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

It's according to whether scrubbing is involved. Only premium paper towels will stand up to scrubbing.

Of course, according to the flag, and the cleaner, it could leach the dye out and make a bigger mess.

Besides, if we're going to cry about abuses to Old Glory, keep in mind it's far more likely to have been made in China than in the U.S.
 
I got the 0, 0, -1 rating.

I have to say the thing with the chicken is a little strange, but not morally wrong.


However, if he tried to RETURN the chicken after...
 
But for scrubbing porcelain or sinks or other surfaces that won't take a dye, that won't really matter. The fabric will probably be more durable than most paper towels.
 
evildave said:
But for scrubbing porcelain or sinks or other surfaces that won't take a dye, that won't really matter. The fabric will probably be more durable than most paper towels.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, you're right, she could have also bought a scrubber and a sponge.

I still find that using a flag to clean her bathroom is like using some old t-shirt she was never going to wear. Better materials exist, particularly those designed for cleaning.
 
same

I got the same as lord kenneth. One question bothered me - the one about god saying something was morally and would it make it wrong. Well, obviously, if there were a god and he said something was wrong you would pretty much have to agree since he would be the final arbiter of what is moral or immoral, regardless of how you personally felt.
 
Only if that god really said it, and really cared one way or another about it, AND bothered to be a 'final arbiter' of anything.

If I built a whole infinite universe, I wouldn't piddle with the details over what mites were sticking their privates in other mites.

What sort of incredible busy-body would?

The SUPREME busy-body, I suppose?
 
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.20.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.


In reading the end-analysis, it became clear that the author considered all these things to not cause any harm. I said family pet-eating was a little wrong, because younger children might not understand it. Adults eating pets is fine by me.

I also described the death-bed promise breaking as a little wrong. Kant would say that such an action is wrong because if everyone broke their promises, the concept of making a promise becomes meaningless. Also, just because no other living person knows about an action does not make it inherently harmless.
 
To say that morality relies solely on divine justification is irrational at best, and a harmful idea that leads to injustice at worst. It is within an omnipotent deity's power to reverse what is moral with the immoral. What if God suddenly revokes the 10 commandments, and declares that things like stealing and killing are necessary? Why would that make them any less wrong or harmful to yourself and others?
 
MoeFaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought that the guy wanted to make his mother happy. He did so and she remained happy with his promise right up untill the point at which it no longer mattered.

Glory
 
jallenecs said:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.


I think this poll is unrevealing. We are trapped into the subjectivity of our own society's mores, are we not? While I can see that the absolute morality value of having sex between brother and sister is not there (if nobody was hurt, they counted it a positive experience). But the fact is, in the culture I was raised in, I would find it repugnant. If I caught my own son and daughter doing it, I would probably have a meltdown.

In my culture, I am taught that sex with a sibling is repugnant, that sex with a chicken is perverted (and wouldn't that freeze your willy? ;) ) that eating a dead pet is just plumb nasty. I can't shake it without a great deal of effort, and frankly, I can't view it without a knee-jerk reaction of revulsion; not because it's "wrong" but because I was raised to believe that it is simply not acceptable.

HOWEVER, in some cultures (ancient Egypt springs to mind), it was perfectly acceptable for the Queen to marry her brother, and to produce children from that marriage! In ancient Greece, an adult man having sex with a young boy was not only acceptable, it was considered quite an honor for the boy. In some cultures even today, people treat their pet cats and dogs like the animals they are, instead of like little furry children; therefore eating them would not be beyond the pale.

I don't think the poll can reflect that, and I don't think our answers are illuminating (my own, either), because it's not really measuring our "morality" but more how well we have adapted to or overcome the ingrained training of life in our cultures.
Click to expand...

That was not the test's purpose. The purpose was to determine how consistent you are in your moral judgements and actions and to determine why your morality is what it is.

I agree that a person's having sex with any chicken is repugnent. I also agree that eating a pet is nasty for a number of reasons. I happen to think, though, that my distaste for these things is not an indcator of any inherent wrongness of them. My scores reflect that view. Your level of morality is not tested or measured in any way. The reasons behind your morality are at issue.

Glory
 
Ladewig said:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.20.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.


In reading the end-analysis, it became clear that the author considered all these things to not cause any harm. I said family pet-eating was a little wrong, because younger children might not understand it. Adults eating pets is fine by me.

I also described the death-bed promise breaking as a little wrong. Kant would say that such an action is wrong because if everyone broke their promises, the concept of making a promise becomes meaningless. Also, just because no other living person knows about an action does not make it inherently harmless.
Click to expand...

The parameters of the test made the actions inherently harmless. They said that the family, presumably the children as well, experienced no ill effects from the action of eating the pet. No ill effects would account for negative emotions as result of the action. The intent was to remove the possibility of harm from the equation. The authors seem to have made an assumtion that that which causes harm is wrong.

Glory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom