Morality Play

[☭proletarian☭]

Welcome to Morality Play.
In this activity you will be presented with 19 different 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 which 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 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 that, in order to behave morally, you must do that thing. 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 scenario very carefully. You will find that 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!

Morality Play


Some of these are kinda hard...



Your Moral Parsimony Score is 71%

phical 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.
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 58% in this category.
It looks as if issues of family relatedness 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 51% is a little lower than the average score of 60% in this category.
This suggests that the distinction between acting and omitting to act is sometimes a relevant factor in your moral thinking. Probably, you tend to believe that those who act have a greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. If this is what you 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 75% 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.

 

[Kalam]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 63%

Geographical Distance - Your score of 51% is significantly lower than the average score of 73% in this category. This suggests that geographical distance is a relevant factor in your moral thinking.

Family Relatedness - Your score of 67% is a bit higher than the average score of 58% in this category. But nevertheless, it is low enough to suggest that issues of family relatedness are still significant in your moral thinking.

Acts and Omissions - Your score of 34% is much lower than the average score of 60% in this category. This suggests that the difference between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral framework.

Scale - Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 75% in this category. It seems that scale, as it is described above, is not an important consideration in your moral worldview.

Interesting quiz.