"Morality" quiz

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by Atla »

Atla wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 9:58 am Guess I'm the only one who ranked RH first, here's an explanation:

1. RH: he's the romantic type
Well I assumed he's the really romantic type, from what I remember from the stories. If he's not, and he also really broke up with MM, then I guess I'd go with MM LJ RH SN
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Atla wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 3:52 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 3:32 pm


It is funny you say that. Here is what the psychologist and marriage counselor who devised the test says of my ranking:

"• LJ, MM, RH, SN: You're a romantic, idealizing women or expecting too much of men. 15% total."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... iz-results
I rather consider that the 'shallow romance', not very deeply emotionally invested, no too hard feelings, good for the marriage counselor business. The deep romanticist is an almost fatalistic fool who may find it difficult or even impossible to get over certain things, but he wants to live like that anyway, pretty bad for the marriage counselor business.

There is no reason to suppose that MM may not have hard feelings toward RH, who she sacrificed for. She may regard him as extremely ungrateful. As well as regarding him as not having been very attached to her, given that he breaks up with her in a moment, without taking time to consider the matter. Being quick to break up suggests that his attachment to her was weak. Bonds that are strong are hard to break. One tends to be very hesitant to break up with someone one really cares about. If one does not care much about someone, then one would tend to be much more ready to break up with the person, without bothering to think much about it. So RH's actions suggest he did not really care that much about MM. He seems to have viewed her as a thing to be possessed, rather than as a person. Now that she is "damaged goods", he no longer wants her. So he casts her aside, like a used tissue.

Also, I would think that people who have a shallow relationship, "not very deeply emotionally invested," would be very bad for the marriage counselor business, as such people would likely not bother with working to stay together. After all, they would not have much emotional motive to do so.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by -0+ »

LuckyR wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 2:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 6:33 am It's probably not a good idea to name characters in the scenario after Robin Hood characters if we want people to not fill in any missing information with what they already know of Robin Hood stories.
After moderating this thread, I can only agree wholeheartedly. That's what I would have done. All I can say in defense is that the author likely hangs out with folks simpler than the members of this Forum.
On the other hand, this helps to demonstrate what tends to happen. Methods for judging morality may include filling gaps with preconceived ideas or other fictions. Even though the prelude to the story explicitly states, "Forget any preconceived ideas you may about them - this is a different sort of story from all the others", it is too much to expect that people will forget or cast aside preconceived ideas. This may help to explain why certain details are sometimes suppressed in trials, because they can prejudice this particular trial.
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by -0+ »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 20th, 2020, 5:02 pm What any judge will tell you, in their professional capacity, is that they're not in the business of assessing morality. They're in the business of adjudicating the law.
Any judgement of morality or law is relative to a code of conduct. The question is: which code of conduct?

For judges adjudicating the law, the answer is clear. Codes of conduct (laws) are formally specified for each jurisdiction. All the judges in a jurisdiction can agree on which collective law they are adjudicating. There may just be some disagreement on how to interpret some laws if they are ambiguous.

A moral code of conduct is less likely to be formally specified. It may be vaguely specified or not specified at all.

Each person may have their own moral code which develops over time. This can be primarily used to govern one's own behaviour - a kind of self-programming to help override less helpful desires - and to judge own behaviour, depending on well the code is followed.

People may also use their own moral code to judge the morality of others, even though others might follow a different moral code. This might be driven by belief that others have, or ought to have, the same moral code.

This is quite different to ideas on law, where people generally only need to obey the laws of jurisdictions they are in. If two inhabitants of different countries both obey the laws of their own country, they may both be regarded as lawful - even if they are obeying very different laws - and one is generally not thought to be more lawful than the other.

If John, Marion, Robin, and Sheriff each have their own moral code, then how to judge their morality: relative to their own moral code (how well each of them follow their own moral code); relative to the judge's moral code; or relative to some 3rd party moral code?

Once it is determined which moral code applies, there is the challenge of describing it. No matter how vaguely this is specified, each judge of morality must apply some kind of (internal) method that results in a judgement. This method may be unambiguous even if its details are not consciously well known.
Terrapin Station wrote: December 20th, 2020, 5:02 pm At any rate, any one, including judges, who believes that there are correct/incorrect answers when it comes to ethics is simply wrong.
The same could be said about law as this is relative to a jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction can specify its own laws. If the scope of a jurisdiction is well defined then it may be easy determine which jurisdiction, and therefore which laws, are applicable. If applicable laws are unambiguous then there may be a correct way to adjudicate them and all judges who adjudicate correctly will reach the same decision. If any laws are ambiguous then it may not be incorrect for judges to reach different decisions.

Morality is relative to a moral code. Each individual may have their own moral code. The scope of a moral code may just be a single person. If this moral code is unambiguous then there may be a correct way to apply this to the single person, and all judges who do this correctly will reach the same decision.

Any attempt to expand the scope of a moral code to more than person is questionable (although a community may benefit from having a common moral code that can help it become more tight-knit and unified, especially during difficult times).
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by Steve3007 »

LuckyR wrote:After moderating this thread, I can only agree wholeheartedly. That's what I would have done. All I can say in defense is that the author likely hangs out with folks simpler than the members of this Forum.
I presume what the author had in mind was that people simply answer the question according to their initial "gut" reaction, without overthinking it too much (so a philosophy forum is probably not the best place for it), and that gives some insight into their unconscious moral stances on some issues. MM at the top? You're a feminist! RH nearer the top? You're a believer in the concept of fidelity. SN at the top? You're a fan of the late great Alan Rickman. etc.
...the Bro Code.
"Bro's before ho's"? I prefer to just take that as a gardening tip. But this year, since Christmas is cancelled, it's "Bro's before Ho Ho Ho's".

(I'm here all week. Try the veal.)
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by Terrapin Station »

-0+ wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 11:22 pm The same could be said about law as this is relative to a jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction can specify its own laws. If the scope of a jurisdiction is well defined then it may be easy determine which jurisdiction, and therefore which laws, are applicable. If applicable laws are unambiguous then there may be a correct way to adjudicate them and all judges who adjudicate correctly will reach the same decision. If any laws are ambiguous then it may not be incorrect for judges to reach different decisions.

Morality is relative to a moral code. Each individual may have their own moral code. The scope of a moral code may just be a single person. If this moral code is unambiguous then there may be a correct way to apply this to the single person, and all judges who do this correctly will reach the same decision.

Any attempt to expand the scope of a moral code to more than person is questionable (although a community may benefit from having a common moral code that can help it become more tight-knit and unified, especially during difficult times).
Moral codes and laws can't be correct or incorrect, "because there's nothing to get right"--it's not a matter of matching what any moral code or set of laws is "really like" (in other words, matching any set of objective states of affairs that amount to moral or legal codes) because there is no such thing.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by Terrapin Station »

baker wrote: December 22nd, 2020, 10:22 am
Terrapin Station wrote: December 21st, 2020, 11:34 am"Power" results in having ontological views that can't be wrong? How would that work?
I don't know. But IRL, typically, might makes right. It somehow woks.
"Might makes right" in the sense that it can make laws, customs, etc. that you have to (at least appear to) follow in order not to suffer consequences you might not want to suffer, but that doesn't make factual claims correct, regardless of whether there are punitive actions for pointing out that a factual claim is incorrect.
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by baker »

Terrapin Station wrote: December 23rd, 2020, 3:50 pm"Might makes right" in the sense that it can make laws, customs, etc. that you have to (at least appear to) follow in order not to suffer consequences you might not want to suffer, but that doesn't make factual claims correct, regardless of whether there are punitive actions for pointing out that a factual claim is incorrect.
I've been formulating these questions for you, a subjectivist, for a while now. I'm not entirely happy with this version, but here it is:

On the grounds of what do you reject that those in a greater position of power are also morally and cognitively superior to you?

If you become a victim of a crime, such as robbery, what is it that stops you from concluding that the perpetrator is morally right to rob you?

I mean -- Where does a subjectivist get the courage and the confidence to stand by his subjectivism? Especially in cases where by general measures, he's worse off in life (such as being fired from your job or becoming a victim of a crime)?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by Terrapin Station »

baker wrote: December 24th, 2020, 9:04 am On the grounds of what do you reject that those in a greater position of power are also morally and cognitively superior to you?
"Morally superior" is an incoherent idea, because it would hinge on "getting things right (in the sense of 'correct') when it comes to morality" more often, but there's nothing to get right. The way to counter this is to demonstrate that there is in fact something to get right, which would only be the case if morality obtains independently of persons. In which case the demonstration of that, the supporting evidence of it, should commence.

Re cognitive superiority, it would have to be evidenced/demonstrated . . . in which case, again, let that begin.
If you become a victim of a crime, such as robbery, what is it that stops you from concluding that the perpetrator is morally right to rob you?
What you conclude there simply depends on the dispositions you have due to the way your particular brain is structured and functions at the time you make the judgment in question. That's what morality hinges on. It's a (mental/brain-structure/functioning) dispositional characteristic.
I mean -- Where does a subjectivist get the courage and the confidence to stand by his subjectivism? Especially in cases where by general measures, he's worse off in life (such as being fired from your job or becoming a victim of a crime)?
I'm not sure I understand this question. Again, the core issue here is simply WHERE the phenomena in question (in this case, moral stances/moral judgments) occur. Where moral judgment phenomena occur is in minds, which are brains functioning in particular ways. So you get the confidence to stand by that via an ontological examination with respect to where the phenomena in question can be found.
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by baker »

This discussion continued here -- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17011&p=374766#p374766
where it is on topic.
User avatar
Inquinsitive_mind
New Trial Member
Posts: 11
Joined: February 27th, 2021, 4:42 am

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by Inquinsitive_mind »

LuckyR wrote: December 17th, 2020, 2:07 pm This resembles a quiz on a back page of Cosmo, but apparently was invented by a psychologist with a practice in marriage counseling.

To do the "test" you must give your honest opinion about morals and honesty of the four characters in our story of Sherwood Forest. Forget any preconceived ideas you may about them - this is a different sort of story from all the others. Ready?

The Sheriff of Nottingham captured Little John and Robin Hood and imprisoned them in his maximum-security dungeon. Maid Marion begged the Sheriff for their release, pleading her love for Robin. The Sheriff agreed to release them only if Maid Marion spent the night with him. To this she agreed. The next morning the Sheriff released his prisoners. Robin at once demanded that Marion tell him how she persuaded the Sheriff to let them go free. Marion confessed the truth, and was bewildered when Robin abused her, called her a slut, and said that he never wanted to see her again. At this Little John defended her, inviting her to leave Sherwood with him and promising lifelong devotion. She accepted and they rode away together.

Now in terms of realistic everyday standards of behavior, put Robin, Marion, Little John, and the Sheriff in the order in which you consider they showed the most morality. There is no "right" answer, and I'll give the psychologist's analysis for you.
Most moral to least moral:
1. Maid Marion displayed the most morality; sacrificing herself to save her friends.
2. Little John- albeit a criminal- was a close second.
3. Robin Hood showed minimal morality as both a criminal and condemning his friend for her actions to save them.
4. The Sheriff showed the least morality, as sexual exploitation is one of the least moral acts, in my opinion. In addition to the sexual exploitation, he also violated his role as a sheriff, by letting criminals go in exchange for sexual favors.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by LuckyR »

Inquinsitive_mind wrote: March 10th, 2021, 10:16 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 17th, 2020, 2:07 pm This resembles a quiz on a back page of Cosmo, but apparently was invented by a psychologist with a practice in marriage counseling.

To do the "test" you must give your honest opinion about morals and honesty of the four characters in our story of Sherwood Forest. Forget any preconceived ideas you may about them - this is a different sort of story from all the others. Ready?

The Sheriff of Nottingham captured Little John and Robin Hood and imprisoned them in his maximum-security dungeon. Maid Marion begged the Sheriff for their release, pleading her love for Robin. The Sheriff agreed to release them only if Maid Marion spent the night with him. To this she agreed. The next morning the Sheriff released his prisoners. Robin at once demanded that Marion tell him how she persuaded the Sheriff to let them go free. Marion confessed the truth, and was bewildered when Robin abused her, called her a slut, and said that he never wanted to see her again. At this Little John defended her, inviting her to leave Sherwood with him and promising lifelong devotion. She accepted and they rode away together.

Now in terms of realistic everyday standards of behavior, put Robin, Marion, Little John, and the Sheriff in the order in which you consider they showed the most morality. There is no "right" answer, and I'll give the psychologist's analysis for you.
Most moral to least moral:
1. Maid Marion displayed the most morality; sacrificing herself to save her friends.
2. Little John- albeit a criminal- was a close second.
3. Robin Hood showed minimal morality as both a criminal and condemning his friend for her actions to save them.
4. The Sheriff showed the least morality, as sexual exploitation is one of the least moral acts, in my opinion. In addition to the sexual exploitation, he also violated his role as a sheriff, by letting criminals go in exchange for sexual favors.
I believe that is the most common way of assessing the situation here on this thread:

Happy and well balanced. Some chivalry and/or high standards. 13% total.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
runaway
Posts: 21
Joined: January 2nd, 2021, 5:08 am

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by runaway »

My order from most moral to least moral is:


1) little John- Defended someone who he could plausibily believe did the right thing. He did run off with Marion, but this was after robin had verbally insulted her.

2) Robin- He had a legitimate reason to be annoyed, but Marion also had a case as to why she behaved the way she did. He was possibly too harsh on Marion as she did free them from prison.

3) Marion- she betrayed robin at first to win her and Robin’s freedom. However, she betrayed him twice when she ran off with little John and ended up being exactly what Robin accused her of.

4) Sherriff- He jailed Robin and Marion and made an unreasonable demand for their release. Clearly he was the most immoral of the 4.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: "Morality" quiz

Post by LuckyR »

runaway wrote: March 12th, 2021, 1:49 pm My order from most moral to least moral is:


1) little John- Defended someone who he could plausibily believe did the right thing. He did run off with Marion, but this was after robin had verbally insulted her.

2) Robin- He had a legitimate reason to be annoyed, but Marion also had a case as to why she behaved the way she did. He was possibly too harsh on Marion as she did free them from prison.

3) Marion- she betrayed robin at first to win her and Robin’s freedom. However, she betrayed him twice when she ran off with little John and ended up being exactly what Robin accused her of.

4) Sherriff- He jailed Robin and Marion and made an unreasonable demand for their release. Clearly he was the most immoral of the 4.
Cautious and insecure-you distrust the opposite sex. 6% of total answers. (just reporting the news)
"As usual... it depends."
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021