jay: (data-gathering)
jay ([personal profile] jay) wrote2003-06-23 09:38 am

frozen chicken, mmm

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)
rosefox: Me with raised eyebrow, skeptical and mischievous. (wiseass)

[personal profile] rosefox 2003-06-23 05:39 pm (UTC)(link)
0.00, 0.00, -1. Big surprise there.

[identity profile] patgreene.livejournal.com 2003-06-23 09:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Me, too.

[identity profile] brian1789.livejournal.com 2003-06-23 09:27 pm (UTC)(link)
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: Green books on library shelves. (Default)

[personal profile] rosefox 2003-06-23 10:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I did. I didn't have a problem with anything else, though.
geekchick: (Default)

[personal profile] geekchick 2003-06-24 08:01 am (UTC)(link)
"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)."