bmetzler's Journal: As seen elsewhere

Taboo Quiz

Results:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.40.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You did not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong. Where you have judged an act to be morally problematic, it is likely that you did so because you think that what makes it wrong comes from God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement. You indicated that an action can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook. However, there is a tension in your responses in that you indicated that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here. Given that the actions described in these scenarios are private and it was specified as clearly as possible that they did not involve harm, it isn't clear where you think the harm might lie.

Weehah that was fun!

[Trolling4Dollars]

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

What do these results mean?
(They mean I was raised half catholic, half protestant and chose the path of neither)

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 an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one

Re:Weehah that was fun!

[Some Woman]

I win.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

This was a contest to see who is closest to zero, right? :^) The 0.03 is only because I said that a couple of things would make me uncomfortable, but I know better than to think that my discomfort translates to immorality.

Re:Weehah that was fun!

[Trolling4Dollars]

Obligatory Stooges reference proving that I take nothing seriously:

Curly: Woob, woob, woob, woob, woob, woob, woob... Moe: Enchanted
Larry: Enraptured
Curly: Embalmed!

Re:Weehah that was fun!

[dubiousdave]

Nah, I kicked your moralizing butt. 0,0,-1

My results were a little different

[mskfisher]

My results were different because I took "harm" as God sees it, not as man sees it. So the "harm" could be mental, emotional, or spiritual, not just physical.
So they thought I was confused. :)

Meta Analysis

[cyranoVR]

What's really going on here? Anybody who is interested is invited to my check out my journal entry on circular logic [slashdot.org].