Some of the questions are very weird, but it�s an interesting *game.* Try it.
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).
What do I think is Taboo? How about:
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.
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?
... 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.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.37.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.
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.
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.
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?
fatcatfan wrote: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*
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.
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.
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.
OMG Chicken Sex!
Sorry, I just find that funny for some reason.
fatcatfan wrote: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.
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.
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
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.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.20.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.
What is permissive and how do they determine what is inconsistent.
Daarkseid wrote: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.
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.
Lilith wrote: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.
Not so great warrior wrote:
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.
Lilith wrote: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...
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!
MacWeirdo42 wrote: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.
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.
All licorice tastes like shit. It is very morally wrong to eat any of that stuff. 😃
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.