In this activity you will be presented with 19 different scenarios. In each case, you will be asked to make a judgment about what is the morally right thing to do. When you have answered all the questions, you will be presented with an analysis of your responses which should reveal some interesting things about your moral framework and how it compares to others who have completed the activity.
Before starting Morality Play, it is important to bear the following in mind: At no time in the activity will your responses be judged to be 'correct' or 'incorrect'.
You should respond with what you think is the morally right thing to do, which may not be the same as what you would actually do. Several questions talk about 'moral obligation'. In this activity, to say you are morally obliged to do something means that, in order to behave morally, you must do that thing. When the moral obligation is 'strong', this means not doing what is obligated of you is a serious wrongdoing; when the obligation is 'weak', failing to do what is obligated of you is still a wrongdoing, but not a serious one.
Finally, remember to read each scenario very carefully. You will find that there are similarities between some of the scenarios. However, don' t let this lure you into responding without thinking, each scenario needs at least some thought!
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
"You are able to help some people. Unfortunately, you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 10 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping ten people by harming one person rather than helping 100,000 people by harming 10,000 people?"
i stopped right there since i find the question to be a trap. i find it morally condemnable to harm anyone for the good of others, and there is no option for me to reject the premise alltogether.
__________________
"Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."
its an article that ran a study asking questions similar to this. It ended up showing that people will act consistantly in one moral way without having any conscious justification for it
Your score of 67% is somewhat lower than the average score of 72% in this category.
This suggests that geographical distance is on occasion a relevant factor in your moral thinking. Probably, you tend to feel a somewhat greater moral obligation towards people who are located nearby than towards those who are far away. To the extent that this is so, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework
Family Relatedness:
Your score of 18% is a lot lower than the average score of 53% in this category.
It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced.
Acts and Omissions:
Your score of 67% is a little higher than the average score of 61% in this category.
However, it is not high enough to rule out the possibility that the distinction between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral thinking. More than likely you tend to believe that those who act have a slightly greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. If this is what you do believe, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.
Scale:
Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.
It seems that scale, as it is described above, is not an important consideration in your moral worldview. But if, contrary to our findings, it is important, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
I don't question the validity. That's why I find it strange. It's just that good articles are hard to find without a subscription. "Many" journals would be a stretch from what I've seen. Legal versions of primary literature are hard to come by for free.
Gender: Female Location: every which way but loose
Analysis
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 86%
Geographical Distance
This category has to do with the impact of geographical distance on the application of moral principles. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied equally when dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in their geographical location in relation to the person making the judgement.
Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 72% in this category.
The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.
Family Relatedness
In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement.
Your score of 100% is a lot higher than the average score of 53% in this category.
It looks as if issues of family relatedness play have no significant role to play in your thinking about moral issues.
Acts and Omissions
This category has to do with whether there is a difference between the moral status of acting and omitting to act where the consequences are the same in both instances. Consider the following example. Let's assume that on the whole it is a bad thing if a person is poisoned whilst drinking a cola drink. One might then ask whether there is a moral difference between poisoning the coke, on the one hand (an act), and failing to prevent a person from drinking a coke someone else has poisoned, when in a position to do so, on the other (an omission). In this category then, the idea is to determine if moral principles are applied equally when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in whether the participants have acted or omitted to act.
Your score of 67% is a little higher than the average score of 61% in this category.
However, it is not high enough to rule out the possibility that the distinction between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral thinking. More than likely you tend to believe that those who act have a slightly greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. If this is what you do believe, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.
Scale
This category has to do with whether scale is a factor in making moral judgements. A simple example will make this clear. Consider a situation where it is possible to save ten lives by sacrificing one life. Is there a moral difference between this choice and one where the numbers of lives involved are different but proportional - for example, saving 100 lives by sacrificing ten? In this category then, the idea is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in their scale, as in the sense described above.
Your score of 76% is not significantly different to the average score of 73% in this category.
Nevertheless, you have scored highly in this category, which suggests that scale, as it is described above, is not a particularly important consideration in your moral worldview. To the extent that it is important, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 23rd, 2007 08:19 PM
