There were a few responses to yesterday’s post on the ‘Morality-Quotient’ quiz and the stats indicate that a fair number of folk had checked out the post, but whether they bothered with the quiz is not known. I actually did it a second time around to see how consistent I was and where I’m at in relation to the thirty-two thousand and some that have taken the quiz. The second attempt got me the identical scores of 0.00 for Moralising Quotient, 0.00 for Interference Factor and -1 for the Universalising Factor. Pretty extreme, but consistent nonetheless! So there I was at the bottom-most left hand corner of of the box within the box in the diagram which said ‘fully permissive’.
I take this to mean that I am permissive – at least where my head is concerned. What I mean by this is that although I may not find it ‘immoral’ to screw a dead chicken, I would not consider the act to be attractive to me. In other words, I would never dream of screwing a dead bird – although, if someone else wanted to get into it, I would find that to be perfectly within the bounds of permitted behaviour. I also think that if siblings are in mutual agreement of getting it on with each other, it would be nobody’s business but their own. However, I couldn’t ever even consider having sex with a sibling – for whatever conditioned reason that determined that particular ‘non-desire’.
I guess that for me, the parameter would be ‘causing others harm’. What I mean is that for me, pretty much anything goes, as long as it doesn’t hurt others. If, for instance, a guy wanted to screw a live chicken or any other creature, and there was some objection on the part of the creature that indicated it wanted no such act perpetrated on itself, and if the guy went ahead and forced (raped) the creature, that would be immoral in my book – the same for an incestuous act if one of the two (or more) partners was not agreeable. Acts between mutually consenting partners, is for me, perfectly acceptable and is nobody else’s business – period.
My Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.23, which means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned I am more permissive than the average folk out there – no big surprise.
The ‘Interference Factor’ indicates how one sees the need for societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing in the form of punishment or prevention. And here again I scored 0.0, in comparison to an average score of 0.13, which apparently indicates that I would not recommend any societal interference in any of the scenarios brought up by the quiz.
My Universalising Factor score of -1 compares to an average of 0.35, which indicates that I saw no moral wrong in any of the activities described in the scenarios presented, which also could mean that there is no way for the activity to determine the extent to which I see moral wrongdoing in universal terms – without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions.
The quiz seemed to be pretty much ‘on the ball’, as far as I am concerned and for me, was an interesting exercise that confirmed what I thought about myself. And if you took the quiz, I’m sure that it would have given you something to think about – if you were honest with your answers. It may even catalyse a shift in values and that could well be a good thing.
I won’t even get into what Java’s score was, but suffice it to say…….weelll, what’s the use….