A morality play.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2002-09-02 11:34am

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

See how parsimonious your morals are. It's a fun little excercise.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-02 01:18pm

How's this.

In fact, your score of 30% 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.

Mwhahahhaahahha!!!

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-09-02 01:18pm

I got a score of 37%, whatever that means.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-09-03 01:07pm

92%, which means my set of morals are based on what I think is right and wrong, and not other factors like Scale, Distance, etc.

I.E. If it's wrong to hurt your brother it's just as wrong to hurt a stranger.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-09-03 01:51pm

I got a score of 43% I think that morality is not set in stone, but that one should think about the situation at hand before making a judgement.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2002-09-03 09:37pm

My Moral Parsimony Score is 45%

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2002-09-03 10:00pm

76%, whatever that means. The test is way too obvious, and I could've easily gotten any score that I wanted to on the 1st try. Asking the same question 3 times in a row with differant words ain't what I call a test.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-04 02:12am

aerius wrote:76%, whatever that means. The test is way too obvious, and I could've easily gotten any score that I wanted to on the 1st try. Asking the same question 3 times in a row with differant words ain't what I call a test.

Although the questions are basically the same I think they find out different things about you by changing the numbers involved, the distance and whether you'd be actively killing someone or just denying them aid in favor of others. It's not quite like the lame questionaires that you get from undergrad psych and sociology students but on the surface it can appear to be the same. (I wonder if they take into consideration that people taking the test can be influenced by previous test taking?)

That you see most of the questions as repeats of the same questions is why your score is so much higher than mine. You recogized the similarities and didn't change your answer based on what could be taken as minor differences (distance, numbers etc..)

I also have a theory that most people did not pick the in-between answers very often. The few times I picked stuff like the "slightly moral obligated" the percentage of people who chose the same was very very low in most cases. I think this is partially because we routinely have it drilled into our heads that being hypocritical, or being percieved as such, is one of the worst things to do. So the yes or no, black or white answer is the most common despite how much people like to speak about shades of grey.

I have a degree in history and one thing that working on that has shown me is that most things are shades of grey.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-09-04 12:45pm

aerius wrote:76%, whatever that means. The test is way too obvious, and I could've easily gotten any score that I wanted to on the 1st try. Asking the same question 3 times in a row with differant words ain't what I call a test.

Actually, you are supposed to ask the same question 3 or 4 times. People tend to lie on these tests, but one the first time. After that they tend to be more truthful.

Also, you are supposed to ask what have you done, not what you would do. If you ask what would you do, people tend to lie more.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2002-09-04 04:34pm

I got 59%

Said my morals were strongerly affected by distance (value family more than others).

Got 100% for scale (my morals didn't change because of numbers).

Got 35% for Acts and Ommisions (I deferientiate between acting and ommision). Which is strange, I said I was responsible for telling of defective, poisonous stuff, but must be because I kept saying I'm not responsible for some guys blindness if I don't give him 10 bucks.

-----------

Interesting question, that I'd like to see more people answer in detail, just because I see how many people might answer differently and have different reasons for doing so:

You can save the life of your kid, or ten other kids. Which are you obligated to do?

I said your own kid. Because I don't consider numbers, and I feel obligated to save my own kid before others.... basically would not kill my kid to save someone else, regardless of wether that's 1 or a million. The purpose of a parent is to raise/protect one's own kid. Its the responsability of others to save their own. While saving other kids is always prefered, couldn't do it at the expense of one's own. I wouldn't expect others to make the same sacrifice. (note I don't actually have a kid, but that's just how I feel about the subject).

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-09-04 06:10pm

geographical distance

Your score of 34% is significantly lower than the average score of 73% in this category.

Family Relatedness

Your score of 35% is a lot lower than the average score of 57% in this category.

Acts and Omissions

Your score of 51% is a little lower than the average score of 59% in this category.

Scale

Your score of 51% is significantly lower than the average score of 75% in this category.