Moral Parsimony - Good or Bad?

[Druidus]

First answer the 19 questions at this site:

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

Remember, you are to answer what is morally right, not necessarily what you would do in the situation. Read each question carefully. There is no correct or incorrect, only your moral framework can decide what is right or wrong in this test.

Then post your moral parsimony score as well as the comparison of yours to scores of others (towards the bottom a bit) of others. Remember to read the whole results page, it could help you formulate an opinion in this debate.

Mine:

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your Moral Parsimony Score is 96%

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Geographical Distance:

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Family Relatedness:[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 100% is a lot higher than the average score of 54% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]It looks as if issues of family relatedness play have no significant role to play in your thinking about moral issues.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Acts and Omissions:[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 83% is much higher than the average score of 60% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]It seems that you do not think that the distinction between acting and omitting to act has any real moral significance.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Scale:[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE][/FONT]






[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]I'm interested in seeing other RFers scores...[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Now, what do you think about moral parsimony? Good or bad?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Personally, I think that a high level of moral parsimony is good. However, not too high, as this could decrease the flexibility when alternating variables come into play.

 

[Maxist]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 92%

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Geographical Distance[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Family Relatedness[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 100% is a lot higher than the average score of 54% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]It looks as if issues of family relatedness play have no significant role to play in your thinking about moral issues.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Acts and Omissions[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 67% is a little higher than the average score of 60% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Scale[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]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.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]India and Australia[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]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 . You can help this person at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]However, fifty percent of people undertaking this activity are asked a slightly different question, where the country Australia is substituted for the country . 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![/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]The Results[/SIZE][/FONT]

• [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]26% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were stongly obliged to help compared to 25% who responded this way when asked about a person in severe need in India.[/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]43% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were weakly obliged to help compared to 44% who responded this way when asked about a person in severe need in India.[/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]31% of respondents who were asked about a person in severe need in Australia responded that they were not obliged to help. This is exactly the same as the percentage who responded this way when asked about a person living in India.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Ormiston]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your Moral Parsimony Score is 59%[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Geographical Distance[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 35% is significantly lower than the average score of 73% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Family Relatedness[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 35% is a lot lower than the average score of 54% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Acts and Omissions[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Your score of 67% is a little higher than the average score of 60% in this category.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Scale[/SIZE][/FONT]
Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.

Seems accurate to me. I don't use a firm list of rules when determining morality. I rely on instinct and experience mixed in with a good amount of self-preservation. I certainly consider family and friends seperate from the rest of the world and I don't think people are obliged to go that far out of their way for others. Every situation is different from any other and should be looked at seperately. Good thread Druidus.

 

[Ormiston]

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Now, what do you think about moral parsimony? Good or bad?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Personally, I think that a high level of moral parsimony is good. However, not too high, as this could decrease the flexibility when alternating variables come into play.

I'm leaning towards good, believe it or not. I think it's good for the group as a whole, for example laws need to be consistent across the board. However, if you get too far towards either extreme common sense goes out the window and you get a nightmarish world.

 

[Ðanisty]

Now, what do you think about moral parsimony? Good or bad?

I think a high moral parsimony is utterly terrifying. It shows a lack of willingness to judge each scenario on it's own merits and flaws. The idea that some people have such a restrictive moral code is disturbing, but not surprising. I wouldn't be surprised if most members here will have a high moral parsimony and will agree that it is good.



Your Moral Parsimony Score is 49%

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 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. Usually, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people located nearby than towards those who are far away. To incorporate geographical distance within your moral framework as a morally relevant factor is to decrease its parsimoniousness.

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 35% is a lot lower than the average score of 54% in this category.

It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced.

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 83% is much higher than the average score of 60% in this category.

It seems that you do not think that the distinction between acting and omitting to act has any real moral significance.

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 27% is significantly lower than the average score of 73% 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.

 

[lilithu]

I don't know about this test. There are two parts to ethics, determining the correct moral course of action and actually doing it. This test only asks you what you believe to be the right course of action. I suspect that a lot of our answers would be different if we actually had to do them. For example, the second question tells me that I know that my brother is quilty of a crime that has caused serious injury to someone else and that I know that the police are trustworthy. Am I morally obligated to turn my brother in? Theoretically, yes, I'm obligated, which is what I answered. Just because he is my brother should not affect what is the "right" thing to do. But in real life, would I actually turn my own brother in? Maybe. Maybe not. It would depend on a lot of things. How serious was the injury? What if any were the mitigating circumstances? Wouldn't I at least talk to him first to try to convince him to turn himself in? I think that the test as it is presented will tend to give parismony results that are much higher than what would be in real life.

 

[Ðanisty]

I don't know about this test. There are two parts to ethics, determining the correct moral course of action and actually doing it. This test only asks you what you believe to be the right course of action. I suspect that a lot of our answers would be different if we actually had to do them. For example, the second question tells me that I know that my brother is quilty of a crime that has caused serious injury to someone else and that I know that the police are trustworthy. Am I morally obligated to turn my brother in? Theoretically, yes, I'm obligated, which is what I answered. Just because he is my brother should not affect what is the "right" thing to do. But in real life, would I actually turn my own brother in? Maybe. Maybe not. It would depend on a lot of things. How serious was the injury? What if any were the mitigating circumstances? Wouldn't I at least talk to him first to try to convince him to turn himself in? I think that the test as it is presented will tend to give parismony results that are much higher than what would be in real life.

This is a very good point. Perhaps I could consider myself lucky in that I would always act on my morals because my morals don't come from a higher source. My morals come from what I personally think is right.

For example, one question asked if you would choose to save your own child's life or forfeit your own child's life to save the lives of ten other children. I suppose most people's morals would tell them to save the lives of the ten other children, but that would conflict with what they would actually do. I think most people would save their own child. However, my morals tell me that your own child is the one you are most obligated to protect. Therefore, my morals would not conflict in any way with what I would actually do.

 

[lilithu]

This is a very good point. Perhaps I could consider myself lucky in that I would always act on my morals because my morals don't come from a higher source. My morals come from what I personally think is right.

For example, one question asked if you would choose to save your own child's life or forfeit your own child's life to save the lives of ten other children. I suppose most people's morals would tell them to save the lives of the ten other children, but that would conflict with what they would actually do. I think most people would save their own child. However, my morals tell me that your own child is the one you are most obligated to protect. Therefore, my morals would not conflict in any way with what I would actually do.

Not my morals. To save one and lose ten or to save ten and lose one are both terrible options, and I personally couldn't say that one is "ten times" the other. To make that kind of calculation reduces people to mere numbers. So if the one is my own child, there's no contest.

 

[Ðanisty]

Not my morals. To save one and lose ten or to save ten and lose one are both terrible options, and I personally couldn't say that one is "ten times" the other. To make that kind of calculation reduces people to mere numbers. So if the one is my own child, there's no contest.

I wasn't talking about anybody's morals in particular.

 

[lilithu]

I wasn't talking about anybody's morals in particular.

I didn't take your post as an attack. I was just sharing my perspective.

 

[Mister Emu]

Moral Parsimony - 76%

Geographical Distance - 100%
Family Relatedness - 100%
Acts and Omission - 51%
Scale - 51%