You already did this one?
1 Like
if it isnāt your job then can you really be held liable
Nonsensical
1 Like
okay slow down there torres
this is the same fucking scaling up question. it absolutely depends on how you weigh 1 life vs 1 death
1 Like
no
1 Like
This is basically the 1-10 question scaled up
āPiece of machinery in your workplaceā
I mean, I think everybody has. I certainly felt my own disability as a Tragedy at first. Processed it that way. āOh what I could be doing if not for, if not forā. That is a way to drive yourself insane. There is no world but what is. Obviously, not everybody will think that way about things. Thatās fine.
The thing that always bothers me is when people impose their own sense of Tragicness on me, you know? They treat what is mundane to me as something I Should Be Sad About, and imply that I therefore Should Be Sad. I donāt want to be sad itās unpleasant. I dunno Iām idly talking at Past Midnight
1 Like
whoever was paid to make this quiz got lazy and just copy pasted questions
is it morally wrong to fire or underpay the quiz maker for doing such a shoddy job, despite you having a contract
yes
no
4 Likes
no
1 Like
Yes
1 Like
workplace is broad and iām not the technician
I mean no
1 Like
Absolutely
Contract would have expected certain standards to be met. What a laughable performance
1 Like
to be fair if you said yes to the 1-10 question then repeated yesās to that result in a yes to this, so
i would not trust litten with a nuclear submarine
1 Like
Main Analysis:
Morality Play - Analysis 1
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 50%
What Does This Mean?
Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Letās assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
How To Interpret Your Score
The higher your percentage score the more parsimonious your moral framework. In other words, a high score is suggestive of a moral framework that comprises a minimal number of moral principles that apply across a range of circumstances and acts. What is a high score? As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework. However, perhaps a better way to think about this is to see how your score compares to other peopleās scores. In this respect, your score of 50% is slightly lower than the average score of 61%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant.
Moral Parsimony - Good Or Bad?
We make no judgement about whether moral parsimony is a good or bad thing. Some people will think that on balance it is a good thing and that we should strive to minimise the number of moral principles that form our moral frameworks. Others will suspect that moral parsimony is likely to render moral frameworks simplistic and that an overly parsimonious moral framework will leave us unable to deal with the complexity of real circumstances and acts. Weāll leave it up to you to decide who is right.
Analysis 2
Morality Play - Analysis 2
How Was Your Score Calculated?
Your score was calculated by combining and averaging your scores in the four categories that appear below.
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 67% is identical to the average score in this category.
However, it is still low enough to suggest that geographical distance is a relevant factor in your moral thinking. It seems that 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
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 youāre 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 67% is a lot higher than the average score of 49% in this category.
However, despite the fact that issues of family relatedness are less significant to you as a moral factor than to most other people who have taken this test, your score is low enough so that it might be supposed that they still play some role in your moral thinking. To the extent that they do, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced.
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. Letās 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 youāre 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 60% 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 youāre dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in their scale, as in the sense described above.
Your score of 0% is significantly lower than the average score of 70% in this category.
This suggests that scale, as it is described above, is an important consideration in your moral thinking. To insist on the moral significance of scale is to decrease the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.
India and Australia
Question 13 asks whether you are morally obliged to help a person who is in severe need. Half the people undertaking this activity are told that the person lives in India; the other half that the person lives in Australia. The idea is to determine what kind of impact āculural distanceā has on the moral judgements that people make. The important point here is that the vast majority of people who visit this web site are from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Consequently, in a comparison of the lives and lifestyles of visitors to this web site, residents of India and residents of Australia, there will be bigger cultural differences between visitors to this web site and residents of India than between visitors to this web site and residents of Australia. The charts below show how people responded to this question for each country.
n1 have you watched yugioh? you remind me a lot of seto kaiba
i think itās morally correct to fire the quiz maker for relying on the works of peter singer
1 Like