Consistency and Moral Taboos

An interesting quiz about taboos, personal morality and harm. My results show me as more morally permissive and more of a believer in universal morality.

Here are my results on an interesting quiz about taboos and personal morality.

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

This page compares my results to those of the average test-taker.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.20 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.43. 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 0.20 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.30. 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 1.00 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.61. This means you are more 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).

As I expected, I am more permissive than average, but I also strongly believe in the universality of morality.

Via Foreign Dispatches.

Author: Zack

Dad, gadget guy, bookworm, political animal, global nomad, cyclist, hiker, tennis player, photographer

7 thoughts on “Consistency and Moral Taboos”

  1. Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.70.
    Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.
    Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

    hmmm the interference factor is high. (simply cuz I knew it’d be.)

  2. Moralising Quotient is: 0.53
    Interference Factor is: 0.40
    Universalising Factor is: 1.00

    I have a rather different appreciation of harm within a societal context than the one described. Specifically, I believe one can harm one’s judgement by engaging in immoral activities. Flawed judgement can then lead to greater damage in the future.

    On the other hand, I appreciate the humor in showing the chicken at the end.

  3. Kianoush: So you think one person’s morality should be imposed on another, but there is no universal morality?

    Do you think the high Universalising can be an indicate of fundamentalism? 😉

    Interesting. But no. While fundamentalism usually does entail somewhat of a universal morality, it usually likes to interfere and force its morality on others.

    Captain Arrrgh: Your results seem to be what I expected from you. Your definition of morality is thought-provoking.

  4. I think each society has its norms and morality, and it’s better that individual to obey the society morality as long as they live in that society; of course this idea is contrary to the concept of universal morality.

Comments are closed.