• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Results 1 to 19 of 19

    Thread: Taboo.

    1. #1
      CT
      CT is offline
      Member CT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Posts
      3,235
      Likes
      4

      Taboo.


      The aim of this activity is to tell you something about your moral intuitions. It was first developed for the games and activities section of The Philosophers' Magazine web site. This version has been specially programmed for Butterflies and Wheels. It includes a number of questions that are not asked in The Philosophers' Magazine version, which allows for more sophisticated analysis of data. It will take about five minutes to complete. There are a few points to take into account before you start.

      1. This activity contains descriptions of a mildly adult nature. If that bothers you, then don't click on the link below.

      2. The activity asks you to make judgements about a number of scenarios. You need to treat these as if they are descriptions of real-world events - and respond accordingly. In other words, what we're interested in here are your judgements about the events precisely as they are described in these scenarios (not as you think they would actually occur in the real world).

      3. Frequently you'll be asked to make \"Yes\" or \"No\" choices. If you aren't sure whether you're a \"Yes\" or a \"No\", please choose the response you're most inclined towards. You can then take this into account when you read the analysis at the end. Please don't email to tell us that forced choices can cut up the world rather crudely. We already know (for example, you'll find that this activity doesn't work so well if you answer as though you're an amoralist)!

      4. This activity owes a large debt to the work of other people. Obviously, they are not responsible in any way for any of the deficiencies you find here (not least because they have had no input into the activity's development!), but if there are good things then likely they did not originate with the TPM team. The idea for this activity came originally from the chapter called \"The Sanctimonious Animal\" in Steve Pinker's The Blank Slate. In it, he talked about the work of Jonathan Haidt, Silvia Helena Koller and Maria G. Dias. Their 1993 article \"Affect, Culture and Morality\" is the major source of the more specific ideas in the activity (including the scenarios we present).

      5. At the end of the activity, you'll find quite a long section analysing some of the issues that this activity is designed to elucidate. Obviously, we'd prefer that you read it, but if you don't, please refrain from sending us emails about this activity. We're not likely to reply, if you're asking about something we've already dealt with at length in our discussion of the activity.

      6. You need to have Javascript enabled in your browser to have access to all the explanatory material featured in this activity.

      7. After the analysis section, you'll find that there is a link so that you can find out how your responses compare to those of other people.[/b]
      Click here to begin


      My results:

      Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.
      Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
      Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

      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 act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Indeed, when asked about each scenario, in no instance did you respond that harm had resulted. Consequently, it is a real puzzle why you think that any of the actions depicted here are of questionable morality.

    2. #2
      Generic lucid dreamer Seeker's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      USA
      Posts
      10,790
      Likes
      100
      Oops, have to do it when I get home. Our local internet police feel it is not appropriate for me to go there from work =(
      you must be the change you wish to see in the world...
      -gandhi

    3. #3
      CT
      CT is offline
      Member CT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Posts
      3,235
      Likes
      4
      Heh, test accuses me of beeing vague about why I object to several things? The only things I answered that I would be bothered by is watching the cat eatin/poultry lovin'/ etc.

    4. #4
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      709
      I got

      Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.30.

      Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

      Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00

      and I think the test called me stupid.

      Although you do not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong, there is something puzzling about your responses. 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. It at least seems that the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Yet your responses indicate that you do see harm in at least some of the activities depicted here, and most likely - though not necessarily - this is why you think that there are moral problems with them. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are themselves in some way harmed by them. However, you don't think that an action can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. This suggests that you think that harm occurs beyond the protagonists themselves. The trouble is that you were asked to judge the scenarios as described, not as you think they would have turned out in the real world. And given how they were described, it isn't clear what form such harms could take. More about this below...

    5. #5
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      709
      I think it basicly comes down to them saying that none of them harms anyone but I think disrespecting people is bad. Lieing to or eating something dead is disrespectful to the person even if it doesn't physically harm them since they are dead. I guess that sounds stupid to them though.

    6. #6
      moderator emeritus jacobo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Gender
      Location
      little mexico
      Posts
      2,683
      Likes
      2
      Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

      Your Interference Factor is: 0.20.

      Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75.
      clear eyes. strong hands.

    7. #7
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Location
      The Matrix... Wishes to: Free DV ....... Bears the truth: What do you think?
      Posts
      3,339
      Likes
      0
      Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.37.

      Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

      Your Universalising Factor is: 0.40.
      If I hadn't made me
      I'd be more inclined to bow
      Powers that be would have swallowed me up
      But that's more than I can allow...

    8. #8
      Member Umbrasquall's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      NYC
      Posts
      3,444
      Likes
      3
      I got the exact same thing as you CT. I guess I'm not that moral.

    9. #9
      Member ffx-dreamz's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Location
      In the middle of nowhere...where I belong.
      Posts
      1,069
      Likes
      1
      Taboo - The Results

      Results

      Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

      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, 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.


      Me neither lol.
      You guys suck.

    10. #10
      Member Umbrasquall's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      NYC
      Posts
      3,444
      Likes
      3
      So... just curious. Who here voted for incest?

    11. #11
      Member A Lost Soul's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2003
      Location
      Saa...
      Posts
      1,897
      Likes
      1
      Taboo - The Results
      Results

      Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.10.

      Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

      Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

      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.

      Originally posted by Squall
      So... just curious. Who here voted for incest?
      I did.

      I did not, however, vote for the chicken. The question was "Would it bother you to watch..." What a man and his frozen chicken do is their own business, and who am I to judge, but I would be a bit yucked out if I had to watch it.

      “Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are.”
      - Kurt Cobain (1967 – 1994)

    12. #12
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      709
      Yea, I said I wouldn't watch almost any of them, even if I said it was ok.

    13. #13
      Member WerBurN's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Posts
      1,051
      Likes
      5
      Results

      Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.53.

      Your Interference Factor is: 0.40.

      Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.




      ...really i only had problems with the desecrating of dead animals...

      animals > humans, and thus, decicrating their corpses in such a manner is wholly deplorable...and i voted for incest ;p

    14. #14
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2004
      Location
      The Matrix... Wishes to: Free DV ....... Bears the truth: What do you think?
      Posts
      3,339
      Likes
      0
      The one about the poultry and the incest one really threw me off, I just wasn't expecting those sort of questions.

      For both I said I would be troubled if I saw them, but if they want to do that sort of thing then its ok. Its kind of wrong, but it shouldn't be made illegal or such...
      If I hadn't made me
      I'd be more inclined to bow
      Powers that be would have swallowed me up
      But that's more than I can allow...

    15. #15
      Member theroguechemist's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Location
      Minnesota
      Posts
      333
      Likes
      0
      .03

      .00

      .00

      I have little morals.

    16. #16
      Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      Seattle, WA.
      Posts
      706
      Likes
      0
      wow roguechemist, i got the exact same as you lol! but i dont think the questions were fair, it doesnt bother me to know that a man made love to a frozen chicken, but it would severely bother me to watch it .

    17. #17
      Member Umbrasquall's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2003
      Gender
      Location
      NYC
      Posts
      3,444
      Likes
      3
      Wow yea that chicken question was disturbing. I know no one is harmed by it but... watching a man have sex with a dead chicken and then eating it? That's wrong.

    18. #18
      Member theroguechemist's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Location
      Minnesota
      Posts
      333
      Likes
      0
      Originally posted by Death-Wuad
      it doesnt bother me to know that a man made love to a frozen chicken, but it would severely bother me to watch it * .
      'zactly.

    19. #19
      Rotaredom Howie's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2003
      Gender
      Location
      Undisclosed location
      Posts
      10,272
      Likes
      24
      Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.70.

      Your Interference Factor is: 0.60.

      Your Universalising Factor is: 0.60

      Very odd test. I don't know if I will eat chicken at that dive bar down the road anymore

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •