| |
|
The morality game link that inchocolate posted is really quite interesting.
The intention is to demonstrate that there are tensions in the way that people reason about morality. One important tension has to do with how central the idea of harm is to many moral frameworks. Previous research suggests that [...] most people judge the scenarios presented here to involve neither harm to the protagonists nor to anybody else; but that, regardless, plenty of people still think that these scenarios depict acts which are morally wrong.
This activity asks people precisely to make judgements about whether acts can be wrong if they harm only the protagonist and whether they can be wrong if they harm no-one. If the answer to the second question is "no", then automatically any claim that the scenarios presented here involve moral wrongdoing results in difficulties. To retain a consistent moral outlook, it would be necessary to show either that there is harm in the acts depicted here, or to revise the judgement that some kind of harm is necessary for moral condemnation. Both resolutions contain philosophical complications.
My results surprised me - for one, it pronounced me "morally consistent," while I felt totally conflicted in taking the test. It said that overall I am less morally permissive than average, but that I favor punishment and societal enforcement less than most do. So basically, I think a lot of things are wrong but I'm not going to stop anyone from doing them. Not sure how I feel about that.... |
|
|
