Morality play

[Swift]

Try this out. http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm
Kinda fun.

My Moral Parsimony Score is 88%
According to the results, 'geographical distance', 'acts and omissions' and 'scale' don't really affect my moral thinking as I scored 100% for those. Only 'family relatedness' does, which was 51%. Heh.

What about you?

[ThreeHeadedMonkey]

My score was 78%.

The rest was all pretty high, except 'acts and omissions', which was 34%. Maybe I should work on that.  :eek

[Blackthorne519]

Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 51%

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).

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 fact, your score of 51% is significantly lower than the average score of 66%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant.


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 somewhat lower than the average score of 73% in this category.


This suggests that geographical distance is on occasion a relevant factor in your moral thinking.

It is.  I'm sorry, but people need to start caring about the world AROUND them - and if it spreads from home, it can spread elsewhere eventually.  I'm sick of people throwing aid everywhere else but HOME.  There are places near you that need help too, and their stature is not less than others.

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

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 2% is a lot lower than the average score of 57% 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.

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 35% is much lower than the average score of 59% in this category.

 You're not responsible for everyone.

This suggests that the difference between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral framework. Usually, this will mean thinking that those who act have greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act.

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 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 74% 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.

Bt

[Vildern]

I got 88% too. But it's silly. One's morality rate is judged by his actions, not words. So, this mean nothing at all.

I got 100% in everything, save "Scale", where I got 51%.

I'm confident that Blackthorne is more moral than it appears in this test.

[Blackthorne519]

I'm confident that Blackthorne is more moral than it appears in this test.

No, my moral parsimony is right on.

Bt

[Spikey]

Moral parsimony of 95%

[Vildern]

No, my moral parsimony is right on.

Translate "parsimony" ? Use plain English words.

[Blackthorne519]

Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 51%

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).

Bt

[Meerbat]

Woo-hoo, 47%!

Then again, it was annoying how they describe typically biological dilemmas and try to pass those as "moral decisions"...
It's all about the inclusive fitness in the end

[Spikey]

I know you are tempting me to stand up against you and shout OBJECTION! And by making this post I do.

[Pidgeot]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 71%

(...)

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 fact, your score of 71% is not significantly different than the average score of 66%. 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.

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 83% is somewhat higher than the average score of 73% in this category.

And indeed, it is a high score, which suggests that geographical distance only plays a marginal role in your moral thinking. To the extent that it does play a role - even if only a marginal one - the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced.

While I do agree that people need to care about the world around them, I believe it is limited how much difference one should make for two identical situations in two similar places.

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 83% is a lot higher than the average score of 57% in this category.


It looks as if issues of family relatedness play have no significant role to play in your thinking about moral issues.

True, you can't be babysitter of the world, but I don't think that gives a right to refuse to help someone just because they're not related to you. Nor do I believe that you should cover up for people just because they're related to you, at least not automatically.

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 59% 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 51% is significantly lower than the average score of 74% 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.

But to re-iterate what Vildern said; one thing is theory, another thing is practice.

[Charlemagne]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 45%.

I completely agree with this assessment. The moral choice in any situation depends upon its specific circumstances. Often I wished the questions included an option allowing for this. Attempting to determine the morality of any choice with few blanket rules is doomed to failure. The other option is the one most western legislators seem to have pursued: craft rules for every conceivable circumstance. I'm not sure this is a good thing; have any of you ever tried to decipher legal documents? Blanket guidelines may be a good thing, but in the end, careful consideration is the only way to make a truly moral decision. Unfortunately, many situations don't allow the time for this.

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.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Bear in mind that this is just my opinion, though.

Geographical Distance: Your score of 67% is somewhat lower than the average score of 73% in this category.

I do care about the morality of decisions affecting people in the rest of the world, but I also think I am as morally obliged (if not more so) to the people in my community. They affect me more directly.

Family Relatedness: Your score of 18% is a lot lower than the average score of 57% in this category.

My family is never exempt from moral considerations. It might be a lot harder to make the moral decision, but I think I could do it.

Acts and Omissions: Your score of 18% is much lower than the average score of 59% in this category.

According to the test, many would disagree with me, but I've always believed an actor in any situation to be more morally culpable vis-à-vis its outcome than a non-actor. This doesn't only only apply to bad situations, however. Consider this: two people are in love but neither knows the other's feelings. Individually, I tell each of them how the other feels and eventually they get together and get married. But what if I had not told them? Perhaps they would eventually get married, perhaps not. My opinion is that the outcome is irrelevant; I would still possess more moral culpability if I had told them than if I had not.

Scale: Your score of 76% is not significantly different to the average score of 74% in this category.

As before, I believe that the specifics should be the determining factor.

[Klytos]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 33%

Thats a laugh. And probably accurate. I have my own moral code, and fuck anyone else who doesn't like it.

[rosel1]

My score was 63%.  I don't know if there's any true to these tests, they are certainly very interesting .  I answered realistically...if I had to retake it...I probably wouldn't change any of my answers.

[arganite]

Analysis

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 92%

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 fact, your score of 92% is significantly higher than the average score of 66%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably smaller range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally irrelevant that other people consider to be morally relevant.

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.

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 somewhat lower than the average score of 73% 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

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 57% 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 100% is much higher than the average score of 59% in this category.


It seems that you do not think that the distinction between acting and omitting to act has any real moral significance.

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 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 74% 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.



India and Australia

In Question 13 you were asked the following: You see an advertisement from a charity in a newspaper about a person in severe need in Australia. You can help this person at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so?


However, fifty percent of people undertaking this activity are asked a slightly different question, where the country India is substituted for the country Australia. The idea is to determine what kind of impact "culural distance" 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 TPM Online visitors, residents of India and residents of Australia, there will be bigger cultural differences between TPM Online visitors and residents of India than between TPM Online visitors and residents of Australia. Of course, whether a perception of cultural differences will enter into moral judgements, and if so, what its impact will be is entirely a matter of conjecture at this point. Indeed, whatever results we find here, they will only ever be suggestive of further avenues of enquiry. This aspect of the activity is simply not rigorous enough that it will be possible to draw definitive conclusions. It will nevertheless be interesting!


The Results


24% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were stongly obliged to help compared to 23% who responded this way when asked about a person in severe need in India.
42% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were weakly obliged to help. This is exactly the same as the percentage who responded this way when asked about a person living in India.
34% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were not obliged to help compared to 35% who responded this way when asked about a person in severe need in India.


Im suprised at that, i didnt feel obliged to help most of the people in that - They must of got there wires crossed or something

[Kloreep]

Moral Parsimony 88% (Very Parsimonious)

Geographical Distance 100% (Distance doesn't matter) This one should be lower... the questions I recall regarding distance were all "do you help this person or not?" There were no questions about who to help if you have to choose one. But, whatever, no test is perfect.

Family Relatedness 100% (Doesn't matter) Of course, this is easy to state as a principle, much less easy to actually put in to practice...

Acts and Omissions 51% While there are some cases where inaction is as bad as action, I think inaction has to be better than action at some point. Otherwise, we're morally wrong for wasting any time on this board, games, etc. rather than going out and volunteering, donating money, making more money to donate, etc.

[Steffi Evenstar]

ya know, i read the title of this topic and thought, "Hey!  It's about morality plays!  Like stuff Hildegard wrote in the Medieval Era!"

and then i was disappointed.

[Vildern]

hey... Steff... you didn't share with us your moral rate... come on... take the faulty test... it doesn't take long

[chels]

i got 84%

[Kurdt]

I got 63%. I used to be very "help everyone in need" blah blah blah kinda shtuff, but nowadays I tend to follow the whole "God helps those who help themselves" steps. There's a difference between someone who needs saving and someone looking for a handout. I don't help those looking for a handout. Does that make me less parsimoious? Well, too bad. Life's not fair, deal with it.

Interesting note: My anthropology teacher has worked with a Mayan tribe in Mexico for about 20 years. In their culture, family comes before anything, and nobody is morally obligated to help anyone else but their own family. For example, once he and a fellow anthropologist friend of his were in their village and one of the dwellings caught on fire. Everybody in the tribe went to see it, but nobody helped put it out or save the children that were trapped inside. They felt sorry for their friends who were suffering the loss, but in their culture they are not morally obligated to help because it isn't their family. The only people that went in and saved the children were my teacher, his friend, and that family's men. The only people holding back the mother from running inside and becoming trapped trying to save her kids were her family. Everyone got out okay and the whole tribe rejoiced that no one died, but not once did they think of helping because they didn't have to. The family who's dwelling was burning didn't think anything of it, either, because were the situation reversed they would've been the same way. In fact, because my teacher saved their children, the family had to literally repay the debt, so the next summer the group of students he took down there for study abroad were allowed the use of their new home for the 6 weeks they were there, and all was repaid. And that's just the way it works in that tribe. No one's malicious or morally bankrupt, they just have different standards.

[Vildern]

I think your story delivers an important message. Morality is not a law in physics that's solid and constant everywhere.

Yet, perhaps it is? If there's a God, then morality IS constant and solid. He'd expect from all people the same (I think).