09-07-2005 15:18									#91
	Got spare money?

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.


Golly.

	09-07-2005 15:52									#92
	Put an end to popups!

our Moralising Quotient is: 0.73.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.80.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.



WTF? According to the test, I'm a closest conservative!!!

	09-07-2005 16:08									#93
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.03 Your Interference Factor is: 0.00 Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00

Sounds about right .

	09-07-2005 21:38									#94
	Suffering from ads?

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.


I don't consider the treatment of flags to be a moral issue, rather it is a preference one. Therefore, I would not burn a flag in a country that thought burning flags was wrong, out of respect for the practices of the country.

I also said the same for eating one's own pet. I don't see it as a moral issue either. I wouldn't eat my own pet, not because it is wrong to eat your pet, but because I wouldn't want to eat a pet that I have loved and cared for.

	09-07-2005 21:50									#95
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.43.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You did not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong. Where you have judged an act to be morally problematic, 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. You indicated that an action can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook. However, there is a tension in your responses in that you indicated that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here. Given that the actions described in these scenarios are private and it was specified as clearly as possible that they did not involve harm, it isn't clear where you think the harm might lie.


To be honest Im not sure what all of this means.

	09-07-2005 22:18									#96
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

first number is something like do you think things can be wrong that don't harm anyone else..

second is whether state or other people should be involved in enforcing morality

third number is whether you think that do you beleive in morality independent of culture...

Jon Miller

	09-07-2005 22:23									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Only human beings are capable of doing wrong, and only human beings are capable of having wrong done to them.

Wrong, Chimps can lie, and can be angered by being lied to.

	09-07-2005 22:30									#98
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller first number is something like do you think things can be wrong that don't harm anyone else.. second is whether state or other people should be involved in enforcing morality third number is whether you think that do you beleive in morality independent of culture... Jon Miller

Thank you the explanation. I want to know about the numbers too. High numbers good or bad?

	09-07-2005 22:47									#99
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

it is out of 1...

whether that is good or bad, is up to you

a lot of people feel that the second number being high is bad.. (you think the state should enforce morality the higher it is)

3rd number had a lot to do with whether you think morality is absolute (you think it is absolute if you are more towards 1)

the first number is completely up to the person..

Jon Miller

	09-07-2005 22:54									#100
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Not really a question of good and bad - the test is IMO too general here to make such statements. The numbers just tell you were you stand in a certain field. Let's say you have a high number in 2) (whether state or other people should be involved in enforcing morality as JM wrote) that just means you would agree more and sooner (than others) that the state should do it. But as such this is not good or evil per se - it depends a lot on the details. For example outlawing murder would probably nobody see as bad, yet it means state enforced morality. OTOH a state making racist laws would probably seen as evil by many.

	09-07-2005 23:04									#101
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I guess by my numbers im kinda in the middle. For instance the two questions that disturbed me was eating the pet after it was killed. I couldnt do it. I might Its wrong for me but otoh it might not be wrong for others. The same with the chicken and the bro and sis having sex. Now that is down right wrong i dont care who you are.

	09-07-2005 23:45									#102
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ok, what if the dead chicken is a dead person? What do you guys think about that one?

There's a swedish philosopher (controversial needless to say) who wants Sweden to abolish the law against this act (ie sex with dead persons) as nobody is hurt by it...

Thoughts (and I think I know Mrs. Tuberski's position on this one!)?

Carolus

	09-07-2005 23:57									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Carolus Rex Ok, what if the dead chicken is a dead person? What do you guys think about that one? There's a swedish philosopher (controversial needless to say) who wants Sweden to abolish the law against this act (ie sex with dead persons) as nobody is hurt by it... Thoughts (and I think I know Mrs. Tuberski's position on this one!)? Carolus

I think they both harm the individual who is doing it. Even if not through pscyholgical "damage" then through fostering negative behaviours through association. Screwing a dead animal and then cooking and eating it is an incredibly symbolic act and not far removed from rape/murder.

	10-07-2005 00:00									#104
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yes you do. That behavior is not only wrong but sick as well. So you are correct when you guess my position.

	10-07-2005 00:01									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Carolus Rex Ok, what if the dead chicken is a dead person? What do you guys think about that one? There's a swedish philosopher (controversial needless to say) who wants Sweden to abolish the law against this act (ie sex with dead persons) as nobody is hurt by it... Thoughts (and I think I know Mrs. Tuberski's position on this one!)? Carolus

We have the same kind of dilemma if we change the pet by a person (dead in the same way, etc).
Yep. is disgusting, make me sick, and I don't want to see it (well, that part about the chicken, maybe... ).

But morally wrong? I don't see why.

	10-07-2005 00:09									#106
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Carolus Rex Ok, what if the dead chicken is a dead person? What do you guys think about that one? There's a swedish philosopher (controversial needless to say) who wants Sweden to abolish the law against this act (ie sex with dead persons) as nobody is hurt by it...

Professor Tännsjö, I assume?

Besides, I find the idea of having sex with a frozen person revolting. Not only will you get frostbite, they may also shatter to pieces if you get rough on them

	10-07-2005 00:17									#107
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid Professor Tännsjö, I assume?

Carolus

	10-07-2005 00:20									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

His website (in english) with some of his publications (scroll down):

http://www.philosophy.su.se/eng/tannsjo.htm

Carolus

	10-07-2005 00:27									#109
	Increase Your PM Length

For the lazy ones, here are some titles of his published work (for full references, follow the link):

- "Against Liberty"

- "Moral Conflict and Moral Realism"

- "Should We Change the Human Genome?"

- "Classical Hedonistic Utilitarianism"

- "Blameless Wrongdoing"

- "Is Our Admiration For Sports Heroes Fascistoid?"

- "Compulsatory Sterilization in Sweden"

- "Terminal sedation - A Compromise in the Euthanasia Debate?"

Weekend lecture?

Carolus

	10-07-2005 00:28									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Aro We have the same kind of dilemma if we change the pet by a person (dead in the same way, etc). Yep. is disgusting, make me sick, and I don't want to see it (well, that part about the chicken, maybe... ). But morally wrong? I don't see why.

Morally wrong It is. From what i have learned in morals is that you embrace them by the society around you. As to date I have not heard of a society that has accepted this practice anywhere. The Mentally defecient (Ill) for me doesnt count as a society but rather then a group in a society.

	10-07-2005 00:46									#111
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Some of these questions are quite stupid. "Suppose you learn about two foreign countries. In one country, it is normal for a son to break a death-bed promise to his mother to visit her grave every week." ect...

QFT. That's when I quit the test.

	10-07-2005 02:16									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski Morally wrong It is. From what i have learned in morals is that you embrace them by the society around you. As to date I have not heard of a society that has accepted this practice anywhere. The Mentally defecient (Ill) for me doesnt count as a society but rather then a group in a society.

My apologies, Mrs. Tuberski, if I offended you.
You right when you define moral by the society around us. But is exactly what I'm saying... It's very relative.
Btw, ritualistic cannibalism IS a very common thing.
From a cosmic point of view, the "two foreign countries" thing makes some sense, after all.

	10-07-2005 02:31									#113
	Remove this text

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

	10-07-2005 02:35									#114
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by The Viceroy Results Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

0.10? You beat me.

	10-07-2005 02:41									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.20.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

Yeah, whatever...I still think chicken f**king is weird, although if someone wants to do it, knock yourself out, although I don't want to see it...

	10-07-2005 03:02									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I got a high interference facot, I think I chose the wrong answers sometimes.

	10-07-2005 03:05									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Facot?

	10-07-2005 03:40									#118
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I have no idea what that word was meant to be.

	10-07-2005 03:46									#119
	Support Apolyton

Anything like Didcot?

	10-07-2005 05:54									#120
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Aro My apologies, Mrs. Tuberski, if I offended you. You right when you define moral by the society around us. But is exactly what I'm saying... It's very relative. Btw, ritualistic cannibalism IS a very common thing. From a cosmic point of view, the "two foreign countries" thing makes some sense, after all.

No apologies necessary you did not offend me. I was only speaking of the phil. courses that I have taken and gotten my views from is all.