found something interesting
https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 54%
https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 54%
Morality Test -
- Thread starter Desire Lines
- Start date
-
Sustained Denial of Service attacks. Paid for botnet. Service will continue to be disrupted until I can contact other providers and arrange a fix.
I
IV 445
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Nobody here can pass a morality test
Morality is relative and therefore impossible to measure.
you are not supposed to answer for yourself, you are supposed to answer if a human being doing that in general is moral or not, it's worded a bit poorly
I think it's funny, and there are other funny tests as well in this site 
I'm apparently consistent in how moral I am but then again I just don't give a shit about what happens to other people.
Some of those fucking questions were really fucking retarded but then again that's my general opinion of philosophy.
Full results if you're curious.
Some of those fucking questions were really fucking retarded but then again that's my general opinion of philosophy.
Full results if you're curious.
Attachments
64% parsimony score
100% geographical distance
100% family relatedness
33% acts and omissions
25% scale
Those were pretty good questions but lacking in details, I find it hard to answer "should you kill X people to save Y" without knowing circumstances of how you got in that situation in the first place.
100% geographical distance
100% family relatedness
33% acts and omissions
25% scale
Those were pretty good questions but lacking in details, I find it hard to answer "should you kill X people to save Y" without knowing circumstances of how you got in that situation in the first place.
Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth
AI Pope Of Entropic Declesiastics, Illuminati Alum
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 70%
Get fucked moralfags.
Get fucked moralfags.
Morality?
I've heard of it.
I've heard of it.
83%
All those questions about refugees and shit really make you think about the agenda of those who made this survey.
All those questions about refugees and shit really make you think about the agenda of those who made this survey.
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 73%
Sacrifing human lives for the greater good is one thing, but nobody and I mean nobody fucks with my money. Sorry Pajeet you shit in the street so you get nothing to eat.
Sacrifing human lives for the greater good is one thing, but nobody and I mean nobody fucks with my money. Sorry Pajeet you shit in the street so you get nothing to eat.
E
ES 195
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 58%
Geographical Distance
Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 67% in this category.
Family Relatedness
Your score of 33% is significantly lower than the average score of 49% in this category.
Acts and Omissions
Your score of 50% is a little lower than the average score of 60% in this category.
Scale
Your score of 50% is significantly lower than the average score of 70% in this category.
"This suggests that scale, as it is described above, is an important consideration in your moral thinking. To insist on the moral significance of scale is to decrease the parsimoniousness of your moral framework. "
Most of these questions didn't feel like real moral questions to me and seemed to infer more responsibility than anything. They're just too vague and kind of stupid to take really seriously.
Also deeming me as being lower morally for thinking you have a higher responsibility to looking after your family is rather egregious.
But whatever, it's just an online quiz. I just wish these things weren't guilty pleasures of mine.
Geographical Distance
Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 67% in this category.
Family Relatedness
Your score of 33% is significantly lower than the average score of 49% in this category.
Acts and Omissions
Your score of 50% is a little lower than the average score of 60% in this category.
Scale
Your score of 50% is significantly lower than the average score of 70% in this category.
"This suggests that scale, as it is described above, is an important consideration in your moral thinking. To insist on the moral significance of scale is to decrease the parsimoniousness of your moral framework. "
Most of these questions didn't feel like real moral questions to me and seemed to infer more responsibility than anything. They're just too vague and kind of stupid to take really seriously.
Also deeming me as being lower morally for thinking you have a higher responsibility to looking after your family is rather egregious.
But whatever, it's just an online quiz. I just wish these things weren't guilty pleasures of mine.
S
SJ 485
Guest
kiwifarms.net
You are a moron. If you read the breakdown of the results you'd see that one of the things they're testing is whether family relatedness is a factor for you when you make moral decisions. It has a question about a group of refugees and an identical question about a person from a neighbouring town. There's no agenda, it's a fucking factor in the test that they explain in plain and simple language.
Anyway here's my results
I have one minor issue with the question about saving your one child vs saving 10 children you don't know. I don't believe you have a moral obligation to choose one over the other, I don't think you're ever morally obliged to save another person, so one doesn't really come before the other to me in a moral sense, but since that answer isn't accounted for I just chose to save the one child I'm related to.
my Moral Parsimony Score is 83%. whatever the hell that means
S
SJ 485
Guest
kiwifarms.net
For those who don't understand, the parsimony score is a measure of the degree to which your moral judgements are based on a small set of principles that apply to a broad range of situations. A higher score means more consistency in how you make moral decisions, either a lower number of total factors considered or a greater importance placed on one or two factors over the rest. A lower score means either a greater number of overall factors or a more "balanced" approach where one factor doesn't significantly outweigh another.
It's actually not a very useful measurement imo, a percentage score takes all of the nuance out of the whole thing, but it's not like anyone is going to sit and read everyone's answers and analyse them all individually.
It's actually not a very useful measurement imo, a percentage score takes all of the nuance out of the whole thing, but it's not like anyone is going to sit and read everyone's answers and analyse them all individually.
Chichan
kiwifarms.net
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 54%
Edit: Easier to digest
Geographical:83%
Relatedness:17%
Acts and omissions:17%
Overall:100%
Geographical Distance
This category has to do with the impact of geographical distance on the application of moral principles. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied equally when dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in their geographical location in relation to the person making the judgement.
Your score of 83% is significantly higher than the average score of 67% in this category.
The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.
Family Relatedness
In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement.
Your score of 17% is significantly lower than the average score of 49% in this category.
It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced.
Acts and Omissions
This category has to do with whether there is a difference between the moral status of acting and omitting to act where the consequences are the same in both instances. Consider the following example. Let's assume that on the whole it is a bad thing if a person is poisoned whilst drinking a cola drink. One might then ask whether there is a moral difference between poisoning the coke, on the one hand (an act), and failing to prevent a person from drinking a coke someone else has poisoned, when in a position to do so, on the other (an omission). In this category then, the idea is to determine if moral principles are applied equally when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in whether the participants have acted or omitted to act.
Your score of 17% is much lower than the average score of 60% in this category.
This suggests that the difference between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral framework. Usually, this will mean thinking that those who act have greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. To insist on a moral distinction between acting and omitting to act is to decrease the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.
This category has to do with the impact of geographical distance on the application of moral principles. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied equally when dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in their geographical location in relation to the person making the judgement.
Your score of 83% is significantly higher than the average score of 67% in this category.
The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.
Family Relatedness
In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement.
Your score of 17% is significantly lower than the average score of 49% in this category.
It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced.
Acts and Omissions
This category has to do with whether there is a difference between the moral status of acting and omitting to act where the consequences are the same in both instances. Consider the following example. Let's assume that on the whole it is a bad thing if a person is poisoned whilst drinking a cola drink. One might then ask whether there is a moral difference between poisoning the coke, on the one hand (an act), and failing to prevent a person from drinking a coke someone else has poisoned, when in a position to do so, on the other (an omission). In this category then, the idea is to determine if moral principles are applied equally when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in whether the participants have acted or omitted to act.
Your score of 17% is much lower than the average score of 60% in this category.
This suggests that the difference between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral framework. Usually, this will mean thinking that those who act have greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. To insist on a moral distinction between acting and omitting to act is to decrease the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.
Morality Play - Final Analysis
The analysis which follows will give you an idea of how the answers you gave to the questions in this activity compare to those given by other people.
To date, 5000 people have undertaken this activity.
Question 1: You pass someone in the street who is in severe need and you are able to help them at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so?
You answered: Strongly Obliged.
Question 2: You have a brother. You know that someone has been seriously injured as a result of criminal activity undertaken by him. You live in a country where the police are generally trustworthy. Are you morally obliged to inform them about your brother's crime?
You answered: Weakly Obliged.
Question 3: Do you think that assisting the suicide of someone who wants to die - and has requested help - is morally equivalent to allowing them to die by withholding medical assistance (assuming that the level of suffering turns out to be identical in both cases)?
You answered: Yes.
Question 4: You are able to help some people. Unfortunately, you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 10 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference?
You answered: No.
Question 5: You own an unoccupied property. You are contacted by a refugee group which desperately needs somewhere to house a person seeking asylum who is being unjustly persecuted in a foreign country.
You answered: Weakly Obliged.
Question 6: A charity collection takes place in your office. For every UK£10.00 given, a blind person's sight is restored. Instead of donating UK£10.00, you use the money to treat yourself to a cocktail after work. Are you morally responsible for the continued blindness of the person who would have been treated had you made the donation?
You answered: Not Responsible.
Question 7: Someone you have never met needs a kidney transplant. You are one of the few people who can provide the kidney. Would any moral obligation to provide the kidney be greater if this person were a cousin rather than a non-relative?
You answered: Yes.
Question 8: You can save the lives of a thousand patients by cancelling one hundred operations that would have saved the lives of a hundred different patients.
You answered: No.
Question 9: Are your moral obligations to people in your own country or community stronger than those to people in other countries and communities (assuming no unusual circumstances - for example, suffering because of famine - in either your own country/community or other countries/communities)?
You answered: Yes.
Question 10: You deliberately sabotage a piece of machinery in your work place so that when someone next uses it there will be an accident which will result in that person losing the use of their legs.
You answered: Responsible.
Question 11: You know the identity of someone who has committed a serious crime resulting in a person being badly injured. Are you morally obliged to reveal their identity to an appropriate authority so that they are dealt with justly?
You answered: Strongly Obliged.
Question 12: You can save the lives of ten innocent people by killing one other innocent person. Are you morally obliged to do so?
You answered: No.
Question 13: You see a charity advertisement in a newspaper about a person in severe need in India/Australia. There is no state welfare available to this person, but you can help them at little cost to yourself. You have good reason to believe that any help you offer will make a difference. Are you morally obliged to help the person?
You answered: Weakly Obliged.
Question 14: You are required to send a person a gift, and you have bought a bottle of drink to send to them. However, you discover it is poison and if consumed will cause blindness in the drinker. To replace it with a non-contaminated bottle will cost you UK£10.00. You give the poisoned drink as a gift anyway. Are you morally responsible for the blindness of the drinker?
You answered: Responsible.
Question 15: A situation arises where you can either save your own child from death or contact the emergency services in order to save the lives of ten other children. You cannot do both, and there is no way to save everyone. Which course of action are you morally obliged to follow?
You answered: Save Your Own Child.
Question 16: You can save the lives of ten patients by cancelling one operation which would have saved the life of a different patient. Are you morally obliged to do so?
You answered: No.
Question 17: You own an unoccupied property. You are contacted by a welfare organisation which desperately needs somewhere to house a person from a nearby town who is being unjustly persecuted. Your anonymity is assured. You have every reason to believe that no harm will come to your property. Are you morally obliged to allow them to use your property?
You answered: Weakly Obliged.
Question 18: You become aware that a piece of machinery in your workplace is faulty and that if it is not repaired then there will soon be an accident which will result in someone losing the use of their legs. Despite knowing that nobody else is aware of the fault, you take no action.
You answered: Partly Responsible.
Question 19: You can save the lives of a million innocent people by killing a hundred thousand others. Are you morally obliged to do so?
You answered: No.
The analysis which follows will give you an idea of how the answers you gave to the questions in this activity compare to those given by other people.
To date, 5000 people have undertaken this activity.
Question 1: You pass someone in the street who is in severe need and you are able to help them at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so?
You answered: Strongly Obliged.
- 65% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 72% of women agree with you.
- 62% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 67% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 2: You have a brother. You know that someone has been seriously injured as a result of criminal activity undertaken by him. You live in a country where the police are generally trustworthy. Are you morally obliged to inform them about your brother's crime?
You answered: Weakly Obliged.
- 40% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 41% of women agree with you.
- 34% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 37% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 3: Do you think that assisting the suicide of someone who wants to die - and has requested help - is morally equivalent to allowing them to die by withholding medical assistance (assuming that the level of suffering turns out to be identical in both cases)?
You answered: Yes.
- 46% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 44% of women agree with you.
- 46% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 45% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 4: You are able to help some people. Unfortunately, you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 10 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference?
You answered: No.
- 54% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 52% of women agree with you.
- 60% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 57% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 5: You own an unoccupied property. You are contacted by a refugee group which desperately needs somewhere to house a person seeking asylum who is being unjustly persecuted in a foreign country.
You answered: Weakly Obliged.
- 37% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 39% of women agree with you.
- 34% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 36% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 6: A charity collection takes place in your office. For every UK£10.00 given, a blind person's sight is restored. Instead of donating UK£10.00, you use the money to treat yourself to a cocktail after work. Are you morally responsible for the continued blindness of the person who would have been treated had you made the donation?
You answered: Not Responsible.
- 38% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 39% of women agree with you.
- 44% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 42% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 7: Someone you have never met needs a kidney transplant. You are one of the few people who can provide the kidney. Would any moral obligation to provide the kidney be greater if this person were a cousin rather than a non-relative?
You answered: Yes.
- 54% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 57% of women agree with you.
- 51% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 54% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 8: You can save the lives of a thousand patients by cancelling one hundred operations that would have saved the lives of a hundred different patients.
You answered: No.
- 64% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 59% of women agree with you.
- 58% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 58% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 9: Are your moral obligations to people in your own country or community stronger than those to people in other countries and communities (assuming no unusual circumstances - for example, suffering because of famine - in either your own country/community or other countries/communities)?
You answered: Yes.
- 51% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 47% of women agree with you.
- 49% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 47% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 10: You deliberately sabotage a piece of machinery in your work place so that when someone next uses it there will be an accident which will result in that person losing the use of their legs.
You answered: Responsible.
- 91% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 95% of women agree with you.
- 92% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 93% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 11: You know the identity of someone who has committed a serious crime resulting in a person being badly injured. Are you morally obliged to reveal their identity to an appropriate authority so that they are dealt with justly?
You answered: Strongly Obliged.
- 69% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 75% of women agree with you.
- 69% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 72% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 12: You can save the lives of ten innocent people by killing one other innocent person. Are you morally obliged to do so?
You answered: No.
- 71% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 72% of women agree with you.
- 68% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 70% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 13: You see a charity advertisement in a newspaper about a person in severe need in India/Australia. There is no state welfare available to this person, but you can help them at little cost to yourself. You have good reason to believe that any help you offer will make a difference. Are you morally obliged to help the person?
You answered: Weakly Obliged.
- 45% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 45% of women agree with you.
- 41% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 43% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 14: You are required to send a person a gift, and you have bought a bottle of drink to send to them. However, you discover it is poison and if consumed will cause blindness in the drinker. To replace it with a non-contaminated bottle will cost you UK£10.00. You give the poisoned drink as a gift anyway. Are you morally responsible for the blindness of the drinker?
You answered: Responsible.
- 89% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 92% of women agree with you.
- 89% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 90% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 15: A situation arises where you can either save your own child from death or contact the emergency services in order to save the lives of ten other children. You cannot do both, and there is no way to save everyone. Which course of action are you morally obliged to follow?
You answered: Save Your Own Child.
- 74% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 76% of women agree with you.
- 68% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 72% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 16: You can save the lives of ten patients by cancelling one operation which would have saved the life of a different patient. Are you morally obliged to do so?
You answered: No.
- 55% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 56% of women agree with you.
- 55% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 55% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 17: You own an unoccupied property. You are contacted by a welfare organisation which desperately needs somewhere to house a person from a nearby town who is being unjustly persecuted. Your anonymity is assured. You have every reason to believe that no harm will come to your property. Are you morally obliged to allow them to use your property?
You answered: Weakly Obliged.
- 33% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 43% of women agree with you.
- 36% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 39% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 18: You become aware that a piece of machinery in your workplace is faulty and that if it is not repaired then there will soon be an accident which will result in someone losing the use of their legs. Despite knowing that nobody else is aware of the fault, you take no action.
You answered: Partly Responsible.
- 30% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 31% of women agree with you.
- 31% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 31% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Question 19: You can save the lives of a million innocent people by killing a hundred thousand others. Are you morally obliged to do so?
You answered: No.
- 73% of people of your religion (or lack thereof) agree with you.
- 71% of women agree with you.
- 68% of men agree with you.
- Overall, 69% of respondents gave the same answer as you.
Geographical:83%
Relatedness:17%
Acts and omissions:17%
Overall:100%
Last edited:
