frozen chicken, mmm

[jay]

This is an amusing philosophical game, better than most of its online companions... my results:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04. (mean = 0.30)
[more permissive than average]
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. (mean = 0.18)
[less likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing]
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00 (mean = 0.46)
[less likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms]

But I'm not a utilitarian, really... (chuckle)

Comments

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Yet another way in which we are similar. I came up with the same results.

I had to object slightly to the guy about the deathbed promise, but not for any of the reasons that the put forth. I think it was, in fact, wrong for him to promise something like that in the first place, and I'd be concerned about what it meant about his ability to keep his word in a general sense. But having promised that and failed to live up to it, well, who really cares, anyway? If it were a promise to someone LIVING, I'd just say it was grounds for renegotiation of the agreement. She's not around to do that, so there we are.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Which results seem to place us slightly toward the "moralizing" end, relative to some of friends, even if we're far to the left compared to their broad averages.

Likewise, the deathbed promise bothered me... it was an agreement, after all. And the older girl pushing off the younger one *and hurting him* ... the other scenarioes seemed pretty harmless to me.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Agreed about the kid pushing the other. Yep, that's wrong. Should there be some societal consequence for that behavior? No, not really. But there should be some PERSONAL consequence. I mean, if my kid did that, I'd be all over her in a hot second to go apologize at least.

And I agree with the question posted downthread--what does "-1" mean?

[cathouse-blues.livejournal.com]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.38.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Interesting... certainly a broad philosophical difference between us, although you're pretty close to the broad averages in all of those areas.

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

i got here by reading a friends friend page

I've just posted this on my LJ

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Personally I think of myself as highly moral for example I think torture is wrong any culture - they just used examples which were consensual and were not about removing power and control from another living creature

I wonder what the result would be for a test with a LJ grouping

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

One can be morally permissive without being *amoral*... I think that one can be highly moral, yet generally permissive of others' judgements and decisions.

[rosefox]

0.00, 0.00, -1. Big surprise there.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Me, too.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

You didn't have a problem with the older child shoving out the younger one? Interesting. I wonder what the -1 means, instead of a zero there...

[rosefox]

I did. I didn't have a problem with anything else, though.

[geekchick]

"Your Universalising Factor of -1 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.34. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions)."

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

My scores exactly.

Incidentally, this didn't show up on my friends page. LJ's acting up again.

[geekchick]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.