Subscribe With Bloglines


international librarian of mystery

Tuesday, April 20, 2004


My Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
My Interference Factor is: 0.00.
My Universalising Factor is: -1.

You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. Consequently, there is no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. However, it is interesting to note that had you judged any of these acts to be morally problematic, it is hard to see how this might have been justified. You don't think that an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. The actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. One possibility might be that the people undertaking these acts are in some way harmed by them. But you indicated that you don't think that an act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So, as you probably realised, even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios morally problematic in terms of your moral outlook. Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view.

Hmmm, yes, that sound like me. Although, as Gordon King points out in the comments section over at this-chick (who seems to be the original link in to the quiz that's now going around the nz blogosphere) ...

The test is crap and flawed because it one dimensionally equates lack of harm in private behaviour with morality. Only a bunch of philosophers or randroids would believe something so stupid ... These tests are horseshit and fundamentally not much different from any old Quizilla "which josie and the pussy cats character are you" test. (Melanie).

But I like doing those Quizilla tests too! (I was Josie, by the way).