Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Your Morals: A Quiz!

Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 12:54:50 AM
By now I hope a lot of you are all familiar with the work of Jonathan Haidt in moral psychology. For those unfamiliar, he is the author of an excellent book on the underlying differences between Liberal and Conservative approaches to morality. With academic and scientific rigour, The Righteous Mind is probably at least as significant as The Bell Curve and is a must read. The data for the research that led to the book was drawn from a number of sources, but a big one was an online questionnaire. I thought it might be interesting to try it out and post our scores, maybe metalheads show some kind of trend? I will post mine later once we get one or two going.

http://www.yourmorals.org/

The website does not ask for e-mail confirmation, though it does require registration. There are a number of tests on the site for those who wish to explore this more deeply, the one I am talking about is the first one in the list. The fundamental assertion is that morality consists of a number of moral foundations (five or six) and that Liberals favour harm/care and fairness over the others (loyalty, authority, purity) with Conservatives showing more of a balance.

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 01:38:56 AM
Liberalism is moral syphilis.

- Jonathan Bowden

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 03:20:59 AM

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 03:45:37 AM


Interesting.
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 04:17:09 AM
The reason I didnt post my scores was because I score low on the first two foundations. Abnormally low, but it seems Wild and Undermind far surpass me there!




(two attempts 1 year apart, older first)

It isnt really the scores that matter as much as the overall distribution though.

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 05:46:37 PM


Up until about a year ago, the "Harm" and "Fairness" sections would have been much, much lower. Getting old, I guess. Not sure why "Loyalty" is so low, but OK. I do find it amusing to see that my obsession with "Purity" outdoes even a Muslim's ;)
HE WHO REAPS STORMS, SOWS WINDS. HE WHO SOWS WINDS, REAPS STORMS.

"It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart."
-Ecclesiastes 7:2

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 06:37:27 PM


Glad to see I'm not the only bleeding heart here.

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 06:53:20 PM


Whatever that means.
Squawk!

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 01, 2013, 08:44:04 PM
I'm not quite sure I understood the difference between harm and fairness in the questions.  When I read them, it seemed like the harm questions were 'something bad has happened, and it is up to others to make it right' whereas the fairness questions were more along the lines of 'something bad has happened, and he did it to me, make it right'. 

I guess the distinction is there but I'm not sure what role 'harm' plays in making it morally justifiable. It seems like 'fairness' covers that pretty well.

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 02, 2013, 02:23:42 AM
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 02, 2013, 04:00:37 AM


My thoughts on each...

Harm: I believe in my own version of Utilitarianism, so Harm should be important... however thinking Harm is bad tends to oversimplify things. To me it's like, if you are running a business and your number one goal is to profit... well, sometimes in order to make more money for the future, you have to invest your funds now.

Fairness: I often operate according to fairness, but really I think efficiency is the main thing. It doesn't matter if everyone is treated the same, what counts is what happens overall. Fairness can stop arguments, but it can also mean we have to sacrifice reality.

Loyalty: My highest score. I definitely am a fan of group cohesion, and being able to trust and count on those who you should be able to. A lack of trust in those around you means we can't work together towards goals.

Authority: My lowest score... but this is probably because of what passes as authority these days. From parents, teachers, police, government... I see all the corruption and illegitimacy of the authority these people have. I often think I know better than them, or at least that I can see many flaws to the method. I think I do value authority a lot though, but it has to be legitimate... I believe in Plato, everyone to their own position. What I am saying is I don't think society puts people in the right positions.

Purity: not sure of this one. I think that losing purity often means one arbitrary experience lessens everything that comes after it. This can be a very serious issue which most people try to ignore.


Well, it seems we have no liberals here. Liberals like to keep up with the times... they don't think over long periods. Individualism... everyone is equal, and everyone has rights - so harm no one and treat everyone the same. You are your own person, so you don't owe loyalty to anyone, you don't have to respect authority (which is all corrupt anyway...) and notions of purity are outdated and caused by personal feelings of disgust, not reality... well, I think conservatism is more honest... we have these in built moral codes, and liberals say, well let's do away with the ones that don't help us get ahead in modern society as individuals. Well, the group suffers if we forget all the factors and pick and choose as we please... but maybe this is a biological difference, not a cultural one... I am not too familiar with the work of the person who has made this division of moralities.
TAH EERF

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 02, 2013, 06:10:10 AM
I keep running into the same problem with these sites: they don't function if the person taking the tests views "morality" as meaningless.

Example:
Nasty plague. Need to test vaccines on human test subjects. Is it moral to do force people to do so?

My answer:
Moral weight is meaningless. The only meaningful consideration is whether the actions undertaken satisfy the goal intended. If your goal is to stop the plague, then it's fine. If your goal is to "never cause harm to a human", then it isn't.

I don't care about causing harm to humans, but I wouldn't try to develop a vaccine either because there's too many fucking people.

No judgments exist in a vacuum.
Liberalism is moral syphilis.

- Jonathan Bowden

NHA

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 02, 2013, 07:56:05 AM


Low across the board, with a slight peak at loyalty. Makes for a good criminal i guess ha.

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 02, 2013, 09:21:10 AM
I keep running into the same problem with these sites: they don't function if the person taking the tests views "morality" as meaningless.

Example:
Nasty plague. Need to test vaccines on human test subjects. Is it moral to do force people to do so?

My answer:
Moral weight is meaningless. The only meaningful consideration is whether the actions undertaken satisfy the goal intended. If your goal is to stop the plague, then it's fine. If your goal is to "never cause harm to a human", then it isn't.

I don't care about causing harm to humans, but I wouldn't try to develop a vaccine either because there's too many fucking people.

No judgments exist in a vacuum.

It’s a backwards world at the moment. I was thinking about this recently when Roberto Pannunzi got arrested. What makes his job and eventual lot in life any less morally credible than those currently in government? The only thing I could think of is that is that one is legal the other is not. Law is every bit as subject to corruption as morality.

Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
October 02, 2013, 10:00:31 AM

My answer:
Moral weight is meaningless. The only meaningful consideration is whether the actions undertaken satisfy the goal intended. If your goal is to stop the plague, then it's fine. If your goal is to "never cause harm to a human", then it isn't.

I don't care about causing harm to humans, but I wouldn't try to develop a vaccine either because there's too many fucking people.

Where do we get the goals from in the first place? To me, your last line sounds like a moral consideration. If you said "I wouldn't try to develop a vaccine because I really can't be bothered doing all the study that would lead me to a position where I could develop it", well this may not be a moral consideration. But since you are looking at the effects on humanity... is this not moral?

Ah, but who cares... there are different interpretations of what morality is. I like to think of "ethics" as the general guiding principles behind what we should be trying to achieve, and morality as a more specific thing which is dependent on biology and evolutionary forces. Ethics is like trying to find the harmony between the universe and the soul, regardless of what one's specific biological make up happens to be. It is the guiding force behind all action. It may even simply be a matter of making one's Will known. It is the meaning of existence. Morality might be a human thing, ethics is not. But I am defining ethics to mean what I want it to mean :)

Really I think morality is as important as anything in life. Either infinitely so or not at all.
TAH EERF