Moral Parsimony (merged)

[Onmymind_too]

removed

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm

[cloakable]

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 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.


The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.

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 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 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. 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


23% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were stongly obliged to help compared to 22% 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.
35% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were not obliged to help compared to 36% who responded this way when asked about a person in severe need in India.

[Vagabond]

OK, I can understand the notion of moral responsibility, but moral obligation is totally out of my grasp... I scored 78%, however I have answered to some of the "are you morally obliged" questions as "weakly", because I would do what they suggested, but I don't really think I would be morally obliged to do so... on the other hand, wtf is moral obligation...? Anyways, I suppose if there was the "it depends" option, I would have scored higher.

[nobarcode]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 67%
...go figure.

[Odyssey]

Hmph! It drove me nuts. I feel moral obligation, but the question doesn't give enough of the context. Multiple questions assume something, but ignore better possibilities even within the guidelines of its question!

A couple examples:
2) criminal brother - I'd talk to the brother first if possible. Is he in hiding where I can't contact him? Is he clinically insane? Assuming I could do so without him killing me, I wouldn't just call the cops on him without telling him my disapproval. I'd feel morally obliged to listen/talk with him if possible.
12) save 10 by killing 1 - it depends on the one person's potential to do Good that might prevent suffering of 10 more people later. I might not save 10 severe Alzheimer's patients if it means being able to have a genius or someone who works for the benefit of mankind. But if all 11 are going to die anyway, I probably would kill the 1.

There's no option for "it depends on more info". *frown* I have very strong morals, but they're inherent to the specifics of the situation, and much less a set of true principles. After finishing, (63%) I realize that it's trying to measure exactly that, but I believe it could measure it much more accurately if it included an "it depends" option. I had to click randomly on some just because there wasn't enough context, so I think my % would be much lower if accurate.

~Odyssey

[The Architect]

This test pissed me off, mainly because I don't like being asked the same questions repeatedly

and I scored an 80%

geographical distance- 100%
family relatedness- 100%
acts and omissions- 18%
scale- 100%

I do enjoy being an extremist however

[int]

This test pissed me off, mainly because I don't like being asked the same questions repeatedly

I did a little dance when I read this. It was quite humourous.

[jittus rye]

76%
I don't care about other people but it says I have strong morals =.(

Geographical Distance - 100%
Family Relatedness - 100%
Acts and Omissions - 2% (What the hell.)
Scale - 100%

In my opinion of course one is responsible if they hand someone poison, or sabatoge a machine, or don't at least put up a little paper sign saying watch out, this thing is going to chop your legs off. I'm not saying you have to feel bad about someone getting hurt, but it is only common sense that you are responsible. I don't get the whole moral thing though.

Just remember though, if you don't do an assignment, it brings your average down a lot.. That's what my results remind me of. :D

[paladinoflunaria]

Isn't it Erik Erikson who did the six stages of moral/ethical development?

1. Avoid Punishment
2. Receive Rewards
3. Social Approval
4. Human Laws (I do this so as not to break the law.)
5. Self-Sacrifice (Take one for the team/ If he can take the hit, so can I.)
6. Natural Laws (Living by philisophical concepts that apply to EVERYONE (i.e. All humanity suffers, so I shall not become obsessed with mine and fail to see that the door swings both ways.))

I think that about 10% of the population gets beyond step 4 (overall- there are surely circumstances when someone jumps to a 5 or 6)

I hypothesize that psychological types influence this- non-conceptualists lack the perception to see patterns behind such complex things (most of the time).

I would say that overall I'm a 6. I don't care so much about legal laws, unless if they are part of natural laws.

I scored 88%, but some of the questions were poorly written. I scored 100% on all except Acts and Omissions, but I'd have to go with what Odyssey said (I'm listening to "Odyssey" by Amethystium right now- that's wierd). I would focus on saving the lives of those who were most likely to actually accomplish something. That gets very tricky, because it goes right back to 6 (see above)- accomplishment is something that is difficult to define, and it deals directly with philisophical concepts. I won't push any philosophy.

[shaytana]

Alright, I scored 47%. Can you tell that I really dont like the word obligation?

[Strephonade]

Hmph! It drove me nuts. I feel moral obligation, but the question doesn't give enough of the context. Multiple questions assume something, but ignore better possibilities even within the guidelines of its question!

I agree.



A couple examples:
2) criminal brother - I'd talk to the brother first if possible. Is he in hiding where I can't contact him? Is he clinically insane? Assuming I could do so without him killing me, I wouldn't just call the cops on him without telling him my disapproval. I'd feel morally obliged to listen/talk with him if possible.

Yes, I would feel the same way, if anything like this were to happen, which is extremely unlikely. (Edited for excessive wordiness)



12) save 10 by killing 1 - it depends on the one person's potential to do Good that might prevent suffering of 10 more people later. I might not save 10 severe Alzheimer's patients if it means being able to have a genius or someone who works for the benefit of mankind. But if all 11 are going to die anyway, I probably would kill the 1.

Or perhaps have to concentrate on the one, knowing the others will likely die, in the interim. Also, doesn't the likelihood of survival change as the numbers increase? In that case, wouldn't the decision made necessarily depend on scale?



There's no option for "it depends on more info". *frown* I have very strong morals, but they're inherent to the specifics of the situation, and much less a set of true principles. After finishing, (63%) I realize that it's trying to measure exactly that, but I believe it could measure it much more accurately if it included an "it depends" option. I had to click randomly on some just because there wasn't enough context, so I think my % would be much lower if accurate.

~Odyssey

My overall score is about the same--57%.

[Avengardh]

59%...family is important to me...yatta yatta.

~*Aven*~

[Claverhouse]

Scored 63. But, whilst I believe in a rigid favourless application of law ( eg: I'd turn my brother in like a shot if he did something wicked ); I also believe in flexibility to cases (eg: each situation to be judged on it's merits, and if you can cut corners either way ( to expediate the execution of a vile person or to help someone get aid by ignoring regulations ) do it ).

Anyway the cases were bogus; the percentage thing in judging whether more acceptable to murder 1 to save 10 or murder 100 to save 1000 is crap because it is unacceptable to murder or 'sacrifice' any person for another. And most people would elect to saved their child rather than any number of other people because that's what love is.

& as Firechoice says, one is responsible if you don't attempt to void the consequences of either one's own, or others' actions which will endanger someone else. It's not really a moral question, because if you have any moral beliefs at all this would not be a question.

Let someone go blind to save $10 ? That is an overt ( and criminal ) action; not giving $10 to help stop blindness is just negative since you do not have the obligation to save the entire world.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[nobarcode]

I'm in agreement with most of what you -claverhouse- said. I only wish I could be so eloquent, at times. The difference being that if my brother did something "wicked", I'd go over there a beat his ass, but I would NOT turn him in regardless. I guess that's the Italian in me.

[Birnam]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is ..... 79%

geographical distance 67%
family relatedness 83%
acts and omissions 67%
scale 100%

hmm, the problem (among others) is that little word obliged. I _would_ help the person(s), but for the most part I am not obliged to. :mad:

8. You can save the lives of a thousand patients by cancelling one hundred operations that would have saved the lives of a hundred different patients. Are you morally obliged to do so??

how in the world are you going to do that? the speed in which you would have to perform would probably induce stress related mistakes. Better to take care of your already scheduled patients and let someone else take the slack.... but I suppose if it were possible, you would still have your word to the hundred patients that you would save their lives- ask them if they want to give up their slot so you can save ten other people's lives... oh well. I put no.

14 You give the poisoned drink as a gift anyway.
What!!! lol

notice everyone's scale score? *smirk*

[paladinoflunaria]

Saving "your" child over ten others isn't love, it's playing favorites, which is very much a contrast of love.

[The Architect]

You know, you're all complaining about the word obliged, but has anyone realized that the results of the test don't matter whether or not you feel obligated to do something or not? It's purely a consistency thing, so you can ignore the plights of however many people you want, but as long as you do it consistently you can score 100% in whatever category it's asking about.

And as far as extenuating circumstances go, sure you can complain about the lack of options if you want, but getting into that dilutes the test and the theory behind it. If you might turn your brother in or might not depending on if you can talk to him or not, then you feel weakly obligated to because you conceivably would, but not necessarily.

[Odyssey]

If you might turn your brother in or might not depending on if you can talk to him or not, then you feel weakly obligated to because you conceivably would, but not necessarily.

Excellent point. Actually, then, I would say "Yes, obligated" because I'd want him turned in eventually, but I wouldn't feel morally obligated until after I tried to talk to him. [He might do something like want to turn himself in, or go through therapy if applicable; in which case I'd feel morally obliged to get him somewhere, but not necessarily to jail...] However, I'd still like to continue my critique (that awareness of alternatives isn't represented), because many questions were yes/no and didn't allow "weakly" yes, like this brother one did. You're right, though, that the "weakly responsible" does allow you to factor in your alternative viewpoints.

"you're all complaining about the word obliged"
Oof, no blanket statements please! Use "many" or "some" to be more accurate. I'm complaining about something completely different than the "obliged" =)

~Odyssey

[The Architect]

"you're all complaining about the word obliged"
Oof, no blanket statements please! Use "many" or "some" to be more accurate. I'm complaining about something completely different than the "obliged" =)

Ha.

Ok.

But doesn't it just sound better when I use a blanket statement? I think that's the first thing they teach you in propaganda school, "make it sound as if there is no middle ground."

Actually I think there were only a couple people who mentioned it, but it certainly sounded more convincing when I said "all."

[Odyssey]

ROFL

And, can't you see that it's a fundamental flaw how an outrageous number of questions on that critical investigation of human morality completely lapse in their ability to portray such necessities as alternative, and wholly viable, viewpoints? Like duh, y'all.

~Odyssey

[Vagabond]

My problem with "moral obligation" is that, if I can't understand the meaning of it, I surely can't be expected to have consistency in my replies... I feel that morals and obligations do not get along very well as terms, so I can't put my finger on what this means. So, even I am not sure my replies were representative of what I think, which makes it easier for them to be inconsistent.

[Claverhouse]

Saving "your" child over ten others isn't love, it's playing favorites, which is very much a contrast of love.

You are, uh, somewhat obliged to show, and possibly even feel, that thing you call love, to the progeny of your loins; whereas there is not the faintest obligation to have even a modicum of affection to other members of the human race. :ph34r:



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Birdsnest]

I scored 35%.

[paladinoflunaria]

You are, uh, somewhat obliged to show, and possibly even feel, that thing you call love, to the progeny of your loins; whereas there is not the faintest obligation to have even a modicum of affection to other members of the human race.

That is total bullshit. No wonder you scored 63.

[Claverhouse]

You are, uh, somewhat obliged to show, and possibly even feel, that thing you call love, to the progeny of your loins; whereas there is not the faintest obligation to have even a modicum of affection to other members of the human race.

That is total bullshit. No wonder you scored 63.

I understand that there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers. Or right or wrong scores; but if either you believe that one should feel the same way to all people ( 'I Love Everyone !' ), or that you shouldn't love anyone at all, you may have a problem... :D


Personally I would save cats over humans anyday.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[spaced]

96%

I beat you all! Just kidding... I sure hope that moral parsimony is a good thing, otherwise I'm in trouble :)

[Dengarm]

For me, the scale thing generated the most thought. I could kill one person to save ten others in various circumstances. But killing 100,000 to save 1,000,000? Would I have to choose who dies and who lives? That sounds like rational for genocide to me.

[last_caress]

Alright, I scored 47%. Can you tell that I really dont like the word obligation?

Haha I agree, and I'm even worse than you.

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 45%

[Bluehaze]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 76%
Geographical Distance=51%
Family Relatedness=100%
Acts and Omissions=51%
Scale=100%

[Hypnos]

Let someone go blind to save $10 ? That is an overt ( and criminal ) action; not giving $10 to help stop blindness is just negative since you do not have the obligation to save the entire world.
Wait, you're not libertarian? :devil:

[cuspuser]

45% one of the lowest i've seen on here yet ... which basically means i use alot of different moral principles but i'm consistant on those maybe if there were more questions they'd realize it was closer to 100% ;) or my principles include smaller details that their little test can't recognize :)

distance-51
family relatedness-83
(It looks as if issues of family relatedness play have no significant role to play in your thinking about moral issues.)
acts and omissions-18
scale-27

Now, what i think people are obligated/ought to do don't always fall in line with what i would do/act upon - as my constraints on what people should do are lower than what i would act on. minus the saving the child question, i'd prolly save my own child over the other 10, tho i think the answer to that question is not obligated in either direction, which isn't an option. I also answered consistantly that people aren't obligated to kill one to let 10 survive or what not, tho i'd prefer they would, i don't think u can condem someone for not killing a person ... meanwhile i feel the same sentiments about the 100,000 to save one million that someone else mentioned on here early ...

[jimkopelli]

I came up with 36%. Hope I never become a doctor. Seems like I took the path of least resistance, though... The bottle question. Only 6% of people thought they would be partly responsible... Who the crap was selling posion disguised as some sort of beverage anyway? Send the stuff, then claim ignorance, then help them sue, then contribute ten dollars to the "help a blind person" fund in that other question.

[enydona]

Moral Pasimonial Score: 45%
It's not my problem.

Geographical Distance = 67%
Family Relatedness = 51%
Acts and Omissions = 35%
Scale = 27%

[codeElemental]

I think some people here are equating the percentage with *how* moral they are, which is not what that test is measuring. It seems to simply be measuring how consistently you apply your principles across situations. I'm actually rather surprised on a board of INTPs to see as many high numbers as have shown up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a common trait with the P's *not* to see every situation in black or white? It would seem to me that a personality type where every judgement is made in a shade of gray considering a lot of situational factors would seem wildly inconsistent in how they apply the rules, thus resulting in lower scores on this quiz.

(49% for the record)

[Nindy]

Moral Parsimony score: 69%
Geographical Distance score: 100%
Family Relatedness score: 67%
Acts and Omissions score: 83%
Scale score: 27%

[jax0m]

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm

I'd like to see what everyone scores. I found it interesting.

--

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). 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 51% is slightly lower than the average score of 65%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant.

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.

[Madrigal]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 53%

"In fact, your score of 53% is slightly lower than the average score of 65%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant."


You might also be interested in this test:
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6960&page=1&highlight=alignment

[Snowflake]

57%

[ApeTheDog]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 92%

Morals, and what I actually do, aren't the same things, though. I have incredibly high moral standards, that I don't live up to at all...

[Madrigal]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 92%


Whoa, that is pretty high.

[ApeTheDog]

Yeah, I could have gotten 100% too, if I hadn't gone soft on my family members.

[Trystorp]

53%

[MacGuffin]

I know I've seen this before... ah found it.

[merging threads]

[MacGuffin]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 55%

[ptGatsby]

76% ; 100/100/2/100

I don't feel too good about this test's logic, I must admit. Reading the results, some of these questions are testing things I don't quite see;

Question 15: A situation arises where you can either save your own child from death or contact the emergency services in order to save the lives of ten other children. You cannot do both, and there is no way to save everyone. Which course of action are you morally obliged to follow?

Under my logic, you aren't obliged to do either, for instance. If I'm not obliged to save the ten, then there is no logic gap in saving the one I prefer. (I can choose to do either with equal moral validity). I chose the ten to maintain consistency - 'correctly', as you can see from my score.