Morality Test

...and typos......

I guess one persons morals is another persons bigotry. For example: Person #1 can believe that homosexuality is immoral and person #2 can believe that homosexuality is not immoral and that anyone who thinks it is is a bigot.

So, I guess that means that morals (or lack thereof) and bigotry are all subjective.

Hmm - I do not think that we can rationally resort to "it's all subjective" and leave it at that.

I mean, we CAN, but that leaves ethics in the realm of emotion, enculturation, and whether or not you happen to be religious.

I think that the issues you raised can be debated perfectly sensibly - for instance, on whether they do harm to others.

I can do perfectly good arguments against incest - if by this one means having sex or sexually interfering with one's children (incest between consenting adults is different - especially if they prevent conception) and paedophilia and sex with animals and bigotry - and I have no received morality from a religious source to use as a crutch, nor am I relying on enculturation's consequent emotionality.

Homosexuality I could not raise a good ethical argument against. Bigamy (if all concerned are aware) and incest between consenting adults - well - these are very moot.

I got the same score. I think my sense of morality has everything to do with whether an action hurts someone or something.

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Seriously, what's wrong with sex with a frozen chicken? Just don't give me a piece.

Sheesh, I must be an opressive ogre. My scores were 0.6, 0.6, 0.5. Here is the silly explanation:

"Your responses to the scenarios depicted in this activity are a little bit puzzling. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. And it at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Yet your responses indicate that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here, and presumably - though not necessarily - this is why you think that there are moral problems with them. The trouble is that you were asked to judge the scenarios as described, not as you think they would have turned out in the real world. And given how they were described, it isn't clear what form such harms could take."

The test is clearly biased towards a particular conclusion, but it was fun anyway.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Though it seems the site considers a lack of desire to see a man pork a chicken (pun intended) to be a moral condemnation. I see nothing immoral about it (the chicken doesn't seem to mind at that point), but I've no interest in watching it.

I thought the same thing, limbo.

Though the name similarity and the scores similarity is freaking me out a bit.

I'm gonna go ahead and say my score *should* be all zeros.

And fortunately patiodog, there is a disctinct difference between a patio and limbo. (though one might conceivably limbo on a patio)

Hmmm, I think of a patio as a sort of purgatorio between the house and the yard -- you spend some time there in passing from one to the other, and how much time you spend there frequently depends on how much you drink, but neither is meant to be a final destination.

I think we should convince other dogs to join A2K (which sounds too much like a boi band)

perhaps we can get:
loungedog
mesopotamiadog
rectorydog
nirvanadog
and I hear prisondog is up for parole...

poi band

the cute one


...the tough one...


...the edgy one...


...and, of course, hawaiianpoidog.




Lately, though, there have been accusations that the band has sold out, gone too commercial...

members of the band Poison have sued for copywrite infringement.

Which begs the question: Are puns immoral?

If you heard about two countries: one which allows puns, one which punishes those who tell puns... Would both be okay? Would one be in the wrong?

If you saw someone telling a pun, would you have sex with a frozen chicken?

I didn't like the way this test was phrased because it said "was it morally wrong for person X to do Y?" Well, that depends on THEIR morals, not mine! All the questions were phrased that way. Is it wrong for a man to have sex with his chicken before eating it? I cannot answer those questions because they depend on that man's morals, not mine...

I think it meant 'in your opinion: was it an immoral act?'

I certainly can say I feel that robbing someone of their socks is immoral, for example.

I am not acquainted with the morals of puns. Ethically, however, I believe that it is in the best interests of society and not unreasonably vicious to put punners in the stocks for first offense, and for second offenses simmer them to soup.

limbodog, lol

Just be sure not to use the pot with the crack in it. It leeks. /ducks

Oh, that one's full of carrot and pee



ack-chew-al-lee.