Morality play from philosophy experiments

[Quiet]

Morality play from philosophy experiments

This is an interesting way to become more aware of your morals and values. Its not a 'morality' test, there is no right or wrong answers. it is more a measure of your moral consistentsy, with moral consistentsy in itself not necessarily being a right or wrong thing.

Test: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/moralityplay/Default.aspx

In this activity you will be presented with 19 different moral 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 that 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 to the moral dilemmas 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 you must do that thing in order to behave morally. 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 moral dilemma very carefully. You will find 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!

 

[Stu]

Morality Play - Analysis 1

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 58%
​

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. Let's 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 people's scores. In this respect, your score of 58% is not significantly different than the average score of 61%. This suggests that you have utilised an average number of moral principles in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge similar aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant as other people.
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. We'll leave it up to you to decide who is right

.

I just plunked down for two iphone s for my daughters, I could have taken that 500 bucks and sent it to the Philippines and explained to them that it was the morally correct thing to do. They don't even need cell phones let alone I phones with data plans. But my main concern in this life is that they grow to be well adjusted women fully capable of meaningful relationships. To that end I have to provide them with boundaries, guidance love and generosity. It is crucial to their development that they know that they are more important too me then anything else. I am going to Hell

 

[Radiantshadow]

82% Moral Parsimony

 

[sprinkles]

I scored as 75% parsimonious.

I think mainly because I answered that you're not responsible for what happens if you fail to donate money, since there's more need for donations than you have money, and besides it would make you culpable for every world problem that could possibly be solved by money since there is no need to be prompted to donate money - it would be your fault that everyone is starving and dying, even if you can't afford it.

Secondly I disagreed with cancelling surgeries because there's a hidden obligation of being dependable and organized as a surgeon - basically you've already told a person you'd save their life and have appointed it in advance, they are depending on you to do so. I feel it is not correct to abandon this except in the most dire of emergencies.

 

[Nixie]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 75%