Can You Test Your Morality? Take Our Short Quiz Now!

[GENIERE]

Take the interesting, short quiz at the link below. As the data is used in a research project the authors request no discussion after participating.

http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/index2.html

 

[ShawnD]

Can we at least say what we answered? It's possible to say what you put without influencing others by saying why you put that answer.

Neat test, sort of made me think.

 

[Polly]

I did the test and feel very bad about track choice.

 

[ShawnD]

Don't feel bad. If they're stupid enough to walk on train tracks, they deserve to die.

 

[tribdog]

Don't feel bad. If they're stupid enough to walk on train tracks, they deserve to die.

Stupid people deserve to die? That's what I've been saying for years.

 

[jimmy p]

LOL... actually I have to agree. I said that the 5 men walking on the track should die.

 

[GENIERE]

Why not respect the author's wishes?

 

[russ_watters]

Why not respect the author's wishes?

These are variations on a very common morality case study on utilitarianism. I doubt the authors really expect that people taking the quiz have not seen them.

 

[Njorl]

Actually, the answers don't mean anything. The authors are monitoring this thread to see who discusses the test. THAT is the test of our morality.

D'oh! I just failed.

I am reminded of a telephone survey a friend of mine did. It was to test the limits of telephone surveys. He had a list of hundreds of questions. The test was how many could he ask before people got sick of it and hung up. Since he told me about this, I never take part in any phone surveys.

Njorl

 

[Jeebus]

I am reminded of a telephone survey a friend of mine did. It was to test the limits of telephone surveys. He had a list of hundreds of questions. The test was how many could he ask before people got sick of it and hung up. Since he told me about this, I never take part in any phone surveys.

Is it even possible to get past 100 questions? I would probably hang up after one.

 

[motai]

As far as melonscratchers go, this quiz was very difficult for me to justify. I had reasons but they didn't seem good enough to fully answer the question.

I would never take a telephone survey that had over 100 questions, id probably forget things. If they pay me though, maybe I might be able to remember

 

[ShawnD]

When I get asked to participate in a survey I don't even say no, I just hang up.

 

[tribdog]

I'm lonely. I'd answer 200 questions just to have someone to talk to.

 

[rathma]

I said that the 5 men walking on the track should die.

Interesting. You would save one over five? I chose to kill one, save five. The one man was worth significantly less (amazingly, one-fifth) of the amount that five men are worth. Jimmy, perhaps you should rethink your answer and pretend that you're one of the five men. Then would you kill the five?

 

[rathma]

I'm lonely. I'd answer 200 questions just to have someone to talk to.

Ohhhh, poor puppy! I'll be your friend, trib. (even if Jimmy won't ) Oh, and, are you willing to take me up on that offer? I can think of 200 questions if you want me to.








Chaos. Disorder. Widespread panic. My work is done here.

 

[ShawnD]

The one man was worth significantly less

You're stuck in the realm of natural numbers. Instead of thinking about how many lives you save, think about how much value those people truly have. If these people are walking on train tracks, we can right away assume that they would contaminate the gene pool if they were to have kids. So instead of having their value as +5 lives, it's actually -5 in eugenics. So you have to choose between killing -1 and -5. -5 brings the race down a lot more; therefore, it's ok to off them.
Sounds harsh but they knew the risks involved when they started walking on the tracks.

 

[jimmy p]

Interesting. You would save one over five? I chose to kill one, save five. The one man was worth significantly less (amazingly, one-fifth) of the amount that five men are worth. Jimmy, perhaps you should rethink your answer and pretend that you're one of the five men. Then would you kill the five?

Well these 5 men were deliberately walking on the track. They knew the consequences. I would never be one of those guys. I'd be the one that you push in the way to save those 5.

I suppose you could say you can't play God. Let "nature" take its course. The 5 stupid track walkers become railkill and the one who wasnt doing anything wrong should survive.

 

[Artman]

Did anyone else see the obviously better solution to the hospital question?

 

[ShawnD]

What hospital question? There were only 4 questions and they're all about a train. 1 as some dude, 1 as the guy driving the train, one as a lady on the train, one as some other guy.

 

[anvil]

I failed the test... I think.

 

[motai]

Now that I think about it... why not put a quarter on the tracks and have the entire train derail. The conductor passed out, he will never know. By the time the quarter is on the tracks you can make a speedy getaway in the nearby woods. Then you will save both the guy with his back facing the train as well as the five people (but at significant cost of life on the train).

 

[jimmy p]

I missed the "secret option" obviously...

 

[DarkAnt]

"Interesting. You would save one over five? I chose to kill one, save five. The one man was worth significantly less (amazingly, one-fifth) of the amount that five men are worth. Jimmy, perhaps you should rethink your answer and pretend that you're one of the five men. Then would you kill the five?"

what if you were the one?

i stand that 1 < 5. if the five people are all bad people, then i guess you could go ahead and not change the tracks. If two or more of the 5 people are good then you can go run over the 1 person.

 

[Artman]

What hospital question? There were only 4 questions and they're all about a train. 1 as some dude, 1 as the guy driving the train, one as a lady on the train, one as some other guy.

When I took the test there was a question about saving five people needing one organ each by cutting up one healthy person for the parts (heart, both lungs and both kidneys).

The obvious solution is to take the working other parts from one of the sick and leave the healthy person intact. The doctor has one fewer operation to perform and the resulting number of lives saved and people dying is the same (one dead, five live), and the person who dies was going to die soon unless they received a donated organ anyway.

 

[Njorl]

When I took the test there was a question about saving five people needing one organ each by cutting up one healthy person for the parts (heart, both lungs and both kidneys).

The obvious solution is to take the working other parts from one of the sick and leave the healthy person intact. The doctor has one fewer operation to perform and the resulting number of lives saved and people dying is the same (one dead, five live), and the person who dies was going to die soon unless they received a donated organ anyway.

This would not necessarily work. Just because the healthy person in the situation has organs that will not be rejected by the other 5 does not mean that the 5 sick patients will not reject each other's organs. The healthy match might be type 0, while the others could have any blood type.

Also, the heart patient might have just one lung and one kidney, the kidney patients might have one lung, and the lung patients might have one kidney. The test said nothing could be assumed that was not written, so you can't assume the sick patients can give each other the necessary organs.

Njorl

 

[Artman]

This would not necessarily work. Just because the healthy person in the situation has organs that will not be rejected by the other 5 does not mean that the 5 sick patients will not reject each other's organs. The healthy match might be type 0, while the others could have any blood type.

Also, the heart patient might have just one lung and one kidney, the kidney patients might have one lung, and the lung patients might have one kidney. The test said nothing could be assumed that was not written, so you can't assume the sick patients can give each other the necessary organs.

Njorl

You're right. I assumed they were all a match.

 

[jimmy p]

Well it is too late now, they have been squished by my train and the guy I saved has discovered a cure for cancer

I wasnt the ONLY one to let the other 5 die!

 

[motai]

Well it is too late now, they have been squished by my train and the guy I saved has discovered a cure for cancer

I wasnt the ONLY one to let the other 5 die!

More people end up dying to save one person's life: Sound like Black Hawk Down anyone?

Leave no man behind (in this case, they will be smushed).

 

[jimmy p]

Listen carefully, and you will notice I have no heart beat...

 

[Njorl]

Listen carefully, and you will notice I have no heart beat...

He's right! I put my ear up to the monitor and all I heard was a high pitched whine. I think he must have some kind of high-speed centrifugal pump instead of a heart.

Njorl