820 | wow, I have been waiting to hear this in years!
=Þ |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:16am |
| Coolness: 122345 | there's something wrong with eating your family pet- it's just as wrong as eating your dead brother. i mean eating somehting you love very much is immoral. there's a difference in eating 'cat' and 'your pet'. and even then i think it's pretty bad.
and about mr. chicken-fucker, i think there's something very wron gwith an individual who wants to fuck a chicken. it doesn't hurt anyone, but that person is obviously not really thinking straight if they think it's okay to do that. i don't think doing a dead chicken is any sort of natural human instinct. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:24am |
| Coolness: 122345 | and then he ate it. (and thanks for reminding me pat) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» eLDee replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:24am |
| Coolness: 121820 | what's a difference between a "family pet" and any other annimal that belongs to the same species.. just because it has a "name" doesn't mean it's not edible. And it depends how you see that, in some cultures it used to be a custum to eat a dead relative to be "one" with them and it was considered the biggest honnor you could do to somebody. It's all relative, depending where yoi lvie you will be influenced to think a certain way, but untill you can detach yourself from that only then you can see life like it is.
Morality is something invented by humans, it doesn't affect any other living or non-living thing in the universe. And how is having sexual intercourse with a dead chicken any worse than actually burining it's corpse for an hour, then ripping it appart and eating it?? Answer that and be honnest! |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:32am |
| Coolness: 122345 | Originally posted by FLECKALICIOUS...
what's a difference between a "family pet" and any other annimal that belongs to the same species.. just because it has a "name" doesn't mean it's not edible. And it depends how you see that, in some cultures it used to be a custum to eat a dead relative to be "one" with them and it was considered the biggest honnor you could do to somebody. It's all relative, depending where yoi lvie you will be influenced to think a certain way, but untill you can detach yourself from that only then you can see life like it is. Morality is something invented by humans, it doesn't affect any other living or non-living thing in the universe. And how is having sexual intercourse with a dead chicken any worse than actually burining it's corpse for an hour, then ripping it appart and eating it?? Answer that and be honnest! i already answered the chicken thing- humans shouldn't feel the need to have intercourse with poultry. point finale. eating is to keep you alive. the need/ want for sex is to reproduce (even if we dont want to that's why we get the urges to). sleeping with a chicken- well i can't explain that one. and don't tell me there's no difference between eating your brother (consciously) and eating a steak. it has more than a name. it's about the feelings you feel towards a pet. i can't explain it to you if you think it's right. it's something called feelings, and sometimes those make you do (or not do) things that you can't explain. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:36am |
| Coolness: 122345 | 'life like it is' might not be the 'way it is' it's 'the way things would be if emotions didn't exist', which is not the way it 'should' be or we wouldn't feel them |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» elixireleven replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:44am |
 Coolness: 74745 | this is ridiculous.
why dont we all judge our actions by comparing it to what "god" deems as "wrong" or "profane". social taboos my ass. i cant believe they dragged religion into this. very reminiscent of sodam and gamorrha Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.79. Your Interference Factor is: 0.50. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75. as far as eating a cat is concerned, well some people do. theyre not giving enough information about the family itself, what if they're poor or starving with distended bellies and their children are suffering from malnutrition. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» little_sarah replied on Thu Feb 26, 2004 @ 11:50am |
| Coolness: 122345 | i read see anythign about malnutrition in there, as far as my answer to the questions goes, it's a just a regular family eating THIER PET. |
Test Your Morality
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
