Are your judgements/ethics based on tradition or reason? Interactive test here!

komencanto

Thinker
K
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
168
Here´s a great, interactive test about taboos. Are your ethical judgements based on logic and reason? Or instinct? On what your parents told you?

Find out here! It´s really entertaining I have to say and really made me think (especially towards the end, the beginning is a tad boring).
Enjoy!

http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
 
Same.

That's weird. I thought I would get different, as I DID answer that I would be bothered by seeing a man have sex with a chicken.And by seeing siblings have sex...I answered that they should be allowed to...it would jsut bother me a bit to see it.
 
Moralising: 0.1
Interfering: 0.0
Universalising: 1.0

:cool:
 
I got the same as you guys.
My host mother here simply couldn´t handle the incest and sex with chicken one and said that it shouldn´t be done.
Although she seemed to understand that her objections weren´t making much sence, she thought that her disgust over them was reasonable enough and couldn´t accept that they were reasonable things to do.
Curious anyway....
 
I had .13 / 0 / 0


You can do whatever you want - just so I get to watch
 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I've never been happy with hypothetical questions. None of the choices about them really fit my own opinion.
 
As I expected the test found me fully moralizing...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.80.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.80.
 
Lord Kenneth said:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
Click to expand...
You got the same score as I did.
 
komencanto said:
If nobody suffers, yes. In that case, nobody suffered, so it´s hard to oppose it.
Click to expand...

The test in question was clever. It was talking about a frozen chicken, a dead animal,so consent wasn't necessary.

In my opinion that question regardless if it was cleverly put was a question of aesthetics not of morality. If the test wanted to check the morality of necrophilia then it would use a dead human body as an example.

What about the living animals?
 
Same as Kenneth and half the others on the thread. Surprise.

chicken.gif
 
Cleopatra said:
So, JAR, is it ok to have sex with the chicken?
Click to expand...

I actually read about someone doing this a year or so ago. I don't think that such a person should be punished for it, or either prevented from doing it. But the fact that a person wants to do it might call into question the guys approach to sex and his psychological state of mind. It is also disrespectful of the chicken.

BTW, my results were:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.30.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.


The tests conclusion that I am less permissive than the average person is utterly absurd. I think people should be allowed to have sex with dead chickens or eat their dead cat if they like. But that's different from saying it's perfectly ok.
 
Interesting Ian said:


It is also disrespectful of the chicken.
Click to expand...


Apart from disrespectful Ian, this violates animals' rights ( spare me the smart comments, you, smarties, ok? ;) )

Kenneth, would you eat Cookie if she was killed by a car?
 
How can you be disrespectful to something that is dead? How can something that is dead feel disrespected.

Lets get real, it might make not look very nice, but theres nothing immoral about the situation proposed with the dead chicken.
 
Cleopatra said:



Apart from disrespectful Ian, this violates animals' rights ( spare me the smart comments, you, smarties, ok? ;) )

Kenneth, would you eat Cookie if she was killed by a car?
Click to expand...

No, but that doesn't matter. If someone were to do it there is really nothing wrong with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom