It's the Moral Sense Test

Post Reply New Topic

5.6

The scenarios you judged in this test pit means against ends, which is a common philosophical contrast. Each of the characters must choose whether to use bad means to acheive good ends -- for instance, whether to harm a single person in order to help many others. The statistic provided is an indication of the choices you made about means versus ends. The closer it is to 1, the more heavily you appeared to weight means (the rights of one); the closer it is to 6, the more heavily you appeared to weigh ends (the benefit of many). Your statistic is 3.5. So far, the average statistic for subjects on this test is 3.8.

Your statistic is 2.2

2.0
I wish the seven questions were actually seven different questions rather than the means v. ends debate over and over again. I'm tired of means v. ends.

Exactly. My score would have been higher/better, but I got tired of it always asking basically the same question so I went "Screw it! let the majority die." just to make it interesting.

The scenarios you judged in this test pit means against ends, which is a common philosophical contrast. Each of the characters must choose whether to use bad means to acheive good ends -- for instance, whether to harm a single person in order to help many others. The statistic provided is an indication of the choices you made about means versus ends. The closer it is to 1, the more heavily you appeared to weight means (the rights of one); the closer it is to 7, the more heavily you appeared to weigh ends (the benefit of many). Your statistic is 6.3. So far, the average statistic for subjects on this test is 3.9. It is important to realize that this statistic is merely provided for your own interest. The MST researchers make no claims about its meaning, nor do we make any claims about what choices are right or wrong. If you refer other people to this test we ask that you do not describe this statistic or its derivation so that they may complete the test with an open mind. Thank you for your participation.

3.2...

4.4

3.4 for me. Scenarios are ludicrous though.

4.2

1.8

The only one I saved the "majority" was on the one where the guy slips over and breaks his neck. The rest the people are in danger anyways, and you are intervening in the natural cause of events.

What I found most disturbing was the fact that Harvard could honestly post this kind of thing as an ethical barometer. The malevolent universe premise is most off putting, and the extent to which they distort the very nature of morality and ethics to be the sole realm of dilemmas of this kind (ethics of emergencies) is very instructive psychologically. I hope someone tells me if I ever make friends with any of these people!

It is sad to see the destruction of morality put so blatantly by people attempting to promote its understanding. A persons morality isn't judged by what they do in an emergency, but what they do with each and every day of their lives.

Bah! Idiotic flash-requiring sites! To /dev/null with you!