Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

You Commie bastard!!!!!

Hey! What a man does with a frozen chicken in the privacy or his own...wait, that's insane! Of course, if it was a GAY chicken? I guess I'm of the belief in no harm, no foul just as long as it doesn't lead to growing celery.

Seriously though, I know some people derive pleasure from odd practices, they hurt no one. Don't give me the argument that there are things that hurt us that we are totally oblivious to. (Tim applying the "reasonable" person standard.) Of course there are deranged and dangerous people in society, but they tend to hurt others AND themselves in the process.

I also know that there are people who enjoy seeing other people suffer, fall from "grace", etc. Spiritual/Social pessimists is what I like to call these people. These are the reactionaries that long for yesteryear and find nothing good in today's generation. A man pleasuring himself with thawed poultry is the outcast while the person that enjoys seeing people suffer is o.k.?? What's wrong with that picture?

My Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

My Interference Factor is: 0.00.

My Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Ha, I beat Tim the Soldier by 0.05! And I'm a commie bastard!

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.58.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

next question: "are you thinking straight about morality?"

It is not entirely clear why you think that any of the actions depicted in these scenarios are morally problematic. You don't think 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. Yet the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Maybe, despite these stipulations, you just can't believe no harm would have resulted. The trouble is that you were asked to judge the scenarios as described, not as you think they would have turned out in the real world. And given how they were described, it isn't clear what form such harms could take...

Ahh, but if I can judge the scenario as described, then I can assume that the individuals are merely in denial about the harm that has occurred to them, thus resolving the contradiction.

;-)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.50.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.25.

Heh, this is what I get for being against cruelty to pets and incest :-)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00

Matt,

The cat was already dead...and it was delicious!

Now, if it had been a GAY cat...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

My parents were commies, but were married before my conception.

I was not pleased that their survey questions at the end did not include "some college" as I have seen some studies which deem that a statisticly significant category.

Tim, I didn't think that eating the cat was wrong. Just didn't want them to make a habit out of it ;-)

Here's mine...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.88.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.75.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

Of course, some of the situations were nonsense; ie, the one where God decrees that drinking water a sin. I realise that this was an attempt at absurdity to illustrate a point, but it does skew the results.

Matthew,

On the other hand, I had no problem with cat flambe'....

Mine clocked in at:
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.83.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

The test and the text felt like it was driven by a moral relativist looking for numbers to buck it up.

I got this:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

My Blue Square is in the Personal Morality quadrant of this spectrum.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.92

Your Interference Factor is: 0.75

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.75

Oh yeah... the cat one killed me :-( other wise i would be perfectly moral... lol

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.29.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

Yeah, mellow, laid back, Ama Deum et fac quod vis. And I guess I'm more concerned about the cat than about the chicken.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

Okay, pets and incest bug me. What can I say? Besides you all know I'm judgemental.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Heh.. my wife scored almost the same. She said the guy not visiting his mothers grave was "a little wrong".. otherwise we agreed. :P

I guess the .50 is because I think frozen chicken fucking is weird but not morally wrong.

Just don't feed me the chicken...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.17.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00

Takes all kinds. :)

I may judge you, but I'll leave you alone. That's fair, shirley.

0.00
0.00
-1

Interesting little exercise!

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.25.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I won't judge you, but I'll try to stop you?? Is that what this means? If so...look out!!!

My Moralising Quotient is: 0.42

My Interference Factor is: 0.00

My Universalising Factor is: 1.00

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

What if you don't believe in morals?

:)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.46.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

And I guess I'm not "thinking straight about morality." Am I? It's the weekend and I don't want to think about it.

Oh, on the "Universalising Factor," since all men are created equal, the same morality applies across national borders.

OK, now, I'm done thinking.

0.00
0.00
-1

Hardly surprising

Bryan,
Thanks for pointing out about this quiz what I was having difficulty accepting.
For instance, I don't think morality is imposed arbitrarily from the outside, and yet I don't think that morals are only social customs, and this quiz seemed to try to force you into one or the other.
In fact, I think the 10 Commandments aren't so much arbitrary commands as a Life's Owner's Manual. Those rules aren't a judgmental God ruining people's fun, they are a good description of how to ensure long-term happiness for humans.
Thus, no one got hurt by the man having sex with a chicken; and yet, the body of human experience would tell you that this persons fetish, if left to him, will most likely intensify, increasing his isolation and preventing him from normal sexual function. The fetish itself may be a manifestation of a more serious problem, in the same way that the funny little noise in your car doesn't cause it to break down, but is a good sign you should have the car checked.
And yet, that basic idea seems to be a little to subtle for the makers of the test.

I really hate "tests" that attempt to impose an either/or mindset merely through having someone take the test.

.54
.25
.67

While some may say, "No harm, no foul" I say "No fowl, no harm."

I don't object to someone dry humping my sister's dead cat before I serve it to my guests as an appetizer; I object when Satan commands me to do it and then is critical about my choice of seasonings and/or contraception.

I think most cultures, regardless of religious tradition, view incest as immoral. I do believe you must choke the chicken before you engage in any sexual activity with it. You know, out of respect for its dead parents.

Yes, I know I'm sick.

I think those of you were are belittling the test are missing a major point. The makers of this quiz explain, if you read what they say, that their examples are specifically chosen to be neutral of religious content and to not start with any assumptions. Therefore, of course it's going to be "morally relativist," at least in terms of the question. It's YOU who decides how relativist YOUR views are, by your answers.

I felt like my scores were pretty accurate. I don't moralize a lot, but I do some. I have absolutely no interest in controlling others, but I do believe that some morals--not all, but some--are universal.

I think it's a terrific quiz, and very well put together, myself.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.79.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

I took the test twice...

1st time I said the chicken scenario was wrong.

It gave me these results:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.63.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.67.

2nd time I said the chicken scenario was okay and the results:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.29.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

I also noticed that one question in particular, in the first section, was excedingly extreme, in comparison to the preceding questions.

For instance:

The question...2.

Is it possible that an action is morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking the action? For example, might it be morally wrong to smoke just because it harms the smoker and for no other reason?

My pals and I discussed the extremes of this...suicide for instance. We all dismissed the extremes.

Then this question...

3. Is it possible something might be morally wrong for no other reason than that God determines that it is wrong? For example, imagine that God has declared that drinking water is wrong, and when she is asked why she replies honestly "for no other reason than that I say it is."

We all said, wait a minute...this scenario IS extreme. God would never make such an edict. All manner of rationalization ensued, but bottom line, the scenario is far more limiting in the God question than the previous scenario.

Just my observations.

CBK

I should also say, that I did not chastise the cat scenario in that if you applied cow, or pig or chicken, it would not be considered bad in this or most other societies.

CBK

Since you asked, Dean:
"Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.54.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50."

But if you ask me, this is yet one more in a million completely moronic tests with insanely artificial distinctions that make no recogniction of the real world.

For example: (in terms of the test) WTF do they mean by "wrong?" Morally wrong? Ethically wrong? Legally wrong? Also, they follow up with questions as to whether the "wrong" behavior should be punished or prevented (a sure sign of a liberal mind!). Take the incest question. It's sick, and wrong. But... Just HOW the fuck are we supposed to "take steps to prevent them from having sex again"!!? I provide this as an example of the complete and total lack of realism in this quiz. It tests nothing but the authors' preconceptions. It is almost as bad as the classic "have you stopped beating your wife?" You just can't answer the question.

Bottom line: the test is bullshit.

Casey,
I second that!
My examples was the chicken. I think that having a chicken carcass fetish is the sign of a troubled mind with unhealthy associations. I think perhaps some helpful intervention would be good. But I wouldn't necessarily try to stop or prevent or criminalize the activity. This test didn't allow for that.
For instance: according to this test, let's say you saw someone bleeding in the gutter. Maybe he chose to bleed to death in the gutter. He's not hurting anyone, right? So according to non-interventionist morality as exemplified by this test, it would be morally wrong to try to help him. The test would probably offer an either/or choice of: criminalize bleeding in the gutter, or is bleeding in the gutter okay?
Dean,
I think you like the test because it merely echoes your assumptions.
Consider me, a Christian, writing a test for atheists, assuming the sort of logic an athiest might have, in order to demonstrate that Christian morality/philosophy was superior to atheistic morality/philosophy.
That's all this test was.

Moralising Quotient of 0.83
Interference Factor of 0.75
Universalising Factor of 1.00

So some people thinking allowing the butcher in some cultures to "do" a chicken before selling it is OK (universalizing factor)! And that even if it's not OK, you would do anything to stop it (interference factor)! Especially the 0.0s, who indicated that incest and chicken-wanking may be a cultural construct.

Me, I would hang the butcher who got caught selling a personally deflowered chicken, even if he was an alien who just arrived from Planet Chicken-Fucker.

The test was interesting.

My suspicion is the people personally determine principles such as "interference factor" and "universalization factor" differently. Those with a low score probably see the factos as a test of humility/tolerance v. cultural arrogance/intolerance. Those with a high score probably see it more as a question of cowardice v. courage.

Which, if you think about it, is one of the underlying themes behind many of the disagreements in these threads, and in our cultural war at large. Is there a difference between arrogance in moral decision-making and moral courage? (Of course.) But what would be the salient characteristics?

A discussion for another day...

Nice point, IB Bill! I look forward to seeing you take up that discussion on your blog! :)
(If you don't, I just might...)

Bill,

Unless I read the test wrong, I thought the guy who, um, deflowered the chicken was the only one consuming it -- it wasn't sold or served to anyone else. If he were to serve it or sell it to someone else, I definitely think some "interference" is in order.

BTW, here's what I came up with:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.83.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

And to clarify something...On the questions where you are asked if the people engaging in immoral acts that (supposedly) harm nobody else should be punished, I was a bit confused as to who would do the punishing. If they mean that government or vigilantes would punish them (and that's how I took it), I would say no. However, that doesn't mean that God shouldn't or wouldn't punish them.

Nathan: Go for it. I have to take a business trip. I'll respond after that.

Susan B: You're right. I thought he SOLD the damned chicken. That was totally repulsive. I think I was remembering the liver scene from Portnoy's Complaint, which has a similar scenario.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

In other words: harm none and do as you will.

The God forbidding water question is an ancient theological one. "Whatever God wills is good." But: Does God will it because it is good, or is it good simply because God wills it? Catholics would answer the former, Calvinists the latter (which goes back to what Dean said about "maltheism"). It goes back to Plato when he asked "The Gods love what is holy. Do the Gods love it because it is holy, or is it holy because the Gods love it?"

The impression I got was of a committee engaged in the old philosophy game of simplifying the complex, and complicating the simple.

For example, the man and the dead chicken. A simplification of a complex matter. Such people have a serious psychiatric condition and tend to act out in inappropriate ways. Such as by going out raping and killing people. It's cryo/necro/beastiophilia (it's now a word) that satisfied the disturbed soul for but awhile, after which the perp needs to go out and get the 'real' thing. As such, it's not harmless.

But mention science and medicine to some philosophers...

I think those of you were are belittling the test are missing a major point. The makers of this quiz explain, if you read what they say, that their examples are specifically chosen to be neutral of religious content and to not start with any assumptions... I think it's a terrific quiz, and very well put together, myself.

Uh, Dean – normally I completely ignore these types of questions since I make surveys for a living and I get annoyed at how many errors non-professionals put in surveys. However, Lady Quixote saw your note and asked me to take the test. Your “major point” about the situations being specifically chose to be neutral of religious content just shows the survey creators completely failed in their intent. Two of the “harmless” situations described are specifically proscribed in many religions. Thus, these two questions do not judge how relativist the views are of anyone who follows these religions. And any survey creator who used these situations when trying to create a “neutral of religious content” scenario didn’t do his homework.

The non-interference criteria is also a thinly disguised attempt to manipulate people. Let me give you a scenario. You see a man holding a gun to a woman and about to rape her in a park. You have a cell phone. Do you intervene in any way (even just calling 911) or just walk away? If you walk away, at least you are consistent with your Interference factor. If you intervene, well 1) good for you and 2) you just showed how poorly this quiz was designed.

As someone who creates surveys, I would give this one an “F”. It would not have passed Surveys 101. Casey brings up just a few of the many other flaws in this survey along with all of the others who brought up the stupid example of God and drinking water. Examples like that are usually found in biased polls where the pollster wants to create a desired answer.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.21.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

Apparently, I'm Dean. I don't know how I feel about that.

The thing that bothered me was that you were asked to look retrospectively at these situations after they had proved, in practice, to cause no harm. My standards for what people should be able to stop you from doing are pretty permissive (in the direction, that is, of your being able to do them without interference). But when you evaluate beforehand which actions to take, you generally don't have the comfort of knowing exactly how they're going to play out afterward (especially, one imagines, when the issue is sex on the beach with your sister).

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.54.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

I'm really surprised at my results.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.08
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Err yea...
Mabye I should post this...

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Moralizing: .29
Interference: .25
Universalising: 1.00

The good news is that I am consistent.

The key factor is that I believe Moral laws are similar in nature to the Laws of Physics, e.g. they are self-existent and do not depend upon the acceptance or adherence of mankind.

The individual fate of man is dependent upon his willingness to accept the laws of Physics, and so order his actions to avoid violating them (e.g. no jumpin off tall buildings without parachutes.)The Moral laws are also universal, and violation of them also brings harsh consequences (e.g. similar to the sudden stop at the end of a fall off a tall building.)

The denial by many that real consequences exist for violating the immutable Moral Law of the universe is similar to the optimist who, having fallen off a sky scraper, was heard while passing each floor saying "So far, so good; so far, so good." That the fall of our moral lives takes years rather than seconds does not mitigate the fact of our falling. And ultimately, the fall must end with bitter consequences, no matter how optimistic we are about our ability to fall indefinitely, or our continued unwillingness to grasp the dire seriousness of our situation.

Stephen,

There is a way out of your logical conundrum. It has to do with the distinction between decisions and actions. To wit, something is Holy because God DECIDES it is Holy; then God acts (loves) according to His Holyness, i.e. he doesn't contradict His own decisions.

We, on the other hand, have no input on the decision of WHAT is or is not Holy; but we do have control over our willingness to act according to what is Holy.

To wit, the question concerning God's will being to abstain from drinking water is a wholy irrelevant question. The question supposes that God can create a being that is good, simultaneously creating the necessity of water for the survival of that being, and then arbitrarily, acting in direct contradiction of His own decisions, require that being to abstain from water. This is morally inconsistent, and ignores the concept that a Holy God is constrained by His own decisions, that a God is bound to be consistent. This concept of an arbitrary and inconsistent God may have some standing in ancient Greek mythology, but has no standing in Biblical Christianity.

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00

Nathan and Admiral Quixote make a good point about "active" and "passive" moral actions. This test deals only with the active type. Is something you do right or wrong? It contained no passive moral questions - questions that ask "Is it right or wrong if you do nothing?" If the test had passive moral questions it would have been more complete and had more meaning

our Moralising Quotient is: 0.21.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 1.00.

As for the issues listed about the "God forbids water" scenario. In the Judeao/christian tradition the old testament tells of God commanding one of his minions (Abraham) to sacrifice his son on the altar. This is not all that different from not drinking water.

My own answer to the theological question is that holiness is intrinsic to the very being of the Gods. Therefore, I cannot picture a Deity forbidding the drinking of water, such a commandment would seem to me to be unholy (unless, possibly, wine were available to drink instead). I answered negatively to the man having sex with the chicken because I believe in 1) a hierarchy of being, and 2) the sanctity of sex. Therefore, from my premises, the man was degrading his sexuality, and thus himself, by having sex with an inferior being. I would not, however, have the government forcibly stop him from so degrading himself.

The test was clearly created by a godless heathen atheist. The bias was obvious.

Eating your dead pet cat or your dead mother for that matter is immoral.

Having sex with dead chickens is immoral. Having sex with any dead animal is immoral.

Incest is immoral.

This test reflects the moral relativism that currently infects the country like the plague. All of God's creatures are important and this person is clearly spiritually bankrupt. Truly sad.

I should add that there is a consistent premise behind my score on the test. Moralizing .63 means that I hold certain values very strongly. Universalizing 1.00 means that I evaluate societies as much as individuals on the basis of my values. Interference 0.00 means that I will not allow any society to prohibit my values. Hence, my Blue Square is in Personal Morality.