Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Community Discussion > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-17-2006, 04:23 PM   #1
KevinBeane
Sports Virtuoso
 
KevinBeane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Newark DE/Akron OH
Posts: 3,651
KevinBeane is on a distinguished road
Default Quiz: How do your morals compare with others?

I thought this was kind of interesting:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm

Results

"Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. And anyway 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. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook."

How did my results compare with other people? (Click on the link at the bottom of your results page for this).


"Taboo has been played 25833 times.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.17 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.24. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than average.

Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.14. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average.

Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.36. 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)."

Anyone who has argued about a college football playoff with me knows how little use I have for sociatal rituals.
__________________
SLANT PATTERN
2004 SCMB FANTASY GOLF, NFL POINTSPREAD CHAMPION

"I believe in [a] God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." -Albert Einstein
KevinBeane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2006, 04:41 PM   #2
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.38.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.



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.
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2006, 04:54 PM   #3
Alex
#1 Student Section
 
Alex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: State College, PA/Newtown, CT
Posts: 7,158
Alex will become famous soon enough
Default

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

Although you do not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong, it is not entirely clear why you think that anything in them is 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 in some way harmed 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. So even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios wrong in terms of your moral outlook. It is a bit of a puzzle!
__________________
Penn State '12
Alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2006, 10:34 PM   #4
grifter
Skateboarding thug, Baby!
 
grifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: bradenton
Posts: 162
grifter is on a distinguished road
Default

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.92.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.75.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

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 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. So even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios wrong in terms of your moral outlook. It is a bit of a puzzle!
__________________
I'm a rude rude boy raised by to much TV; I laugh at violence; Pain and death don't mean sh!t to me-HED pe

I played golf once. While everyone else was trying to hit holes in one, I hit a person. Let me tell ya that was so much more fun. I didn't know you were supposed to yell Four, I was to busy mumbling "I'm gonna miss him, alittle bit more to the left"
grifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2006, 11:28 PM   #5
RavenPoe
All-Star Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 342
RavenPoe is on a distinguished road
Default

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.58.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

I'm not sure where you guys got the rest of what you posted. Mine has a freakin dissertation after the results. Apparently, I have morality issues. lol
RavenPoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 12:09 AM   #6
wufpax
cbs refugee
 
wufpax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 102
wufpax is on a distinguished road
Default

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.96.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.


Are you thinking straight about morality?

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 judgement. 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.


Ok that was some nasty stuff! Remind me to pay careful attention to things you guys put up on here! :lol:
__________________
All roads lead to a different journey...where will yours lead you?

Last edited by wufpax; 12-18-2006 at 12:11 AM. Reason: need to go back to grade school for spelling! hehe
wufpax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 12:17 AM   #7
toaster_oven
Grand Champion
 
toaster_oven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 2
toaster_oven is on a distinguished road
Default

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

~~~

That is what I get for thinking morals and ethics are two different things.
toaster_oven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 12:33 AM   #8
wufpax
cbs refugee
 
wufpax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 102
wufpax is on a distinguished road
Default

I dont want to know how you answered that quiz, toaster oven:lol:
__________________
All roads lead to a different journey...where will yours lead you?
wufpax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 12:45 AM   #9
Ellis
gymnopedist
 
Ellis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hyde Park
Posts: 8,141
Ellis has a spectacular aura aboutEllis has a spectacular aura about
Default

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.79.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

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. 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 judgement. 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.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.79 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.24. 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 0.50 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.14. 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 1.00 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).
Ellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 01:08 AM   #10
Montrovant
Hatecarver
 
Montrovant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 685
Montrovant is on a distinguished road
Default

I got the same as toaster_oven

Gotta say, this paragraph was pretty damn funny :

No doubt some people will suspect that we have constructed this activity with the intention of showing that people are just mistaken if they think that things like having sex with a frozen chicken are wrong. This is not the case, since it is possible to at least make arguments that such things are wrong. Here is an example of one such argument. Human beings are God's creations. Their sexuality is a gift from God to be enjoyed only in the context of a monogamous union between one man and one woman. Chickens, frozen or otherwise, are not part of the picture. Therefore, to have sex with one is to abuse the gift of sexuality, and will necessarily harm a person's relationship with God. It follows that having sex with poultry is a moral wrong.
:lol:
Montrovant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 01:31 AM   #11
KevinBeane
Sports Virtuoso
 
KevinBeane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Newark DE/Akron OH
Posts: 3,651
KevinBeane is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavenPoe View Post

I'm not sure where you guys got the rest of what you posted.
When you get your results, you have to click on the link that says, "How did my results compare with other people?"

I said this in the initial post. Bonus points for Ellis for being one of the only ones to have apparently seen that and followed through, to the more interesting breakdown of your results (I'm sure some of you saw that and just didn't care).
__________________
SLANT PATTERN
2004 SCMB FANTASY GOLF, NFL POINTSPREAD CHAMPION

"I believe in [a] God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." -Albert Einstein
KevinBeane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 01:33 AM   #12
Ellis
gymnopedist
 
Ellis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hyde Park
Posts: 8,141
Ellis has a spectacular aura aboutEllis has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinBeane View Post
When you get your results, you have to click on the link that says, "How did my results compare with other people?"

I said this in the initial post. Bonus points for Ellis for being one of the only ones to have apparently seen that and followed through, to the more interesting breakdown of your results (I'm sure some of you saw that and just didn't care).
Other than the universalizing factor, it looks like we are opposites Kevin I love debating this kind of stuff with you though because what you say is always very thought out:thumbup:
Ellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 01:49 AM   #13
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,328
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.38.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

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.
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 04:35 AM   #14
Ellis
gymnopedist
 
Ellis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Hyde Park
Posts: 8,141
Ellis has a spectacular aura aboutEllis has a spectacular aura about
Default

I think that on top of looking at these numbers, people should explain why they chose what they did. It could bring up interesting points and discussion.

1. A small boy is playing happily on a swing in a local playground when an older girl pushes him off and hurts him for no other reason than that she wants to play on the swing. Are her actions morally wrong?

Wrong because she harmed someone else for self gain.

Is it possible that an action is morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking the action? For example, might it be morally wrong to smoke just because it harms the smoker and for no other reason?

No. People should be able to harm themselves however they want. The question is whether or not what they are doing is wrong. As for smoking, there is nothing morally wrong IMO when it comes to smoking.

3. Is it possible something might be morally wrong for no other reason than that God determines that it is wrong? For example, imagine that God has declared that drinking water is wrong, and when she is asked why she replies honestly "for no other reason than that I say it is."
NO! But...

5. Do you think that morality comes from God or some other source outside of nature, society and human judgment? Yes, for sure, but not from a god.

6. An old woman was very ill. On her deathbed she asked her son to promise that he would visit her grave at least once a week. The son didn't want to disappoint his mother, so he promised that he would. But after his mother died, he didn't keep his promise. He was too busy. He didn't tell anyone about his promise, and he has never felt guilty for failing to do as he said he would. I said that it is wrong not to have visited once a week after promising he would, both for the fact that he promised he would and for the fact that it was her last wish. There are just some promises you have to fulfill and that is one of them.

A family's cat was killed by a car in front of their home. They had heard that cat meat was very tasty, so they cut up the cat, cooked it and ate it for dinner. To date, they have never regretted the decision and they have not suffered any harm as a result of cooking and eating the cat.
Wrong. I understand that it is gross, which is why people on the other end will say I voted that way. To me, it is just wrong to eat a pet. In a way, a pet is part of a family, which is why I think it is wrong. To me, it is like eating a friend.


8. Sarah and Peter were brother and sister. They were on vacation together away from home. One night they were staying alone in a tent on a beach. They decided it would be fun to have sex. They were both over 21. They had sex and enjoyed it. They knew that for medical reasons Sarah could not get pregnant. They decided not to have sex with each other again, but they never regretted having had sex once. In fact, it remained a positive experience for them throughout their lives. It also remained entirely their secret (until now!). To me, it is wrong to that with your sister. It is undignifying, which makes it wrong. (I wonder how hot the sister was though. If it was someone like Maria Sharapova, I could make an exception )


9. A man goes to his local grocery store once a week and buys a frozen chicken. But before cooking and eating the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community.

I said that this was a little wrong. I think that it is undignifying, but it could be worse. Also, no one else is seeing it or effected by it.
Ellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2006, 11:00 AM   #15
toaster_oven
Grand Champion
 
toaster_oven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 2
toaster_oven is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wufpax View Post
I dont want to know how you answered that quiz, toaster oven:lol:
Well, since you asked...

I answered No to every question except for the 3rd in each 3-parter, which I answered "Yes, Both."

Before anyone freaks out on me: I would have answered differently if the siblings were fertile. After all, we don't need anymore idiotic football fans. :lol:

BTW, this is Mr_Plato from the CBS boards. So you can bet I took that test with humourous intentions.

:thumbup:
toaster_oven is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State Capitals Quiz catman The Lounge 4 05-26-2005 04:51 PM
fun quiz catman The Lounge 17 12-19-2004 02:27 AM
I'm bored, so I made a quiz for everyone... buckeyefan78 The Lounge 0 12-19-2002 08:58 PM
How Does Curt Schilling Compare to 31 game Winner Denny McClain? bama4256 Major League Baseball 10 07-20-2002 02:52 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 PM.