09-07-2005 09:52									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

Identical to Last Conformist.

quote: Results Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00. What do these results mean? Are you thinking straight about morality? You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. 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. Yet the actions described in these scenarios at least seem to be private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. More significantly, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

They missed some inconsistencies in their own test, for example, their incest example on the first page did not mention infertility, but then adds that on the second page. The context changes substantially because of the chance of harm without that proviso.

They also have problems with "wrong" versus would it bother you. There are many things that would bother me, I will always be a child of the culture I grew up in. However, even though they may bother me, and in certain cases I felt - operative word, feeling - that they may be wrong, as long as they do no harm except to the individual(s) involved, I am certainly not going to intervene. They are guilty of the same kind of murky indefinite reasoning they accuse others of. Plus they left out Taoism from their list of religions/belief systems (and the included Buddhism which can also be considered a belief system that is not a religion). It was interesting though. I don't think they understand Ben Franklin's comment about true supporters of freedom will support the right of others to do what they do not approve of.

	09-07-2005 11:21									#32
	Increase Your PM Length

A man screwing a frozen chicken. This likely means a frozen d*ck too...

My results:

quote: Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00. What do these results mean? Are you thinking straight about morality? You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, your responses are a little puzzling. You don't think an action can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and blah blah blah...............................................................

	09-07-2005 11:21									#33
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin A few of my answers were difficult to give because I found it hard to accept that incest or sex with frozen chickens does not harm the person performing the act, at least a psychological level. Yet they wanted me to dissassociate my expectations and reality from the scenarios. Yet moralism requires reality and expectations imho.

What he said.

I cannot accept that brother and sister getting it on can be guaranteed to result in no damage to anyone.

But, I think the fish is stuck up about frozen chickens.

quote: Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.40. Your Interference Factor is: 0.20. Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

	09-07-2005 11:29									#34
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I also disbelieve that my preference for a country where flags are not used as asswipe results in a state where 'it is likely that you did so because you think that what makes it wrong comes from God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement'

Maybe I just prefer peoples and cultures that show respect for others? How is that external to human judgement?

	09-07-2005 11:32									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

notyoueither -

	09-07-2005 11:39									#36
	Put an end to popups!

The flag is just a piece of cloth. If there is no harm intended then there should be no harm taken. If there is harm intended, then that is what I would take offence to, not the actual act.

	09-07-2005 11:42									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

So that means that it is because of God or some otherworldly power that I would prefer a state where respect for other states is the rule?

Harm is often solely in the eye of the harmed.

	09-07-2005 11:49									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If there is not disrespect intended (if it honestly does not occur to them that the symbol of the other country is held in a certain degree of reverence by some) then there is no disrespect.

The question is slightly ridiculous (as the idea that somebody could be so woefully ignorant of others' attitudes is far-fetched) but when taken at face value, this is what I saw the question asking. The activity is innocent, thus any offence I take is unjustified. It might make you feel uncomfortable (though personally, I'm not too big into the sacredness of symbols) but it is not an immoral act in and of itself. Similarly with the brother/sister question. I took the question at face value and answered that sexual intercourse between the two was not immoral. I also answered that it would make me feel uncomfortable, since in the back of my mind I would be unconvinced that no harm was coming to either and that the relationship was nonexploitative.

	09-07-2005 12:05									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse If there is not disrespect intended (if it honestly does not occur to them that the symbol of the other country is held in a certain degree of reverence by some) then there is no disrespect.

No, in that case they are dumber than sacks of hammers.

I am still not listening to God, or anything external to human experience, in preferring the other state.

quote: The question is slightly ridiculous (as the idea that somebody could be so woefully ignorant of others' attitudes is far-fetched) but when taken at face value, this is what I saw the question asking. The activity is innocent, thus any offence I take is unjustified. It might make you feel uncomfortable (though personally, I'm not too big into the sacredness of symbols) but it is not an immoral act in and of itself. Similarly with the brother/sister question. I took the question at face value and answered that sexual intercourse between the two was not immoral. I also answered that it would make me feel uncomfortable, since in the back of my mind I would be unconvinced that no harm was coming to either and that the relationship was nonexploitative.

Many 'innocent' activities are not so innocent after all.

Take for instance pinching asses in the work place. The recipient of the act has more to say about it than the perpetrator in some cases.

What about Sarah's children who receive no negative signals about their touching of each other while in puberty? Sarah's daughter gets knocked up by her brother.

Harm to whom? When?

Stupid test, stupid questions, stupid judgements.

	09-07-2005 12:17									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: In one country, it is normal for brothers and sisters to have sex with each other on one occasion if the sister is infertile.

Say what?

	09-07-2005 12:55									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Take for instance pinching asses in the work place. The recipient of the act has more to say about it than the perpetrator in some cases.

Yes, and?

If bumpinching was as common a form of greeting in some foreign land as is handshaking here, then are you going to tell me that it is immoral for somebody to pinch your bum when you visit that country?

Once it becomes obvious that you are not down with their custom, then it becomes a question of morality. Respecting another's feelings and all. Until they know (or suspect) it will offend you it is an amoral act.

	09-07-2005 12:56									#42
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Whereas in this society it is unreasonable to assume that pinching somebody's bum will not offend them. Which is why I don't pinch strangers' bums.

	09-07-2005 13:03									#43
	Tired of ads?

You go to a country called Bumpinchestan with your wife.

In Bumpinchestan women are treated as chattel and bum pinching is considered the norm. Your wife is not pinched, but she introduces you to customs in Bumpinchistan.

Is the treatment of women in bumpinchestan moral?

	09-07-2005 13:05									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

None of them are complaining. It is all they have ever known. They know no better.

	09-07-2005 13:12									#45
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You're either deliberately or mistakenly confusing a moral issue (the treatment of human beings as chattel) with an amoral issue (the customary greeting of bumpinching).

Do you want to give me a hard one, or will you keep lobbing them at me?

	09-07-2005 13:13									#46
	Remove this text

I'm not a moral relativist, NYE.

I also know better than to confuse morality with custom.

One is universal. The other is not.

	09-07-2005 13:15									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I respect custom because it is immoral to needlessly offend others.

If I am ignorant of a custom and violate it, though, I have not committed an immoral act.

	09-07-2005 13:16									#48
	Put an end to popups!

Some people see no moral problem with humans as chattel.

Some people see no moral problem with brother sleeping with sister under some mistaken assumption that such could happen with a possibility of no harm.

Connect the dots.

	09-07-2005 13:18									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse I'm not a moral relativist, NYE. I also know better than to confuse morality with custom. One is universal. The other is not.

Is it? Universal?

Do you condemn cannibalistic tribes as being immoral?

If they aren't, what's to stop some modern society from adopting a new 'custom'?

	09-07-2005 13:19									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Some people see no moral problem with humans as chattel. Some people see no moral problem with brother sleeping with sister under some mistaken assumption that such could happen with a possibility of no harm. Connect the dots.

Connect what dots?

Some people see no moral problem with human beings as chattel?

Too ****ing bad. They're wrong.

Some people see no moral problem with intrafamilial ****ing because they mistakenly assume that such ****ing will not have repercussions? I agree that in almost every case such activity would be wrong, abusive, exploitative, etc.

If, however, we postulate as the test did that no such harm occurs then what basis are we to condemn the act of incest on?

You're being very muddleheaded here, NYE.

	09-07-2005 13:20									#51
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Is it? Universal? Do you condemn cannibalistic tribes as being immoral? If they aren't, what's to stop some modern society from adopting a new 'custom'?

Cannibalism of the already dead is an amoral act, except insofar as there are health risks.

	09-07-2005 13:23									#52
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

	09-07-2005 13:24									#53
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Connect what dots? Some people see no moral problem with human beings as chattel? Too ****ing bad. They're wrong. Some people see no moral problem with intrafamilial ****ing because they mistakenly assume that such ****ing will not have repercussions? I agree that in almost every case such activity would be wrong, abusive, exploitative, etc. If, however, we postulate as the test did that no such harm occurs then what basis are we to condemn the act of incest on? You're being very muddleheaded here, NYE.

I'm being muddleheaded for denying the conditions the test makers insist on as being humanly possible?

Maybe I am more accurate about their test than they are about my God-derived morality. Hmmm?

	09-07-2005 13:24									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sweet. You and me are the only reasonable people so far...

	09-07-2005 13:25									#55
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Cannibalism of the already dead is an amoral act, except insofar as there are health risks.

That's an interesting point of view.

I am, of course, speaking of tribes that put diner to death prior to cooking it.

What's wrong with that?

It's just another animal, right?

	09-07-2005 13:26									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I'm being muddleheaded for denying the conditions the test makers insist on as being humanly possible?

You're being muddleheaded for a number of reasons.

First, yes: the testmakers postulated a situation. You are asked to bring moral judgment based on their postulates. You are not being asked to question their postulates. That is a different question.

Secondly, you're attempting to mix moral and amoral issues together to force me to moralise custom. It won't work.

	09-07-2005 13:28									#57
	Remove this text

Killing and eating people is moral or immoral, KH?

	09-07-2005 13:28									#58
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither That's an interesting point of view. I am, of course, speaking of tribes that put diner to death prior to cooking it. What's wrong with that? It's just another animal, right?

No. Human beings are moral objects and have inherent value attached to them. Maximising the well-being of humans is the objective of my morality. Except in an extreme situation (where the death of one will save the lives of many) the slaughter of a human for food is an absolute moral wrong.

	09-07-2005 13:28									#59
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Killing and eating people is moral or immoral, KH?

Killing people is wrong. Eating them is not.

	09-07-2005 13:30									#60
	Put an end to popups!

Oh. So you admit there can be a moral wrong where the society practicing such customs sees none.