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

Cleopatra said:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It is also disrespectful of the chicken.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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

Well killing it in the first place might violate its rights. I don't think doing you know what further violates its rights because, being dead, it can no longer have any. It still remains of course repugnant.
 
komencanto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was immoral. It's wanting to which is of some concern. Not the very act itself.
 
komencanto said:
How can you be disrespectful to something that is dead? How can something that is dead feel disrespected.
Click to expand...

You can disrespect someone who has gone to the other side.
 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.80.
 
While I found nothing objectionable about these actions, they were very funny.

"Suppose there is a country where people regularly have sex with frozen poultry."

:roll:
 
neutrino_cannon said:
While I found nothing objectionable about these actions, they were very funny.

"Suppose there is a country where people regularly have sex with frozen poultry."
Click to expand...

I guess you've never been to Canada?
 
Cleopatra said:
So, JAR, is it ok to have sex with the chicken?
Click to expand...
Ha, Ha! :roll:

I said it's okay as long as the guy doesn't do it in front of me. I'm not saying I'd have sexual relations with a chicken, just if some guy wants to have sexual relations with a chicken, it's none of my business as long as he doesn't do it in front of me.

I also said it's okay for a brother and a sister to have sexual relations and that seeing them do it wouldn't bother me anymore than seeing anyone else do it. I don't like watching people have sexual relations, but seeing a brother and sister do it wouldn't be any more disgusting to me than seeing two people who aren't a brother and sister do it.

I also don't get what people hate so much about incest. If I find a woman attractive, she's attractive to me regardless of how closely related to me she is. The main problem with inbreeding is horribly deformed and retarded children. So I wouldn't do it. But if it wasn't for that, I'd have no problem with it.
 
JAR said:

Ha, Ha! :roll:

I said it's okay as long as the guy doesn't do it in front of me.
Click to expand...

Has this guy asked this chicken whether it wants to have sex with him or not?

So, you would have sex with your sister...

Ok.
 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.27.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Most of the questions tried to expunge any of the common concequences of certain acts (incest, necrophilia, etc...) but you can't totally remove them without making the question nonsensical. (Would you find sex with a humbagashimago repugnant? Huh?!?))

Having sex with something that's dead can cause you health problems. No matter how well preserved it is. It can be argued that it's mentally unhealthy because you need to answer why a human being would desire frozen poultry sexualy.

Brothers and sisters are in a family relationship. You can hand wave that away, as the question did, with "But they never had any emotional problems after doing it! YAY!" But this is NOT the way the real world is like. Family relations can be changed forever by such an act. The same way that having sex with someone you work with can, only squared and cubed.

If everything we did were in an emotional vaccum, this test would not even be necessary. But they don't, and here we are.
 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Ok, what do I win?
 
Lord Kenneth said:


No, but that doesn't matter. If someone were to do it there is really nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...

So, will I be right to assume that the reason why you wouldn't eat Cookie isn't because there is something wrong with eating your pet but maybe because you find the idea of eating a dog ( yours or any dog) repulsive; is it a matter of taste then?
 
Cleopatra said:


So, will I be right to assume that the reason why you wouldn't eat Cookie isn't because there is something wrong with eating your pet but maybe because you find the idea of eating a dog ( yours or any dog) repulsive; is it a matter of taste then?
Click to expand...


Why does it matter what I think about me and my own dog as opposed to recognizing that if someone else did it there still would be no problem?
 
Put me in Triadboy's camp

.13 / 0 / 0

now, if two dead chickens, who were brother and sister met on a beach . . .
 
Lord Kenneth said:



Why does it matter what I think about me and my own dog as opposed to recognizing that if someone else did it there still would be no problem?
Click to expand...
'

You apply different criteria when judging other people's actions from those you apply when you evaluate your actions.
 
0 0 -1

I had expected much harder questions, and I got annoyed that they basically asked everything twice.
 
For the people questioning people with 0 0 -1 results, a pertinent quote from the analysis:

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.
Click to expand...

In my view, doing something that may harm yourself may or may not be ill advised, but not immoral.

Ratman's point about incest affecting family relations is well taken, but the premise of the question was that no one finds out about it AND that neither person who did the act were harmed by it. So while I agree with Ratman in general, w/in the context of the question I gave it a pass. I recognize that I have extra information (I know the result) that the participants didn't have when they started. I assume they have high self awareness.

It's the only question that I have ambivalance about.
 
Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I'm not quite sure what that means. But, the only thing that made me a little uncomfortable was the guy not visiting his Mother's grave. For one of the questions I chose "a little wrong". I guess I shouldn't have, I don't think it's morally wrong, just kinda sad.
 
Wouldn't it be better if they asked if you would be bothered by knowing the man was having sex with a chicken, rather than if you would be bothered by watching the man have sex with a chicken?

.17
.2
1
 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.


hmm, that's very anthropological of me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom