Moral Foundations Test

[aeon]

Moral Foundations Test – IDR Labs

immediate results, no email required

Social scientists such as Ravi Iyer and Jonathan Haidt argue that there are substantial variations in human morality and that these differences influence not just a person's decision making and reasoning processes but also their political outlook. In recent years, researchers and scholars from all over the world have converged on the framework on Moral Foundations Theory in an attempt to explain these individual differences, as well as to make sense of the many instances of moral outrage and offense that are increasingly seen in public debate. By drawing on findings from their research, this test aims to give you your scores according to the Moral Foundations framework.

-------

Spoiler: Explanations and Info – view after taking test

Explanation of Moral Foundations:

Care: This foundation pertains to our mammalian need to care for our young and to form bonds of attachment to others. It underlies the virtues of kindness and nurturance and is tied to emotions such as protectiveness and compassion. Left-liberals typically score the highest on this dimension, conservatives the second-highest, and libertarians the lowest.

Fairness: This foundation pertains to our ability to maintain cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. It underlies the virtues of honesty, justice, and dependability. It is tied to emotions such as gratitude, anger, and guilt. Left-liberals typically score higher on this dimension than conservatives and libertarians.

Loyalty: This foundation is derived from our species' long history of living as tribes and clans, enabling us to form cohesive communities. It underlies the virtues of patriotism, bravery, and self-sacrifice on behalf of the group. It is tied to emotions such as pride and a sense of belonging. Conservatives typically score higher on this dimension than left-liberals and libertarians.

Authority: This foundation was shaped by humanity's long history of bonding together in hierarchical social interactions. It underlies the virtues of respect for tradition and deference to legitimate authority. It is tied to emotions such as fear, respect, and awe. Conservatives typically score higher on this dimension than left-liberals and libertarians.

Purity: This foundation pertains to our species' need to avoid disease and parasites. It underlies the phenomenon of cultural taboos and fuels the commitment to live in a manner that abstains from indulgence in sensory desires. It is tied to emotions such as sanctity, piety, and disgust. Conservatives typically score higher on this dimension than left-liberals and libertarians.

Liberty: This foundation is related to the individual's need to be his own master and to avoid the dominant social mores imposed by the group. It underlies the virtues of independence and autonomy. It is tied to emotions such as self-sufficiency and defiance. Libertarians typically score the highest on this dimension, conservatives the second-highest, and left-liberals the lowest.

Explanation of Political Groups:

Left-Liberalism: Individuals in this group seek to uphold individual liberty while taxing the market to provide social benefits for those in need. They tend to see themselves as seeking balance between individual liberty and social justice and to be in favor of multiculturalism, secular government, and international cooperation. While they are typically skeptical of state involvement in social affairs, they nevertheless see a legitimate role for the state in combating discrimination and ensuring equal treatment. Left-Liberals typically have a Care- and Fairness-based morality.

Conservatism: Individuals in this group seek to retain the traditional social and economic order and to uphold the sovereignty of the state. They tend to see themselves as the defenders of what their forebears would have wanted, favoring strict immigration laws, traditional values, and a strong military. While they typically see a role for the state in matters of national security and culture, they tend to be more skeptical of state involvement in the economy. Conservatives typically have a balanced morality where all six foundations are represented in (roughly) equal proportions.

Libertarianism: Individuals in this group seek to uphold liberty as the primary political good in all respects. They tend to see themselves as staunch supporters of both personal and economic freedom and are deeply skeptical of collective plans and goals, stressing instead the principle of voluntary association and the individual's capacity to make his own judgments. They typically see less of a role for the state than individuals in the other two groups, believing instead in the spontaneous social order of the market. Libertarians typically have a Liberty-based morality.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[aeon]

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Sandie33]

@aeon is there a link ?
durp, lol

Result: Your Moral Foundations Are:

• Your scores:

• Care 89%

• Loyalty 75%

• Fairness 86%

• Authority 78%

• Purity 83%

• Liberty 67%

Your strongest moral foundation is Care.

Your morality is closest to that of a Conservative.

 

[Elder]

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

My answers for most were indifferent. Some things bothered me, but morally is that the same thing?
It feels like there's arguments either way.

 

[Matty]

I don't like taking online tests, so I didn't take it. But one of the strongest conscious motivators for my morality is a sense of goodness, not related much with what the test describes as purity. Purity carries a sense of the pristine and contamination. My sense of goodness carries the sense of beauty and acknowledgement of it.

In the test's schema immorality seems to consist thus:
Care: unkindness or cruelty
Fairness: injustice
Loyalty: betrayal or infidelity
Authority: rebellion, mutiny, or insurrection
Purity: contamination or defilement
Liberty: oppression

My sense of immortality carries the senses of: blindness, indifference, ingratitude. A failure to recognise and appreciate goodness.

 

[uuu]

I am going to take the test, but I want to first register a doubt that I had immediately upon reading the first question, which reads

John's soccer coach decides that everyone on the team must wear black soccer shoes, but on the day of the match, John turns up in white soccer shoes instead.

and I am asked to respond on a seven-point scale ranging from Not OK to OK.

The problem with this is that the notion of OKness is multidimensional. I understand that the principles of fair play in sports require that team uniforms be, well, uniform, and therefore in context it is 100% Not OK for John to wear something different. I also recognize that this is an entirely inconsequential issue: if John does turn up in white soccer shoes, there are all sorts of workarounds that can be made to restore the fairness of the game, so in the long run it's probably "going to be OK." So how am I supposed to answer this question?

I get that the point of the survey is to present us with situations that are "morally gray" in order to tease out the moral principles we use as tiebreakers. But I don't think the survey actually does what it thinks it's doing, because the situation above is really quite clearcut: it is both obviously morally wrong, and obviously not a very big deal. This is only morally "gray" if you fail to appreciate the difference between the moral valence (good/bad) of an action and the moral significance (small/large).*

It's like if someone showed you a pair of bright magenta shoes and asked, "Is this outfit audacious or what?" Yes, it's audacious! But it's not an outfit! ⸘What do you want from me‽

Edit: Another one:

Jane's boss calls all of his employees by their first names but does not allow any of them to call him by his first name. When Jane insists that it must be a two-way street, he fires her.

This question is only meaningful to the extent that we can measure the respondent's approval/disapproval relative to others in a similar cultural context. In the US this would obviously be a petty reason to fire someone. In Korea, failing to use the proper honorifics is a failure to communicate—you would, in this case, be firing someone for failing to perform their job.

And again we have the conflict between moral valence and degree of importance, but in this case it's the opposite—it's unclear whether the action itself has moral content, but the consequences (unemployment) are quite severe.

When Carl's soccer team is squaring off against the team of another nation, he sings along to the other team's national anthem instead of his own.

I feel completely neutral about this, so do I answer with 4 (in the middle) or 7 (OK)? I am inclined to choose 7, but if he were singing along to his own anthem then I would also feel equally neutral, but it seems like my response needs to flip if the dude does the opposite action, so I guess I should choose 4? It depends on whether you interpret this nebulous "OKness" concept as "I am not offended by this action" or "This action is morally required."

(This is a big issue I have always had with trolley problem experiments, too. In some of the studies, people are asked if they would pull the lever; in others, people were asked if they should pull the lever; in yet others, people are asked if it is permissible to pull the lever. People talk about the survey results as though they are interchangeable, but these three questions capture very different notions of morality!)

A pair of parents read about the exotic delicacies of Africa and the Far East. In the coming week, they serve dog meat to their children.

These are two completely different actions?? Which one am I supposed to rate? Did the parents use the outdated language "exotic delicacies" themselves or am I to attribute that solely to the narrator?

Julie asks her friends not to fraternize with her ex-boyfriend Jake, since he cheated on her with other women. Three weeks later, Julie's friend Melissa is dating him.

Again, two people, two different actions... Guys, something is telling me I shouldn't trust just anyone online because they claim to be a psychologist... (But reasonable readers can infer that we are supposed to rate Melissa's action, I guess, because it was the last thing mentioned.)

Brian does not cooperate with law enforcement. Whenever he is pulled over, he refuses to answer questions and starts bickering with the officer about his rights.

Well, where does Brian live? Am I to assume that the cops are, in general, respecting his rights, or not? The question says "whenever he is pulled over" as though this is an everyday occurrence, but cops don't just pull people over willy-nilly in every country. This question thinks it is asking about how much you value "obedience to authority," but it is actually measuring that plus how much faith you have in the legal system overall. I think many (not necessarily most) people are in principle willing to obey authority, but in practice have an experienced distrust of authority, and that distrust informs their tendency to disobey, in which case there is no clear-cut answer to this question.

Dan turns up the TV just as his father is talking about his military service.

Whose military service—the father's, or Dan's? GET A COPYEDITOR I AM BEGGING YOU please

* OK, one of you is going to get snarky and say you have an overall moral framework according to which sports, sportsmanship, and rules themselves are for schmucks. Congrats, you can answer OK with impunity. But note that this doesn't solve the underlying design issue of "OKness" being a multidimensional concept—you just lucked out in this instance because the ratings along the "OK in a moral sense" and "OK in a consequential sense" axes happened to agree with each other.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

I am going to take the test, but I want to first register a doubt that I had immediately upon reading the first question, which reads

and I am asked to respond on a seven-point scale ranging from Not OK to OK.

The problem with this is that the notion of OKness is multidimension. I understand that the principles of fair play in sports require that team uniforms be, well, uniform, and therefore in context it is 100% Not OK for John to wear something different. I also recognize that this is an entirely inconsequential issue: if John does turn up in white soccer shoes, there are all sorts of workarounds that can be made to restore the fairness of the game, so in the long run it's probably "going to be OK." So how am I supposed to answer this question?

I get that the point of the survey is to present us with situations that are "morally gray" in order to tease out the moral principles we use as tiebreakers. But I don't think the survey actually does what it thinks it's doing. Because the situation above is really quite clearcut: it is both obviously morally wrong, and obviously not a very big deal. This is only morally "gray" if you fail to appreciate the difference between the moral valence (good/bad) of an action and the moral significance (small/large).*

It's like if someone showed you a pair of bright magenta shoes and asked, "Is this outfit audacious or what?" Yes, it's audacious! But it's not an outfit! ⸘What do you want from me‽

Edit: Another one:


This question is only meaningful to the extent that we can measure the respondent's approval/disapproval relative to others in a similar cultural context. In the US this would obviously be a petty reason to fire someone. In Korea, failing to use the proper honorifics is a failure to communicate—you would, in this case, be firing someone for failing to perform their job.

And again we have the conflict between moral valence and degree of importance, but in this case it's the opposite—it's unclear whether the action itself has moral content, but the consequences (unemployment) are quite severe.


* OK, one of you is going to get snarky and say you have an overall moral framework according to which sports, sportsmanship, and rules themselves are for schmucks. Congrats, you can answer OK with impunity. But note that this doesn't solve the underlying design issue of "OKness" being a multidimensional concept—you just lucked out in this instance because the ratings along the "OK in a moral sense" and "OK in a consequential sense" axes happened to agree with each other.

I took it to mean that John's disobedience to his coach was the primary transgression, rather than what color shoes he's wearing. They're similar but not the same (or at least, not to me).

Not that that invalidates what you said about OKness being multidimensional. It only means (like other self-report tests) it can be taken from different angles.

 

[uuu]

I took it to mean that John's disobedience to his coach was the primary transgression, rather than what color shoes he's wearing. They're similar but not the same (or at least, not to me).

Sure, there's room for interpretation—I don't doubt that people will differ in their responses to these questions. Rather, I doubt that the differences are meaningful, i.e. that knowing that two people picked the same (different) answers is a strong signal that these two people have similar (different) moral attitudes.

Anyway, my results were:

Your scores:

• Care 83%

• Loyalty 31%

• Fairness 69%

• Authority 42%

• Purity 47%

• Liberty 64%

Your strongest moral foundation is Care.

Your morality is closest to that of a Left-Liberal.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

Sure, there's room for interpretation—I don't doubt that people will differ in their responses to these questions. Rather, I doubt that the differences are meaningful, i.e. that knowing that two people picked the same (different) answers is a strong signal that these two people have similar (different) moral attitudes.

I somewhat agree.

 

[Asa]

The problem with this is that the notion of OKness is multidimension. I understand that the principles of fair play in sports require that team uniforms be, well, uniform, and therefore in context it is 100% Not OK for John to wear something different. I also recognize that this is an entirely inconsequential issue: if John does turn up in white soccer shoes, there are all sorts of workarounds that can be made to restore the fairness of the game, so in the long run it's probably "going to be OK." So how am I supposed to answer this question?

My HS team had a similar problem once and teammates ended up trading clothes as needed. It was a sectionals competition, so we all had to match, presumably so officials could tell what team we were on more easily despite the fact that we all had numbers. The rule had no real-world consequences. It's a "spirit of competition" rule and reminds me of dress codes at formal events. Would I kick a guest out of my white tie event if they didn't arrive in the expected attire? No.

 

[uuu]

My HS team had a similar problem once and teammates ended up trading clothes as needed. It was a sectionals competition, so we all had to match, presumably so officials could tell what team we were on more easily despite the fact that we all had numbers. The rule had no real-world consequences. It's a "spirit of competition" rule and reminds me of dress codes at formal events. Would I kick a guest out of my white tie event if they didn't arrive in the expected attire? No.

You're in my footnote!

 

[Asa]

You're in my footnote!

I'm not. I agree with your argument. I was just saying, "Funny enough, this happened in my life and I noticed the absurdity then, too."

 

[aeon]

As a child I wasn’t taught to be ashamed about sexuality, or that sexuality was in any way bad, wrong, dirty, etc., as long as the adults in question consented (thanks, Mom and Dad). And they were clear that different people liked different things—sex of partner, activities, frequency, and so on. My mother was matter-of-fact. Bless E5 INTPs. Things were what they were, and as she explained things in terms of science and health, society and culture, and so on, she did not attach her own judgment to those things.

As an example of this, as an eight-year-old I knew what anal sex was, and I could explain why some people liked it, why some did not, how to safely do it, and what the potential health risks were for men and women who did.

I’m sure that might seem odd (or any number of things) to others, and I know it is not most people’s experience in childhood. I was a nerd from the start, loved science, biology, and studying the human body, and I had the mother I did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So I say all this to explain in part why I have a 0% Purity score. I don’t assign moral value or judgment to sexual activity where it isn’t necessary. So be safe and enjoy yourself, however you want to do that. Beyond your happiness, and well-being, I just don’t care. Your business is your own.

But that’s not actually true—I’ll try to explain.

As I grew up, I understood that other people had lots to say about sexuality, and they passed lots of judgment. I listened, and tried to understand their reasons, but if those reasons weren’t based on care for others and/or the science, I tended to treat them as (maybe) valid for them, but not for me.

But one thing I noticed—many of the things said, and judgments passed—they served to reduce people’s happiness, freedom of choice and expression, and ability to be authentic in their lives. Sometimes that was with some other well-intentioned purpose in mind, but often it seemed those messages were based on (what I thought were) negative emotions—fear, shame, the desire to control others, violation of consent, and so on. I also noticed men and women received different messages of shame, fear, agency, autonomy, the nature of consent, etc.

This post is long enough already, so I won’t try to explain how I came to have feminist ideas, other than to say it started very, very young. I have my Mother and Father to thank for that, as well as other people, experiences, and reasons, and I will leave it at that.

As a child, then later, and to this day, my sense is that girls/women receive more messages, on average, than boys/men do, of the kind intended to shame, instill fear, control, punish, define rigid sex and gender roles, burden with expectations, assign non-self-chosen purpose, and so on. The kind of messages that reduce women’s opportunities to be happy, to have freedom of choice and expression, to exercise agency and autonomy, and women’s ability to live authentic sexual lives.

I want to be very clear about my thoughts and feelings on this—I think it wrong, I think it unjust, and I feel it is ultimately a human tragedy. For the girls and women, of course, but also for those who love those girls and women, and those people those girls and women love. It affects every aspect of their lives—both the women and girls—across so many domains. I can only begin to imagine the loss of human potential, the renunciation of opportunity, the burden of hurtful emotions and authoritarian shoulds and should nots, the obfuscation of consent, the conflict of dissonant values, and the callous disregard and disrespect—of, shown to, and given to—women and girls.

To that end, the combination of my early-life rearing with my feminist ideals—and everything else that makes me who I am—I am highly suspect of any idea, message, etc., directed at girls and women as it concerns their being, in particular their sexual being, and early development. Even the faintest whiff of disrespect, implied or otherwise, directed toward girls and women as it regards those things sexual can set off my hair-trigger, resulting in me becoming hyper-critical, and dismissive.

When a test asks me questions which have that foul taint, to whatever degree, about the supposed moral value of another women’s sexual choices and behavior...I can’t disagree, dismiss, and downvote fast enough. I want no part of it. Indeed, I have absolutely zero fucks to give, and so my Purity score is 0%.

I decide for myself. Other people decide for themselves, women and girls among them. As they should, and as they wish. But when someone seeks to decide for another—especially another woman, or girl—well, I think and feel so strongly that it is one of the greatest of wrongs.

Sexual liberty, joy, and responsibility are foundational in my moral framework. For myself, and my wish and hope for others.

The idea of sexual purity—especially as something arbitrary, shaming, and controlling—as being something to aspire to, as being a thing of worth, as being something to value? I say let it burn, and let the flames illuminate the authentically-chosen sexual lives of women and the healthy early development of girls around the world.

Forgive Us, For Wandering Wounded, and Lost,
Ian