It has occured to me that, for a blog names after an obscure bible verse, it is only appropriate to get all up in some ethical philosophy every so often.Therefore, further to Charlie's last post, let's do some internetting. I particularly like Morality Play and the PG-13 Taboo. Comments in the comments!
5 comments:
My results from Morality Play:
I am super-parsiminous- using very few rules to decide morality, ignoring a lot of factors that other people use. The only criteria not at 100% (That is, totally ignored) was the distinction between acting and failing to act. In this case, "Your score of 83% is much higher than the average score of 61% in this category. It seems that you do not think that the distinction between acting and omitting to act has any real moral significance."
From Taboo:
"You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. Consequently, there is no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity."
I broke the test, which is about societal enforcement and the universality (or otherwise) of morality. They couldn't tell me anything because in every scenario I chose "Not wrong at all". More evidence, I guess, that I have the moral system of a robot. (That is, some particular some robots and not others).
Hmmm. On Morality Play I scored 80%, but that was dragged down, like Nathan, by the distinction between omission and action. Admittedly, knowledge does affect omission for me (35% in that one), and I feel I do have a stronger obligation to those nearer to me (but not necessarily those in the same country or family - it's all based on my access to them - 83% for that). But I'm still quite parsimonious.
As for Taboo, I was disappointed by it's lack of precision. Additionally, since most of my moral framework derives from my religion, a large number of the questions were "wrong".
"Do I think he should be punished?" Frankly, socially, no, but I'm not the one dishing out punishments in the end I believe God does, and society shouldn't force it's prejudices, even if they are divine, upon those who don't have the same belief system, so I look very inconsistent. Especially when I hold consider (consentual) incest, which I object to morally but not legally. At the end of the test they just walloped me for being inconsistent, despite my consistency that didn't appear on the test.
I love Futurama. We are free and fairly sober...
Forgive my spelling errors. I'm still mad at the test for calling me inconsistent.
It could be argued that Parsimony in making moral judgements is a bad thing. In a world so many-varied and wond'rous, is parsimony inevitably prejudice?
The point of Taboo, as I saw it, was to explore the extent to which you thought society should get up in people's grill about morality, which is why I secretly hoped you'd take it in particular.
As for inconsitiency, I'm curious. Did you agree to statements near the start of the test like "Something can;t be wrong if it is harmless?"
The questions were written in such a way as to try to show that no harm occured. As I understand it your position (correct me if I misreprest you) is that some of these activities are counter-indicated in the Life User Manual and are likely to violate the warranty at best, possibly even violating the Terms of Service. I guess disclaimers about "total privacy" also go out of the window with an omniscient observer. The seeming contradiction would be because you agreed to a statement with an unwritten "so far as it goes" or "As far as I'm concerned" or "in the wider sense" or something that the authors didn't forsee.
Out of curiosity, would the utilitarian rule predict your approach to social enforcement? And what did the "universalising" scale suggest?
I belong to an opposite boot camp: people who'll never get elected because we say "That's kind of gross, but it's not a moral issue". In fact, it's a tension between intuitive and rational morality which is a bit of a challenge for the "morality isn't divine" position. Not, I think, a mortal one.
I almost feel that I should just do another post instead of such a long comment. Oh well, thar she blows;
Yeah, parsimony is prejudice, in the sense that you’ve pre-judged something, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing. If you’ve prejudged the worth of everyone to be equal to each other (regardless of their qualities, skills and actions), then you’re still prejudiced, but few (westerners) would argue that’s a bad prejudice (especially if you emphasize human fallibility). That’s where I stand on the issue. Admittedly, though, my parsimony is “damaged” due to my senses of distance and omission/action differences*.
As for Taboo, I interpreted it as my beliefs enforced upon society, as opposed to society’s belief system imposed upon individuals. Admittedly, not reading the little beginning introduction, this does make my answers to the questions slightly different. “Do I think society should consider this morally wrong?” The answers for those are completely different than “Do I think this is morally wrong?” seeing as I don’t think society has any right to legislate morality.
I agree that the questions were phrased in such a way that no harm was made to others at first, but with the incest I feel that you’ve harmed yourself and your sibling, so that I feel is wrong, and for lying you’ve damaged yourself. I saw no harm whatsoever when talking about dead pets (but then, it’s hard for me to see harm when considering cannibalism, assuming that one doesn’t go around killing people for food.).
I agree that if no harm comes from an action, it is not immoral (and there are very few things that create absolutely no harm to a being, either physically, mentally or spiritually). I also agree that if the action harms only oneself, it is not necessarily immoral (Taboo got me for this one, too, saying that was inconsistent). But I believe that just because it causes harm does not necessarily make it immoral – harm is a necessary but insufficient requirement (indeed, it may be a harming agent, but could relieve stress, as smoking does). My views seem to be too nuanced for 9 questions on a website to answer.
Yeah, the inconsistency derived entirely because I have don’t believe society has any mandate at all for social moral judgment, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t believe the moral judgments aren’t made, and, in fact, I’ve made them about myself and others, but attempt to rectify this by treating people equally (with respect to the law and social condemnation) regardless of their qualities, skills and actions. I don’t go around condemning others, but, if asked, will venture my opinion on their behavior.
*One of the acts/omissions where I feel certain dragged me away from where I should be was concerning knowing something would happen, and the possibility of inaction. If I know something was going to poison ten people and do nothing, that is wrong, but if I have to kill someone to prevent ten deaths then I believe inaction is not necessarily immoral (or, for that matter, psychologically wrong).
Post a Comment