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

[komencanto]

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

[Lord Kenneth]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

[Mendor]

What he said.

[TwoShanks]

ditto

[sorgoth]

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.

[Chaos]

Moralising: 0.1
Interfering: 0.0
Universalising: 1.0

:cool:

[komencanto]

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....

[triadboy]

I had .13 / 0 / 0


You can do whatever you want - just so I get to watch

[Ratman_tf]

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.

[Cleopatra]

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.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
You got the same score as I did.

[Cleopatra]

So, JAR, is it ok to have sex with the chicken?

[komencanto]

If nobody suffers, yes. In that case, nobody suffered, so it´s hard to oppose it.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by komencanto
If nobody suffers, yes. In that case, nobody suffered, so it´s hard to oppose it.

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?

[Martin]

Same as Kenneth and half the others on the thread. Surprise.

http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/images/chicken.gif

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, JAR, is it ok to have sex with the chicken?

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.

[Fidelio]

0.00
0.00
-1

However had I known the chicken was frozen (I really should read more carefully) it might have been different.

[Cleopatra]

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? ;) )

Kenneth, would you eat Cookie if she was killed by a car?

[komencanto]

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.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



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?

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

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

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? )



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.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by komencanto
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.

I didn't claim it was immoral. It's wanting to which is of some concern. Not the very act itself.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by komencanto
How can you be disrespectful to something that is dead? How can something that is dead feel disrespected.


You can disrespect someone who has gone to the other side.

[LuxFerum]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.80.

[neutrino_cannon]

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:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
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."



I guess you've never been to Canada?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
So, JAR, is it ok to have sex with the chicken?
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.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JAR

Ha, Ha! :roll:

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

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.

[Yahweh]

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.

[Ratman_tf]

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.

[Denise]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Ok, what do I win?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


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

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?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


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?


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?

[Gregor]

Put me in Triadboy's camp

.13 / 0 / 0

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

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



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? '

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

[roger]

0 0 -1

I had expected much harder questions, and I got annoyed that they basically asked everything twice.

[roger]

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.

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.

[MoeFaux]

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.

[Michael Redman]

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

[LawnOven]

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.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Denise
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Ok, what do I win?
A frozen chicken to do with what you please...

I suggest using Canola Oil, it gives the best texture. And dont be afraid to use paprika.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
'

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


Certainly not, if I would be so inclined to eat my dog's corpse it wouldn't be wrong either. Just because I don't WANT to doesn't mean I have to think those who do are doing something immoral.

[ImpyTimpy]

Well, I just did the test and I got exactly the same result.

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

:eek:

Originally posted by Denise
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.07.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Ok, what do I win?

[Chareen]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.


For me. I said it was wrong for the girl to push the boy off the swing. I stand by that. Deceased chicken sex... that's alright. Disgusting, but not morally wrong.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Chareen
Deceased chicken sex... that's alright. Disgusting, but not morally wrong.
There are health issues to concern. Some people consider deliberately putting yourself in danger of salmonella or other poultry related bacteria to be naughty (not much different than putting your health at risk with dirty needles), there's also the morallity/immorality of beastiality to consider... oh, and its really really disgusting.

Thats why I voted it morally wrong.

[Chareen]

Originally posted by Yahweh

There are health issues to concern. Some people consider deliberately putting yourself in danger of salmonella or other poultry related bacteria to be naughty (not much different than putting your health at risk with dirty needles), there's also the morallity/immorality of beastiality to consider... oh, and its really really disgusting.

Thats why I voted it morally wrong.

So, I should no longer cook with chicken? I mean, I'm putting myself at health risk just handeling it. What is the likely hood that one would contract salmonella from having sex with a dead chicken (unless oral)? As far as I am aware one has to consume the raw or not fully cooked chicken (or juice of) to contract salmonella.

Also, you put yourself at health risk anytime you have sex. Is sex morally wrong?

I guess I would say I don't think necro beastiality would be morally wrong. Animals that are alive, different story.

I would also say I find it absolutly repulsive, but the discussion isn't about personal taste.

[jallenecs]

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.

[evildave]

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

I'd be bothered a bit by witnessing the brother/sister & chicken lovin', but whatever turns your crank, it's not really my concern. I'll assume he wore a condom or something for it to truly "safe" sex with a frozen chicken corpse.

... Unless you want to feed me the buggered chicken. Major gag reflex just thinking about that. But I'm "picky" about some things.

Taboo - The Results

How did you do compared to other people?

Taboo has been played 2130 times.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.19. 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 0.10. 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 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.42. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions).

For more analysis see link at the bottom of the page.

[QuarkChild]

(Same as LK)

What absurdly easy questions. I was expecting something interesting.

I've always thought that it should be legal to recycle corpses (feed dead pets/humans to different animals) for environmental reasons, as long as there were no health risks. I'd be perfectly happy for my corpse to be used to make a wolf happy for a day, rather than waste resources with cremation or burial. In fact, if it weren't for the possiblilies of transmitting diseases, I think humans should be able to recycle each other.

(Then again, maybe I can just say this because I'm a vegetarian, so I wouldn't be eating human flesh or Fido anyway.)

[evildave]

Well, various forms of composting works for me. There are always various forms of donating your body to science. Grind up and feed to bacteria/worms, or burn and grind up. Not much difference.

The very worst would be to tie up valuable real estate with a box in another concrete box, buried like toxic contaminants.

At least the cremation leftovers can be put to use. Bone meal is good for roses and other plants that like "sweet" soil, so I've heard. The rest precipitates and/or gets recycled through the food chain.

Actually, we're all inhaling millions of atoms that have been parts of other people right now.

More, if you live near a crematorium.

Halloween's on a friday.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



Certainly not, if I would be so inclined to eat my dog's corpse it wouldn't be wrong either. Just because I don't WANT to doesn't mean I have to think those who do are doing something immoral.

Forget about what is right or not. What I was asking is what criteria determine your unwillingness to eat your dog.

[evildave]

Well, mostly my own cats have died of being eaten by predators.

Generally, the ones that have died close have been horribly injured or very sick. A bit unappetizing to see a kitty with his head crushed messily under an SUV's wheel. A cat that's gone and poisoned himself by eating a poisoned rat isn't going to be any good for me. Aresenic is elemental, and therefore won't "cook out".

Besides, I'm more prone to eat out of a box out of the microwave. Not much of a cooker.

[neutrino_cannon]

Hm... if your body was going to be disposed of be predators, what predator would you choose to feed?

I'd say a Mexican red wolf, they need all the help they can get.

What about poultry that gets hit by a car and then frozen?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What I was asking is what criteria determine your unwillingness to eat your dog.

The same criteria Homer used when he ate his pet lobster, "Pinchy":

"Oh Pinchy!...(sob)(sob)....you're so delicious!...(sob)(sob) ...more butter...(sob)(sob)....Oh Pinchy!"

[roger]

As far as eating your pets go, has anyone else on here raised livestock? You care for them (in both the "take care" and emotional sense of the word), interact with them, then youse kills 'em and eats 'em. I find that considerably more humane than buying a frozen chicken that spent it's life in a constricting wire cage (which is how I get my protein these days).

Well, I've never bonded with a chicken, but pigs are quite sociable and intelligent. OTOH, when my mother was a teenager she took care of a rooster from when he was a chick, so he bonded to her and would follow her around anywhere. One day she came home to find roasted cock for dinner. She was not pleased. I don't think she ever got over that one.

[QuarkDad]

Anybody remember the early 70's movie - Soylent Green - that was a shocker back then as I remember for its human recycling.

(And a great drive in movie)

[Suezoled]

0/0/-1

Morals are personal convictions, not absolute unbreakable laws.

Now, if someone told me to have sex with a chicken or a sibling, I would refuse. Health factors and psychiatric factors would be my influence, not morals.

Well, that and my brothers are brats.
And I'll bet that chicken was, too.

[c4ts]

A woman was cleaning out her closet. She came across the flag of your home country (it's a coincidence!). She didn't want the flag, so she cut it into pieces in order to use it to clean her bathroom.


a) How do you judge the woman's act of cleaning her bathroom with your home country's flag?
Stupid! Is she so poor she can't afford to go to the store an buy some paper towels and cleaning fluid?

8. 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.

b) Would it bother you to see a family eating a pet which had been killed in a car accident?

That would depend on how the cat was prepared.
c) Suppose you learn about two foreign countries. In one country, it is normal to eat the family pet if it is killed in a road accident.
I swear I've eaten roadkill at this one Chinese place... or was it Korean?

9. 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 more than 21 years old. 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!).
Why do all these questions revolve around rednecks?
c) Suppose you learn about two foreign countries. In one country, it is normal for brothers and sisters to have sex with each other on one occasion if the sister is infertile.
I love these country questions.

10. 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.
b) Would it bother you to see this man having sex with a chicken?
Yes, but it would bother me even more to see him eating it afterwards!

Suppose you learn about two foreign countries. In one country, it is normal for people to have secret sex with dead chickens.
By now I think it's obvious which country they're talking about...
PLANET X!
Wait, brown dwarf stars faked by woo woos don't count as other countries, do they?

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by c4ts

Stupid! Is she so poor she can't afford to go to the store an buy some paper towels and cleaning fluid?
Why is it stupid to reuse something that otherwise would have been thrown away? If she doesn't want the flag, at least this way she gets some use out of it before she discards it.

[c4ts]

Paper towels and cleaning fluid are more effective than a cut up cloth.

[evildave]

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.

[Some Friggin Guy]

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...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by evildave

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

Exactly.

[evildave]

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.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by evildave
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. 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.

[billydkid]

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.

[evildave]

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?

[Ladewig]

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.

[c4ts]

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?

[Glory]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
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.

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

[Glory]

0.00
0.00
-1

Live and let live, babies!

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by jallenecs
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.

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

[Glory]

Originally posted by Ladewig
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.

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