'Morality Play'

[Edwardo Piet]

Answer these questions to find out your 'moral parsimony' percentage score:

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

(I got 100%).

[Minimalist]

I got 80%

[Violet]

Geographical Distance: Your score of 67% is somewhat lower than the average score of 73% in this category.

Family Relatedness: Your score of 67% is a bit higher than the average score of 58% in this category.

Acts and Omissions: Your score of 2% is much lower than the average score of 60% in this category.

Scale: Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 75% in this category.

59%

Yay me, I am so changeable

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Overall; 65%.

67% for family,which is apparently higher than average. (58%)

I may have skewed the test. There may be a difference between what I see as a moral obligation and what I will actually do.

EG I may occasionally be guilty of compassion,which I do not base on any sense of obligation. EG I do give to charity.In the case of the vacant land, I would almost certainly allow refugees to use it.

[Rev. Rye]

63 for me.

[HeyItsZeus]

My Moral Parsimony Score is 88%

[Zen Badger]

100% for everything except 37% for family relatedness.

Average 84%

[Sam]

100% for me.

Turns out I apply a very narrow set of absolute moral principles without consideration of geographical or family issues.

That makes sense given my general approach to questions of morality.

Sam

[BlackUnicorn]

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 59%

But I disagreed with many parts of the quiz.

"Question 4

You are able to help some people. Unfortunately, you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 10 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping ten people by harming one person rather than helping 100,000 people by harming 10,000 people?"

Thus I answered yes, overall though I was thinking of medical trials and numerous other actions which could result in the deaths of 10% or above, most of which are out of your control. I think it would have been better to give an option like 'in some circumstances'.

Though regardless of score I don't believe you are 'morally obliged' to do anything you don't want to do, unless of course your actions have resulted in harm to others and thus make you partly/totally responsible for their plight enough that you are 'morally obliged' to help them, but even in those cases if it was out of your control then you wouldn't be morally obliged at all to help.

Those were just my thoughts, you might think differently.

[corndog36]

100% for me.

I think it would have been better to give an option like 'in some circumstances'.

This is basically what was being tested, your inclination to weigh circumstances in making moral decisions. 100% parsimony means that your morality is based on principle, not circumstance.

Another morality play I read goes something like this:

Your spouse is dying of a rare disease. A researcher has developed a cure that is not yet available anywhere else. The researcher wants more than you could possibly pay for the cure. Do you steal the cure or let your spouse die, and what is your moral justification.

There is no right or wrong answer, these are tests to determine your approach to morality in general.