NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm

Take the quiz and find out how you rate! I got a Moralising Quotient of 0.04, an Interferance Factor of 0.00 and a Universalising factor of 0.00

Feel free to post your results.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Interesting questionairre and answers.

My results were:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Its a bit ironic that the website assumes your responses to the scenarios will be inconsistent with your moral outlook. Mine were not. But I can see how others would respond differently.

Interesting questionairre and answers.

My results were:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Its a bit ironic that the website assumes your responses to the scenarios will be inconsistent with your moral outlook. Mine were not. But I can see how others would respond differently.

Why wouldn't they?

Elsewhere on the site it assumes that no one can truly be a moral relativist, by saying that by taking a moral position your are assuing that oral position to be superior. The example it gives is the massacre of Tootsies by Hutus in Rwanda eleven years ago. While I personally view it as morally wrong, the Rwandan Army, dominated by Hutus, most certainly did not. Who am I to say which stance is correct?

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.25.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33

These were my results -

Moralising Quotient: 0.21.

Interference Factor: 0.00.

Universalising Factor: 0.50.

I thought it was pretty interesting, but too specific! I wonder how people come out when you rate them on other sorts of scenarios - like intent to harm without actual harm, and actual harm without intent to harm. Which one is worse?

Elsewhere on the site it assumes that no one can truly be a moral relativist, by saying that by taking a moral position your are assuing that oral position to be superior. The example it gives is the massacre of Tootsies by Hutus in Rwanda eleven years ago. While I personally view it as morally wrong, the Rwandan Army, dominated by Hutus, most certainly did not. Who am I to say which stance is correct?

At least by my logical deduction, the only value we can possibly be sure of is that of the human experience. So any limitation put upon the human experience would degrade our entire existence and would be wrong. I would at least like to think that is a moral absolute.

But probably I am just a know it all who has spent a little too much time on NS, and drank a little too much whiskey tonight.

I am the only person so far with straight nothing. Does that mean I have no morals?

Aw, shit. I'm a freaking prude. I'm not even putting mine up.

That's not fair, the answer choices are very black and white! Rawr. :mad:

There are other quizzes in the "games" section of that site. They can further answer your questions.

But the site itself isn't infallible. Just because you have straight 0 across the board doesn't mean you have no morals, but it means you are probably very rational and centered fairly well.

Taboo - The Results

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.46.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

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. And anyway 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.

I was a bit annoyed by the assumption that certain responses are based on a "Yuk Factor". I labelled certain things as universally wrong because of the selfishness involved, not out of any pure distaste for the activity. As usual, my moral thought is rather unusual. ;)

I am the only person so far with straight nothing. Does that mean I have no morals?Quite possibly! ;)

Or... you have morals, but you didn't find the scenarios particularly morally reprehensible.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.46.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.25.

Didn't really get the explanation.

Quite possibly! ;)

Or... you have morals, but you didn't find the scenarios particularly morally reprehensible.

I don't mind when someone screws a sibling or screws frozen poultry, but if one screws them both at the same time, that is where I draw the line.

C'mon people, I would expect there to be a lot of very morally open people on here.

C'mon people, I would expect there to be a lot of very morally open people on here.

What does "morally open" mean?

I was a bit annoyed by the assumption that certain responses are based on a "Yuk Factor". I labelled certain things as universally wrong because of the selfishness involved, not out of any pure distaste for the activity. As usual, my moral thought is rather unusual. ;)Yeah, I know what you mean... I didn't think the chicken thing was all that bad, really (I mean, who cares? It's food, like apple pie, and as long as he doesn't involve unknowing others in his practices - by serving them the chicken - then I say, more power to him!)...

...but I was disturbed by the family eating their pet cat. And not because I think it's gross to eat road kill (hey, some people do it - not me, but who am I to stop them?), but because I consider pets to be part of the family, so it would almost be like a family eating their dead child. Just because they thought the child would taste good, not because they were starving or anything.

What does "morally open" mean?

Open minded. Open to different moral standards. Kind of like morally agnostic, I guess. :confused:

I don't mind when someone screws a sibling or screws frozen poultry, but if one screws them both at the same time, that is where I draw the line.What if the sibling freely chooses to be screwed at the same time that the frozen poultry is being screwed? Huh?

Moralising Quotient: 0.14

Interference Factor: 0.00

Universalising Factor: 0.00

What if the sibling freely chooses to be screwed at the same time that the frozen poultry is being screwed? Huh?

That's okay as long as the dead family cat doesn't get involved.

Open minded. Open to different moral standards. Kind of like morally agnostic, I guess. :confused:

I've never met or heard of anyone like that, and I've been posting on NS for a long time.

Now, I have seen some people claim moral relativism, but they still had underlying assumptions about what human behavior should be, so I still consider them moralists.

That's okay as long as the dead family cat doesn't get involved.Okay, fair enough.

But what if the family spoke cat-language with the cat when it was alive, and the cat had asked to be involved in such an orgy with frozen poultry and the family, and that was the cat's dying wish?

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.25.

Okay. I started to question that test with the incest thing, but it's a borderline serious question. When it got to the chicken thing...the yuck factor kicked in. That's just sick. But hey, I won't stop anyone...

I've never met or heard of anyone like that, and I've been posting on NS for a long time.

Now, I have seen some people claim moral relativism, but they still had underlying assumptions about what human behavior should be, so I still consider them moralists.

I don't claim to be a moral relativist, but I don't see which of those scenarios pose a significant moral question, at least outside of religion or social norms.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I think the only reason I didn't get all 0.00 was because I said the son breaking his promise to his mother was a little wrong.

9. A man goes to his local grocery store once a week and buys a frozen chicken. But before cooking and eating the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community.

hahahahahaha

Okay, fair enough.

But what if the family spoke cat-language with the cat when it was alive, and the cat had asked to be involved in such an orgy with frozen poultry and the family, and that was the cat's dying wish?

Then dead animal/live sibling sex for everyone!!!

Hoorah!!!

I've never met or heard of anyone like that, and I've been posting on NS for a long time.

Now, I have seen some people claim moral relativism, but they still had underlying assumptions about what human behavior should be, so I still consider them moralists.


I consider myself a moral relativist based on the fact that my morals are relative, and that each situation should be measured for its pros and cons. I also aquiesce that while I believe certain things to be morally true, no one else has to agree with me on them. But then again, my morals are so fucking sparse that you would have to do something very drastic to get me to call it morally wrong.

Then dead animal/live sibling sex for everyone!!!

Hoorah!!!LOL! Thank you for that! :D

Wow...one of my threads is picking up. Cool.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

goddamn, i am apparently open minded. and i thought these questions were a breeze, no hard thought.

I don't claim to be a moral relativist, but I don't see which of those scenarios pose a significant moral question, at least outside of religion or social norms.

That's the interesting thing about this quiz. Some people have their morality based entirely in religious teachings and/or social norms, some of which may be contradictory, and so for them these are indeed significant moral questions. You...not so much. :D

I consider myself a moral relativist based on the fact that my morals are relative, and that each situation should be measured for its pros and cons. I also aquiesce that while I believe certain things to be morally true, no one else has to agree with me on them. But then again, my morals are so fucking sparse that you would have to do something very drastic to get me to call it morally wrong.

You still have to have a moral basis to determine appropriate weights for the pros and cons.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

I got the same "score".

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

goddamn, i am apparently open minded. and i thought these questions were a breeze, no hard thought.

There we go, I knew at least you could come through with a good score unlike all of these haters. :p

There we go, I knew at least you could come through with a good score unlike all of these haters. :p

im tempted to start a thread asking why chickenfucking is wrong.

"if making cold, passionate love to a frozen chicken is wrong, i dont wanna be right."

That's the interesting thing about this quiz. Some people have their morality based entirely in religious teachings and/or social norms, some of which may be contradictory, and so for them these are indeed significant moral questions. You...not so much. :D

Indeed, but the with the seeming majority of posters on NS being agnostic and atheistic, I assumed there would be more scores like mine.

But I see the cavalry is arriving.

I consider myself a moral relativist based on the fact that my morals are relative, and that each situation should be measured for its pros and cons.

That's pretty much how most people make moral decisions, and they don't call themselves moral relativists.

I also aquiesce that while I believe certain things to be morally true, no one else has to agree with me on them.

I agree with that, and I'm no moral relativist. I just don't understand why you think you are a moral relativist. :confused: I see no signs of it.

But then again, my morals are so fucking sparse that you would have to do something very drastic to get me to call it morally wrong.

What things would you label as morally wrong?

im tempted to start a thread asking why chickenfucking is wrong.

"if making cold, passionate love to a frozen chicken is wrong, i dont wanna be right."

The chicken didn't consent, so technically it is frozenchickenraping. :p

hard to answer. I've always felt that Morality is a personal code to live by.

im tempted to start a thread asking why chickenfucking is wrong.

"if making cold, passionate love to a frozen chicken is wrong, i dont wanna be right."

Do it, man, do it!

Yes, but my morals are personal beliefs of mine that I have come to by myself. I usually do not question differing moral beliefs. As an example: While I feel that Adolf Hitler was morally wrong in his persecution of homosexuals, Jews, blacks, Gypsies, and everyon non-Aryan, I accept the fact that he thought that he was morally justified. In the end, to me, it makes no difference.

LOL! Thank you for that! :D

Are you looking for some necrophilic beastiality? Because that is so hot.

The chicken didn't consent, so technically it is frozenchickenraping. :pHmm... so if one has sex with a blow-up-doll (which also can't consent), would that be rape too?

:eek: The sex industry is advocating rape! Stop the pornography!

Are you looking for some necrophilic beastiality? Because that is so hot.Only if you'll join! ;)

:eek: The sex industry is advocating rape! Stop the pornography!

Oh noes!!

Only if you'll join! ;)

I'm down for it, darling. You get a frozen chicken, and I will run over a cat on my way over.

Hmm... so if one has sex with a blow-up-doll (which also can't consent), would that be rape too?

Probably not in a legal sense, because AFAIK, blow-up dolls do not constitute a "person" or "citizen".

What things would you label as morally wrong?

Pretty much the only thing I view as morally wrong is one person or a group of people doing something to another person or a group of people that is against their consent. This includes murder, rape, torture, help, or whatever. I don't think you can do something immoral to yourself unless you are insane.

I'm down for it, darling. You get a frozen chicken, and I will run over a cat on my way over.LOL! Oh, baby, you do know how to get me hot!

But wait - whose cat? Yours, or mine? Or the chicken's?

Probably not in a legal sense, because AFAIK, blow-up dolls do not constitute a "person" or "citizen".Shoot, that's why she won't talk to me - she's not actually a person!

LOL! Oh, baby, you do know how to get me hot!

But wait - whose cat? Yours, or mine? Or the chicken's?

Hold on a minute --- What the hell would the chicken be doing with a cat in the first place...?

Shoot, that's why she won't talk to me - she's not actually a person!

...She?

Hold on a minute --- What the hell would the chicken be doing with a cat in the first place...?What, your frozen chickens don't own cats?

Texas is such a backwards place! Sheesh!

Hold on a minute --- What the hell would the chicken be doing with a cat in the first place...?

Companionship. What else?

Pretty much the only thing I view as morally wrong is one person or a group of people doing something to another person or a group of people that is against their consent. This includes murder, rape, torture, help, or whatever. I don't think you can do something immoral to yourself unless you are insane.

The whole "as long as it's all consentual it's okay" thing is pretty normal.

What fascinates me is that you seem to think that being insane has a particular affect on the morality of an act. Could you clarify what you meant about the insanity/moral connection in regards to actions taken towards the self?

Well that was interesting, not quite what I expected in results.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I must be confused :confused: LOL

The chicken didn't consent, so technically it is frozenchickenraping. :p

oh...

... i stand by my chicken loving statement.

Do it, man, do it!
done.. for a second i thought you were actually cheering on the whole chickensex thing.

LOL! Oh, baby, you do know how to get me hot!

But wait - whose cat? Yours, or mine? Or the chicken's?

My neighbor's. It's an indoor cat, but I think I can get away with it.

I like to live dangerously.

What, your frozen chickens don't own cats?

Texas is such a backwards place! Sheesh!

Which is exactly why I'm moving to Pitt after I finish High School!

The whole "as long as it's all consentual it's okay" thing is pretty normal.

What fascinates me is that you seem to think that being insane has a particular affect on the morality of an act. Could you clarify what you meant about the insanity/moral connection in regards to actions taken towards the self?

What I meant was that if you were insane and harmed yourself without your consent I would view that as immoral. Otherwise I'd say that everything you do to yourself has your stamp of approval.

My neighbor's. It's an indoor cat, but I think I can get away with it.

I like to live dangerously.Ooh, will you be driving your car in their house, then? Can I watch? That'll be sure to get me extra... er... juiced up! :p

What I meant was that if you were insane and harmed yourself without your consent I would view that as immoral. Otherwise I'd say that everything you do to yourself has your stamp of approval.

That's clearer. :) Thanks.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Ooh, will you be driving your car in their house, then? Can I watch? That'll be sure to get me extra... er... juiced up! :p

You could drive, if you'd like. Go right through the wall.

0.00

0.00

-1

Hrmm ... fun ...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

What do ya know ... I'm a little moralising (very little) but I don't judge or interfere. Oh wait ... I already knew that about me. :D

Your Moralising Quotient of 1.04 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.38.
Your Interference Factor of 0.75 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.26.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.46.

Did we all take the same test? Someone here musta thought some of that stuff was wrong... :confused:

Your Moralising Quotient of 1.04 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.38.
Your Interference Factor of 0.75 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.26.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.46.

Did we all take the same test? Someone here musta thought some of that stuff was wrong... :confused:

You sure you took the test right? Your results show that you're not only extremely moralizing, but that you would impose your moral view on others and see your morals as proper for the world - regardless of culture.

Are those the results you wanted?

Did we all take the same test? Someone here musta thought some of that stuff was wrong... :confused:

Yeap, and we're all a bunch of SICK FUCKS!!!! If I had a sister who was infertile, i'd have sex with her just to say I did....hey..why are you all looking at me like that????

Your Moralising Quotient of 1.04 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.38.
Your Interference Factor of 0.75 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.26.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.46.

Did we all take the same test? Someone here musta thought some of that stuff was wrong... :confused:

:eek:

You sure you took the test right? Your results show that you're not only extremely moralizing, but that you would impose your moral view on others and see your morals as proper for the world - regardless of culture.

Are those the results you wanted?

Nah, I didn't go in "wanting" a result... but yeah, I'd keep incest outlawed, and I'd consider a country where it's commonplace the lesser nation. If others find it appealing, they can move to that country I guess.. I keep a somewhat Kantian moral view, which certainly isn't radical. It's quite conventional, actually.

Nah, I didn't go in "wanting" a result... but yeah, I'd keep incest outlawed, and I'd consider a country where it's commonplace the lesser nation. If others find it appealing, they can move to that country I guess.. I keep a somewhat Kantian moral view, which certainly isn't radical. It's quite conventional, actually.

Ah, ok. I tend to prefer the "live and let live" approach to things. I have my own sense of morality, but I'd never make any attempt to impose my morals on another adult. It's just not my place.

Nah, I didn't go in "wanting" a result... but yeah, I'd keep incest outlawed, and I'd consider a country where it's commonplace the lesser nation. If others find it appealing, they can move to that country I guess.. I keep a somewhat Kantian moral view, which certainly isn't radical. It's quite conventional, actually.

actually, thats a pretty damn fine way to look at it. i cant say i share your viewpoint in the least, but i do respect yours. until country a invades country b simply because of the differences.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

Yeap, and we're all a bunch of SICK FUCKS!!!! If I had a sister who was infertile, i'd have sex with her just to say I did....hey..why are you all looking at me like that????

dude, thats just not right, unless she is hot ofcourse :p

Moralizing quotient = 1.17

Interference factor = 1.00

Universelising factor = 1.00

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.67.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

I blame my religious upbringing.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Surprise surprise I'm permissive...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Hey, it's a realistic quiz!!

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Hmm?? I'm no good at philosophy. I have no idea what it means. :D

But I am more or less very apathic to other people are doing. Hey, its your life. You wanna have sex with a chicken, as long as you don't eventually get idea's and hump my dog. It's alright.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is:-1

0's across the board!

EDIT: Oh wait, that was a -1. :/

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is:-1

0's across the board!

EDIT: Oh wait, that was a -1. :/

I don't see what's wrong with a -1. I mean, if somebody just went and pushed a kid off a swing just because she wanted on, that's not right. It just isn't.

Of course, the same thing happened to me a few times... So what else would I have said?

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Hey, it's a realistic quiz!!
hey my scores too, we must be twins...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Sounds about right, really.

Here's mine:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.



Out of interest, and in case no-one's put it up, here's the average scores:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.35.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.24.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.45.


The only one I balked at (or should that be Pawked! at) was the chicken-sex one. Don't give a damn about what others do, but what if next time he invites me round for dinner?
That I can't handle.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Don't give a damn about what others do, but what if next time he invites me round for dinner?
That I can't handle.

You don't know whether he would do the same thing if he were having guests over, though.

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

TPM Online :eek: (TPM is the acronym in Portuguese for PMT.)

You don't know whether he would do the same thing if he were having guests over, though.
If he has such differing morals so as to rationalise that screwing a frozen chicken before cooking and eating is perfectly ok, then a reasonable assumption can be made that he may equally (or eventually) not see anything wrong in serving up his 'latest conquest' to others.
It's not a position that I would prefer to be in. As I said, I don't give a damn about that guy, it's only me I'm concerned about.
Scene at the dinner party:
"Say, Tom, this duck is delicious!"
"Fresh fucked this morning!"
"What did you say?"
"Fresh cooked this morning. Why?"
"No, you didn't. You said something else."
"Did not"
"Yes you did. I'm certain you said 'Fresh fucked this morning', not cooked...Oh God! Not again! Tom you bastard! You told us you weren't going to do that again."
"But last time you complemented me on the savoury flavour of the stuffing, so I thought I'd better do it once more"


Incidently, there was a story in Penthouse forums years and years ago where a guy did this to a turkey before serving it up for his dinner party. It went into long and detailed description as to what and how the act was performed (in this case on a freshly cooked turkey). I remember that he showed absolutely no guilt as to what he had done (re: the act) or further did (re: serving it to his friends). It was kinda admirable that complete lack of social conscious.