Your Moralising Quotient

Quote:

Taboo - The Results How did you do compared to other people? Taboo has been played 40568 times. Your Moralising Quotient of 0.08 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.36. 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 0.23. 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 0.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.52. This means you are less likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).

Taboo - The Results

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.


Give this quiz a try.
Linky
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
_________________
I feel the same way about disco as I do about herpes. -HST

Taboo - The Results

How did you do compared to other people?

Taboo has been played 40569 times.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.13 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.36. 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 0.25 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.23. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average.

Your Universalising Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.51. This means you are less likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).


_________________
Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Violence inherent in the system!

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.


Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.


Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

_________________
To Learn is to Know
To Know is to Love
To Love is our aim

~~~~~~~

Why should we bother with immortality when we are eternal?

Ginjg wrote:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

You didn't care about the brother on sister bit?
_________________
I feel the same way about disco as I do about herpes. -HST

I'm fully permissive as well. Figures.
_________________
Totus Floreo Totus Ardeo

http://katarinanavane.deviantart.com

http://katarinanavane.etsy.com

Hmm..I feel odd man out here...
_________________
Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system! Violence inherent in the system!

Evidently, I'm a complete slut and don't really mind that quality in others.


Seems like a lot of questions to get to a pretty obvious answer.


My new version of this test is to yell.

"Hey ho."

If you said, "What?" Well, there you go.

Blarg wrote:

Hmm..I feel odd man out here...

Dude, you have recent history that would understandably color anyone's stance on "inforcibilty" and such. I was an intolerable bore on the subject of personal ethics for about two years after my fiancee ran off with the handy-man, so don't feel like the lone ranger if you're riding a higher horse for a little while. The human heart occilates, if it were rotary, transitions would be a lot smoother, but until they perfect that particular technology, you're going to have some ups and downs.

This means I'm good, right!!!???!!!

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Your Moralising Quotient is an aggregate measure of your tendency to condemn the actions described in these scenarios as morally wrong. A score of 1.00 indicates a fully moralising position. A score of 0.00 is a fully permissive response. (See below for more on these.)

Your Interference Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to judge the actions described here as being the legitimate target of societal interference in the form of prevention or punishment. A score of 1.00 indicates that you think that every act described in these scenarios is subject to societal interference. A score of 0.00 indicates that you think that these acts are essentially a private matter, and that societal interference is inappropriate.

A score of -1 means that you saw no moral wrong in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, and so it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms.
_________________
You are so whack.Wiggity whack?Nope, just the regular kind.
You can't dust for vomit
This is the Governor's wife. -- You mean she's not the hooker?
It's time to separate the awkwardly feminine from the possibly canadian

Ferrit Leggings wrote:

You didn't care about the brother on sister bit?

This is a silly question... incest is taboo for very specific reasons... procreation (and the potential for genetic degredation) and inheiritence rights... beyond that, sex is sex... so long as both parties are in agrrement, and both parties are capable of making that sort of decision (IE no kids, no mentally challenged folks)...

Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this "test" wasn't designed solely for the purpose of asking that question...
_________________
You are so whack.Wiggity whack?Nope, just the regular kind.
You can't dust for vomit
This is the Governor's wife. -- You mean she's not the hooker?
It's time to separate the awkwardly feminine from the possibly canadian

conspiracies unlimited wrote:

Ferrit Leggings wrote: You didn't care about the brother on sister bit? This is a silly question... incest is taboo for very specific reasons... procreation (and the potential for genetic degredation) and inheiritence rights... beyond that, sex is sex... so long as both parties are in agrrement, and both parties are capable of making that sort of decision (IE no kids, no mentally challenged folks)... Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this "test" wasn't designed solely for the purpose of asking that question...

Seems to me, remembering from my Anthro 101, incest is the only universal taboo among human cultures, but it's defined differently. In some cultures, mating with anyone in your clan is incest, even if you can't trace kinship. Some it's the same village. Others, cousins aren't even related to you (culturally). The taboo has almost nothing to do with genetic diversity, except in modern, technological cultures, which most of the world is not. There has been some sort of incest taboo for thousands of years, but we've only known about genetics for a century or so. In the past and continuing into modern times, the incest taboo has been about trade and relationships. (Yes, inheiritance is one of those. )

chris wrote:

conspiracies unlimited wrote: Ferrit Leggings wrote: You didn't care about the brother on sister bit? This is a silly question... incest is taboo for very specific reasons... procreation (and the potential for genetic degredation) and inheiritence rights... beyond that, sex is sex... so long as both parties are in agrrement, and both parties are capable of making that sort of decision (IE no kids, no mentally challenged folks)... Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this "test" wasn't designed solely for the purpose of asking that question... Seems to me, remembering from my Anthro 101, incest is the only universal taboo among human cultures, but it's defined differently. In some cultures, mating with anyone in your clan is incest, even if you can't trace kinship. Some it's the same village. Others, cousins aren't even related to you (culturally). The taboo has almost nothing to do with genetic diversity, except in modern, technological cultures, which most of the world is not. There has been some sort of incest taboo for thousands of years, but we've only known about genetics for a century or so. In the past and continuing into modern times, the incest taboo has been about trade and relationships. (Yes, inheiritance is one of those. )

Hmmm. Facts... yeah, I can't work with those...

So, when I'm in Kauai later this year, can I come hunt chickens with you...
_________________
You are so whack.Wiggity whack?Nope, just the regular kind.
You can't dust for vomit
This is the Governor's wife. -- You mean she's not the hooker?
It's time to separate the awkwardly feminine from the possibly canadian