Results
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.43 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.19. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less permissive than average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.20 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.11. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 0.50 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.27. This means you are more likely than average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).
If you're going to take the test, don't continue reading until after you have your results.
Link to the quiz was found on The Presurfer.
I thought that a woman using my country's flag to clean her bathroom was wrong. It shows a lack of respect and just because a country has a culture where this lack of respect is normal doesn't make it right. You don't even have to respect a country to respect its flag. Because of its symbolic nature, something like a flag often needs to be treated with more care than something more concrete.
In the second scenario a son promises his dying mother that he will visit her grave every week. I didn't think it was wrong for him to break that promise. The important thing here was giving comfort to his mother not whether he actually followed through with it. Read Mark Twain's Was it Heaven? Or Hell? It's a short story and won't take long to read.
The third set of questions were about a family who ate their pet cat after it was hit by a car. I live with cats. They would know if I had said it was ok...my life would be in danger forever after. The question didn't indicate that the family was starving and had no other source of food, rather their reason for eating their pet was that they had heard that cat meat was tasty. Let's not tell them that people are supposed to taste like pork.
The next question was about a brother and sister having sex. The question says that they have never regreted it and it's been a positive experience in their lives. Even ignoring the taboo factor, it would blur the lines of their relationship that would have an effect on other relationships in their lives. Just because it's positive for them doesn't mean it won't create some negative feelings for someone else in their lives even if that other person has no idea what the cause is.
The last set of questions was about a man who had sex with a chicken (from the grocery) before he cooked and ate it. I wouldn't say this was strictly bad, morally speaking. I just wouldn't want to be invited to his house for dinner.
Most of the questions included a statement that the person/people involved had no regrets about what happened. This is irrelevant to whether or not the act was wrong.
Posted by marybeth at April 22, 2004 09:12 AM Quiz