View Full Version : What do you think is Taboo?
carrot red
07-12-2005, 01:12 PM
Some of the questions are very weird, but it’s an interesting *game.* Try it. (http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm)
Here are my results:
There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. It is likely that you think that what makes any of these actions morally problematic has to do with God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgment. You indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. There is nothing contradictory then in a claim that the actions depicted in these scenarios are morally problematic. 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 didn't involve harm, it isn't clear where you think the harm might lie.
How did you do compared to other people?
Taboo has been played 34233 times.
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.77 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.29. 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 0.60 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.17. 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 0.80 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.40. 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).
Starkist
07-12-2005, 01:24 PM
What do I think is Taboo? How about:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00000DMBJ.16._AA260_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
Seriously though,
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.40.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.
Not quite sure how well the test works, since it seems to presume a correct viewpoint of no harm, no foul. Interesting though.
fatcatfan
07-12-2005, 01:36 PM
4. Can an individual action be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no-one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it at all?
I don't like the question. Who determines what "harm" is?
ShadowTiger
07-12-2005, 01:36 PM
... Holy shi.... I think I just failed a test of opinions. ._.' I've never seen such low test scores in my life! Oh My God. >_< I think I'm too embarrassed to show what I got.
fatcatfan
07-12-2005, 01:48 PM
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.37.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.
Breaker
07-12-2005, 01:53 PM
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.40.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.
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. And anyway 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.
Machiavelli
07-12-2005, 02:05 PM
My results:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.
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, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios at least seem to be 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 action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.
Dechipher
07-12-2005, 02:07 PM
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.23.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.25.
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 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. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Indeed, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a real puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.
Heh...am I the only one that said the brother and sister shouldn't be prevented from having sex?
carrot red
07-12-2005, 03:41 PM
4. Can an individual action be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no-one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it at all?
I don't like the question. Who determines what "harm" is?
I read them all before replying. The frozen chicken question... I don't know what determines *harm* or what *harm* really is, but to me, it's wrong no matter how you look at it or what your culture says. *Shrug*
Dechipher
07-12-2005, 03:55 PM
I figured that it's that guys business. If he's not bothering anyone else, and he's not killing chickens just to bang them, then It's none of my business.
MacWeirdo42
07-12-2005, 03:55 PM
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
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, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios at least seem to be 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 action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.
lol Nearly zeroes across the board. I don't like the last sentence. The only reason I had any issue at all with anything on the quiz was simply being grossed out. Yeesh!
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.
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 an action 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 at least seem to be 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 action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.
Archibaldo
07-12-2005, 04:56 PM
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.53.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.60.
It is not at all clear why you think that any of the actions depicted in these scenarios are morally problematic. You don't think an action 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 themselves harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a real puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. Consequently, there is no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. However, it is interesting to note that had you judged any of these acts to be morally problematic, it is hard to see how this might have been justified. 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. The actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. One possibility might be that the people undertaking these acts are in some way harmed by them. But you indicated that you don't think that an act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So, as you probably realised, even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios morally problematic in terms of your moral outlook. Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view.
Jigglysaint
07-12-2005, 08:50 PM
OMG Chicken Sex!
Sorry, I just find that funny for some reason.
4. Can an individual action be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no-one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it at all?
I don't like the question. Who determines what "harm" is?
The person being harmed, that's probably a good place to start.
Great Warrior
07-13-2005, 03:08 AM
Harm is moral and cannot be defined by a standard definition for all. Incest is not considered wrong among certain cultures.
My results:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.40.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.
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. And anyway 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.
Master Ghaleon
07-13-2005, 03:17 AM
Taboo - The Results
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.80.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.80.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.60.
Are you thinking straight about morality?
Your responses to the scenarios depicted in this activity are a little bit puzzling. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. And it at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Yet your responses indicate that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here, and presumably - though not necessarily - this is why you think that there are moral problems with them. The trouble is that you were asked to judge the scenarios as described, not as you think they would have turned out in the real world. And given how they were described, it isn't clear what form such harms could take
Daarkseid
07-13-2005, 04:14 AM
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
I'm fully permissive.
Yeah, I found it hard to find anything wrong with those scenarios as they happened in private and only affected the individuals involved. Nobody else had to know or would've been directly affected.
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.30.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
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. And anyway 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.
Pablo
07-13-2005, 04:00 PM
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.20.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
Great Warrior
07-14-2005, 03:13 AM
What is permissive and how do they determine what is inconsistent.
Yeah, I found it hard to find anything wrong with those scenarios as they happened in private and only affected the individuals involved. Nobody else had to know or would've been directly affected.
History has taught us that a lot of things that were thought to be private and not to affect anyone are not. That is where all the scandals come from.
Lilith
07-14-2005, 03:48 AM
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.10
Your Interference Factor of 0.00
Your Universalising Factor of 0.00
Wow you people are lame. Wtf is wrong with fucking a frozen chicken? It's like fucking a mattress. Except it's a chicken...and frozen.
Daarkseid
07-14-2005, 05:12 AM
Wow you people are lame. Wtf is wrong with fucking a frozen chicken? It's like fucking a mattress. Except it's a chicken...and frozen.
And then he eats it afterwards! Thus disposing of the evidence.
History has taught us that a lot of things that were thought to be private and not to affect anyone are not. That is where all the scandals come from.
These were hypothetical situations that assumed privacy was maintained and that nobody revealed anything afterwards.
Starkist
07-14-2005, 10:13 AM
Wow you people are lame. Wtf is wrong with fucking a frozen chicken? It's like fucking a mattress. Except it's a chicken...and frozen.
It sounds like you have some stories to tell...
MacWeirdo42
07-14-2005, 11:55 AM
I just... Ewww... It's all slimy (I'm thinking partially thawed here), and the smell... I mean, would you walk around smelling like chicken for the rest of the day? Just... Ick... Not to mention the eating it part, which wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that it's now flavored with your... special sauce. Yuck!
Breaker
07-14-2005, 12:42 PM
I just... Ewww... It's all slimy (I'm thinking partially thawed here), and the smell... I mean, would you walk around smelling like chicken for the rest of the day? Just... Ick... Not to mention the eating it part, which wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that it's now flavored with your... special sauce. Yuck!
It must be morally wrong to eat black licorice too. It tastes like shit.
MacWeirdo42
07-14-2005, 12:50 PM
What? I never said it was morally wrong. In fact, if you noticed my score, I don't really think anything is morally wrong. I just said it was really gross, is all.
Machiavelli
07-14-2005, 12:54 PM
All licorice tastes like shit. It is very morally wrong to eat any of that stuff. :D
Rainman
07-14-2005, 01:50 PM
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
Yeah, I'm pretty permissive. I don't believe in any underlying morality. There are a few things that are useful in maintaining an ordered society, but I make no moral judgement on them.
Lutraphobiac
07-14-2005, 02:51 PM
Not quite sure how well the test works, since it seems to presume a correct viewpoint of no harm, no foul. Interesting though.
The article that is provided after you take the test explains their motives pretty well and should answer your questions. It seems that they really are against people having inconsistencies in their thinking. I agree with this stance. I would rather peoples viewpoints be wrong than logically inconsistent.
I don't like taking internet tests. I would rather not get some printout of what some website thinks I am. I have no doubt; however, that I would get the same results as my brother. I have no problems with people doing things that don't harm anyone but themselves.
fatcatfan
07-14-2005, 02:58 PM
I would rather peoples viewpoints be wrong than logically inconsistent.But if they are logically consistent with themselves, by what authority can you call them wrong? ;)
I actually didn't see anything wrong with any of the actions. People should be free to make their own decisions. I don't like being forced to do "what's best for me" so I don't do that to other people.
But if they are logically consistent with themselves, by what authority can you call them wrong? ;)
None that I can think of.
texasdex
07-14-2005, 05:29 PM
This text is straight from Urban Dictionary's definition of "squick" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=squick&r=f). I think the viewpoint it presents is one well worth considering.
The concept of the "squick" differs from the concept of "disgust" in that "squick" refers purely to the physical sensation of repulsion, and does not imply a moral component.
Stating that something is "disgusting" implies a judgement that it is bad or wrong. Stating that something "squicks you" is merely an observation of your reaction to it, but does not imply a judgement that such a thing is universally wrong.
The statement "kiddie porn squicks me" and "kiddie porn disgusts me" may both be true. In my case, the second sentence is true, and I assume that the first is also true, but, having never encountered it, I have no way of knowing for sure.
In general, distinguishing between "squick" and "disgust" is an important part of living in a tolerant society.
It is my contention that most anti-gay attitudes, for instance, are the result of people finding that gay sex squicks them -- and, because they don't know about the concept of the "squick", they assume that gay sex DISGUSTS them, which implies that there is something morally objectionable about it.
Joe loves hot wax, needles through sensitive parts of his body, cutting, and flogging -- but tickling? That squicks him.
In short: The idea of a guy having sex with a chicken may thoroughly gross you out, but that fails to provide any logical reason why he shouldn't be allowed to. In other words, it 'squicks' you. That doesn't mean it deserves moral condemnation. And certainly not legislative intervention.
MacWeirdo42
07-14-2005, 06:39 PM
Unless he's having sex with frozen chickens and selling them. That could be a health hazard. By the way, I thought gross fulfilled that need very well (icky but not morally wrong).
Daarkseid
07-14-2005, 07:33 PM
Unless he's having sex with frozen chickens and selling them. That could be a health hazard. By the way, I thought gross fulfilled that need very well (icky but not morally wrong).
And did the question in the test ever say "Afterwards, he sells the chickens to unsuspecting buyers, clearly behaving in a deceitful manner?"
Excellent input by Texasdex.
Master Ghaleon
07-14-2005, 07:41 PM
Wtf is wrong with fucking a frozen chicken? It's like fucking a mattress. Except it's a chicken...and frozen..
It sounds like you have some stories to tell...
I know a girl that graduated with me that had to goto the ER to remove a frozen hot dog out of her pussy. The frozen chicken reminded me of it :D
Drunken Tiger
07-14-2005, 10:11 PM
Taboo - The Results
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.70.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.60.
Lilith
07-14-2005, 11:55 PM
I know a girl that graduated with me that had to goto the ER to remove a frozen hot dog out of her pussy. The frozen chicken reminded me of it :D
wtf? it would melt and become floppy, that doesn't make any sense.
and no, I'm not big into fucking things that are cold and dead.
Master Ghaleon
07-15-2005, 12:15 AM
wtf? it would melt and become floppy, that doesn't make any sense.
and no, I'm not big into fucking things that are cold and dead.
Lemme put it to ya like this, think about a frozen poll and stick your tongue on it. Its gonna stick. Imaging that poll moving up and down rubbing the shit outta your tongue, it would tear your tongue up in peices. It was frozen and it broke into peices, it wasnt a whole hot dog they had to get out, it was the chucks that where imbedded into the tissue after she cold fucked the dog. It wasnt like she just slid it in and left it there. She was fucking it. She was outta school for like a week.
ANd no its not the urban legend, The girl was a good friend of mine in HS.
Even though there was like actual proof, like she didnt show us the remains of the hot dog in a bag or anything, she was very embarassed when people brought it up. Her bro leaked the info out.
Shadowblazer
07-15-2005, 09:21 AM
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.20.
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. More about this below...
Verman
07-15-2005, 09:30 AM
there was a chick at our high school that some how got jammed up on her bed post... She screamed until her dad came and found her and helped her... Her brother leaked that info too! (Brothers like to tell people shit like that)
Oh there was this guy named Billy Pidgeon who got caught by my buddys dad (a farmer ) fucking a cow. Swear to god. He had to leave our high school because people made fun of him so much. Which he deserved. Stupid cow probably couldn't even feel it. Ha!
Professor Gast
07-15-2005, 06:39 PM
If there is anything I learned from taking this test, it is that my idea of right and wrong seems to be centered around queasiness caused by imagining the example.
cyberkitten
07-15-2005, 08:19 PM
The girl was a good friend of mine in HS.
.....
now i'm seriously debating whether to EVER have secks with you again. just because i don't trust people who hang out with people who do weird shit like that. and if you've introduced me to her i'll hurt you in a bad way and make breaker help me dispose of your body.
If there is anything I learned from taking this test, it is that my idea of right and wrong seems to be centered around queasiness caused by imagining the example.
You appear to have just proven texasdex's point. Because you don't understand the concept of "squicks" you assume that anything aesthetically displeasing "disgusts" you and thus is wrong.
Starkist
07-15-2005, 09:16 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002382718_horse15m.html
It seems to relate.
Lilith
07-15-2005, 09:21 PM
hahaha owned. I'm crazy too since I don't think fucking animals is wrong...if they're the ones doing the penetration. not that I would do it. <3 humans.
MacWeirdo42
07-15-2005, 09:32 PM
Okay... Sick as a dog... Gonna vom... Oh man, I so did not need to know any of this. The hotdog, the bedpost, the various farm animals... Not that any of it's morally wrong, but they're all just so very painful and humiliating. Oh God, I don't even want to think about it. *shudders*
Aesthetically displeasing. And possibly rape. After all, the animal never consented.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.