Shaun Kenney | Politics and Religion in Virginia's Public Square

ShaunKenney.com
Wednesday, October 08, 2003 TABOO Here is an interesting ethics questionairre. My results: Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50. Your Interference Factor is: 0.25. Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00. There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. It is likely that you think that what makes any of these actions morally problematic has to do with God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement. You indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. There is nothing contradictory then in a claim that the actions depicted in these scenarios are morally problematic. What do the results mean? Take a look: Your Moralising Quotient is an aggregate measure of your tendency to condemn the actions described in these scenarios as morally wrong. A score of 1.00 indicates a fully moralising position. A score of 0.00 is a fully permissive response. (See below for more on these.) Your Interference Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to judge the actions described here as being the legitimate target of societal interference in the form of prevention or punishment. A score of 1.00 indicates that you think that every act described in these scenarios is subject to societal interference. A score of 0.00 indicates that you think that these acts are essentially a private matter, and that societal interference is inappropriate. Your Universalising Factor is an aggregate measure of your tendency to judge moral wrongdoing in universal terms. A score of 1.00 means that every time you have determined one of the acts depicted in these scenarios to be morally wrong, you have universalised the judgement of moral wrongoing; that is, you have indicated that the act is wrong regardless of prevailing cultural norms and social conventions. A score of 0.00, on the other hand, means that where you see moral wrong in the acts depicted in these scenarios, you have not once universalised the judgement of moral wrongdoing; that is, you have indicated that whether an act is to be thought of as wrong is largely a matter of social norms, and that it is quite possible that what is wrong in one culture may not be wrong in another. A score of -1 means that you saw no moral wrong in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, and so it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms. In line with Haidt, Koller and Dias (1993)* - though implemented in a much less rigorous way in this activity - it is possible to combine the interference and universalising factors to establish a more sophisticated picture of a person's moral intuitions (see diagram on main page). A fully moralised position endorses full interference, and universalises across the board. A fully permissive position rejects both interference and also any universalising tendency. An enforceable-conventional response sees interference as legitimate (presumably as a mechanism to enforce important social norms), but rejects any universalising tendency. A personal-morality response makes use of universal claims about right and wrong, but tends to see these as being a private matter and not as being a legitimate target of societal intervention. Where you fall in terms of these four factors is indicated by the blue square on the diagram on the main results page. posted by Shaun Kenney \| 10/08/2003 10:37:00 PM \| 0 comments 0 Comments: Post a Comment Home
	RedStormPAC $ About ShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia. Contact E-mail RSS/Atom Feed Links Bacon's Rebellion Deo Vindice First Things Google News Hiron's Blog Instapundit J's Notes Jaded JD Jefferson Mammoth Republitarian Save the GOP VCAP Virginia Centrist Virginia Club for Growth Virginia Progressive Virginia Virtucon Vivian J. Paige Waldo Jaquith The Jeffersoniad China Freedom Blog Alliance China e-Lobby Democratic China One Free Korea ShaunKenney.com Previous Posts Whooooo Let the Cows Out?! Moo! Moo Moo Moo! Israeli warplanes break sound barrier over Lebanon... Syria to Israel: We Will Respond With Force Next T... TERMINATED! Democratic Governor Gray Davis of C... Candidates speak in Spotsylvania And nary a me... Monsignor Stephen Happel Dies at 59 Monsignor H... We Want Your SOUL! Check this out. . . hilariou... China details space plans I don't understand wh... Iraq did pursue banned weapons programs Here i... McClintock Calls on Schwarzenegger to Resign If Ch... Search VA Blogs BlogNetNews.com	JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General? 1) John Brownlee 2) Ken Cuccinelli View Results Recent Music Archives March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008