Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
No Right or Wrong Answers
Fans of the World's Smallest Political Quiz might be amused by/interested in taking the Ethics Position Questionnaire.
Alerted to its existence by a recent article in the New Scientist about the scientific investigation of morality, the Ethics Position Questionnaire purports to measure two dimensions of moral thought: relativism and idealism. (Unfortunately there is no easy to use online self scoring version of the test that I could find, but here's a link to a version with three step instructions and a score card.)
According to the test, I score low for relativism and idealism which makes me an "exceptionist." Exceptionists retain moral rules to guide judgements, but remain open to exceptions to these rules. The test scores three other types of moral reasoning. Absolutists (low relativism/high idealism) assume that the best outcomes can always be achieved by following universal moral rules. Subjectivists (high relativism/low idealism) base their judgements on personal values rather than universal moral rules. And finally, situationists (high relativism/high idealism) who reject moral rules and advocate individual analysis of each situation.
|11.30.05 @ 1:07PM|#
Exceptionists retain moral rules to guide judgements, but
remain open to exceptions to these rules.
You share some of the qualities of a rule utilitarian.
|11.30.05 @ 1:20PM|#
Looks like I'm mainly an Exceptionist, although with the deviation listed I also lean towards being a Situationist. Seems fairly apt, I suppose.
|11.30.05 @ 1:21PM|#
Ron Bailey,
I am an exceptionist. Very interesting set of questions and fairly
well drawn up for a questionaire whose subject-matter could be ripe
for bias.
Anyway, I consider myself a rule utilitarian so its not surprising
that I fall into the exceptionist category.
The supporting material is also very interesting:
http://www.has.vcu.edu/psy/faculty/fors/ethics.html
|11.30.05 @ 1:21PM|#
Lets keep a running tally for the resonite community:
I am a subjectivist
Subjectivist: 1
Situationalist: 0
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionalist: 0
|11.30.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Lets keep a running tally for the reasonite community:
I am a subjectivist
Subjectivist: 1
Situationalist: 0
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionalist: 0
|11.30.05 @ 1:24PM|#
I came out as an exceptionist.
Subjectivist: 1
Situationalist: 0
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionalist: 3
|11.30.05 @ 1:25PM|#
Great Ape - aren't Hakluyt and I part of the reasonite
community? We both claimed Exceptionist. So that would be:
Subjectivist: 1
Situationist: 0
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionalist: 2
|11.30.05 @ 1:31PM|#
With some exceptions, I am either an absolutist or a subjectivist, depending on the situation.
|11.30.05 @ 1:35PM|#
Subjectivist (31 on scale 1, 66 on scale 2....3 SDs from the mean on idealism scale, 0.5 SDs on the relativism side) ............. good luck to whoever's tallying.
Dave W.|11.30.05 @ 1:40PM|#
This test seems fun and useful, but more theological than scientific. Well, I guess theology is queen of the sciences, so maybe it is scientific in that sense.
|11.30.05 @ 1:52PM|#
this looks like a good poll for grylliade.org
"Are you a(n):
a. Subjectivist
b. Situationist
c. Absolutist
d. Exceptionalist
e. Housepet"
|11.30.05 @ 2:14PM|#
I came out "Asshole".
But an exceptionist one. Lost track of tally but this is one more
exceptionist.
Warren|11.30.05 @ 2:23PM|#
I too scored exceptionalist. But I think it's bogus. I consider
myself very idealist, but my ideals were not what were tested for.
Also just about every question on the second part seemed
indistinguishable to me.
I think they could do better by more closely resembling the Worlds
Smallest Political Quiz by halving both the number of questions and
range of response.
|11.30.05 @ 2:27PM|#
I as an individualist REFUSE to be categorized. I will NOT be pushed, stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!!
|11.30.05 @ 2:28PM|#
Interestingly, reading the descriptions I would have thought I'd
come out an absolutist. Yet neither I nor anyone else so far has
come out absolutist.
I guess it's really not possible to be an absolutist and also
condone things like driving or commercial aviation: the former
requires that at least some of questions 2-6 be agreed with, yet
the latter requires disagreeing with all of them.
It should make one question the metric when the belief in the
absolute rights of life, liberty, property, association, and trade
is an exceptionist position.
|11.30.05 @ 2:33PM|#
I'm always a little puzzled by labels like "situationist." Most of us think things like: "You ought not to use physical force against people, except in self defense... and possibly in a handful of other situations (someone has had a psychotic break and is going to slit his wrists; you're pretty sure if you restrain him temporarily, he'll be very glad you did when he calms down)" Are you a "situationist" who rejects universal moral principles, or do you just have moral principles that are a little too complicated to fit in a fortune cookie?
Rich Ard|11.30.05 @ 2:34PM|#
No matter what my moral principles, I can't seem to fit in a fortune cookie.
Timothy|11.30.05 @ 2:37PM|#
I'm an Exceptionist, with an idealism of 32 and a relativism of 38, so I'm well within the category even including the SD.
|11.30.05 @ 2:41PM|#
Situationist (39 idealism; 62 relativism).
Makes sense. I don't think there is a clear way to universalize
ethics. To me, it keeps coming back to values, which are
subjective.
|11.30.05 @ 2:44PM|#
Julian,
I agree. Kant gives me the same problem. By the time I get done
putting qualifiers on the situation, I may well have a Categorical
Imperative (tm), but not a very useful one.
|11.30.05 @ 3:01PM|#
Another friggin' exceptionist/moral relativist/situational
ethicist jeering at "fortune cookie ethics"; whatever happened to
traditonal absolute values:
"Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?". . . Jesus asked,
"What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and
if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on
it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep?
Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days. . . .
" Matthew 12:13).
|11.30.05 @ 3:03PM|#
Exceptionist. 48, 53
I guess exceptionist means wishy-washy, as I averaged right around
the niether agree nor disagree mark.
Tests like these are always tricky, largely because definitions are
unclear. Define 'harm', 'dignity', 'welfare' and even
'could'.
For instance, question 6:
If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not
be done.
I'm down with a 4 here, but if I strongly agreed with this
statement, would I have to find all sports, or even driving above
the speed limit unethical?
|11.30.05 @ 3:06PM|#
Jason Ligon,
Better hope there aren't any Randroids laying in wait on this
thread. :)
|11.30.05 @ 3:16PM|#
Are you a "situationist" who rejects universal moral
principles, or do you just have moral principles that are a little
too complicated to fit in a fortune cookie?
Well, then you might look at the classification in terms of how
complex one's moral principles are. But then, I'd be interested in
such a test that surveyed how people rank various moral
and ethical concerns, especially when they conflict in various
situations.
Garth|11.30.05 @ 3:16PM|#
Exceptionalist
But I don't really like the way they mix "moral" and "ethical"
which I view as two distinct things.
Garth|11.30.05 @ 3:19PM|#
Er, Akira, methinks you are an "absolutist" since 62 is cut off between high and low and you score high on relativism
|11.30.05 @ 3:26PM|#
Hak - if there's one thing more "glazed stare" inducing than a
Freeper bashing the evil of Darwin and Freud, it's listening to a
Randroid drone on about their superficial understanding of
Kant.
Ugh.
|11.30.05 @ 3:36PM|#
39/52 Exceptionist
Wrestling with all the definitional elements (What do they mean by
"harm"? What do they mean by "welfare"?) made me feel downright
Clintonian.
|11.30.05 @ 4:02PM|#
Oops, subjectivist for me too. I think everything I said before
still applies. I actually don't understand the
subjectivist/situationist distinction in practice. The difference
appears to be high idealism for the situationist.
I will say that there were far too many absolutes in questions 1-10
for me to much agree with them.
Stretch's example:
If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not
be done.
is an extremely strong statement of idealism if you take a hard
look at 'could'.
|11.30.05 @ 4:08PM|#
I come out 48/53 so add another Exceptionalist to the list. I agree with Umbriel about the problems determining the what the meaning of "is" is ;)
|11.30.05 @ 4:14PM|#
Jason Ligon,
Well, the questions are designed in part to force you to make a
choice. As far as these kinds of surveys go, its a pretty good
one.
|11.30.05 @ 4:16PM|#
Are we part of a psychology experiment to see how many of know what the mean is of ten instances of the integers one through nine?
|11.30.05 @ 4:16PM|#
I'm an absolutist. The other three categories are going straight
to hell!
I can give you chapter and verse.
|11.30.05 @ 4:31PM|#
I'll go on record. Ayn Rand never looked so out of her depth as when she commented on Kant. The line between a lady with some good perspective on key issues and a lady who is a serious philosopher can be seen with complete clarity in those comments. I still respect her in many ways, but the insistence that she advocated some sort of complete philosophy is just the Kool Aid talking.
|11.30.05 @ 4:43PM|#
I am another exceptionalist.
Idealism: 44. Relativism: 33.
Funny, I thought I tended toward absolutism, being a radical
anarcho-capitalist on moral principle grounds. I despise
relativism; I generally think you should figure out a logically
consistent code of conduct for yourself and stick with it, even if
on some occasions it leads to results that you don't prefer.
On the other hand, I also believe that if your code of conduct
routinely leads to results you find objectionable, it's probably a
sign that your code of conduct is flawed and needs to be revised.
(Not "granted exceptions to," but revised so it's still
consistent.)
Hey, is that what a "rule utilitarian" is?
Anyway, I like to leave open the possibility that I'm wrong and may
need to revise my rules. Maybe that's why I ended up as an
"exceptionalist."
Now, let's see if the H&R server squirrel is back on the job
...
|11.30.05 @ 5:45PM|#
Stevo Darkly: "...I thought I tended toward absolutism,
being a radical anarcho-capitalist on moral principle
grounds."
While I oscillate between the "Destroy All Governments" r/a-c and
the 'moderate' "Enforce the Constitution & Bill of Rights"
minarchist camps, depending on which politician's pissed me off at
the moment, I was also surprised at my results (reported earlier)
of exceptionalist. Like you I have a personal code, based on the
NAP/ZAP. What I think creates the results we're seeing is that this
survey also tests your willingness to inforce your
personal code, or any single code, on
other individuals.
I am my own guide, but I'm not going to claim the wisdom to tell
anyone else how to live.
|11.30.05 @ 6:03PM|#
I test 24/60, between 'subjectivist' and 'exceptionist'.
My main problem with the test is the lack of distinction between
what I advocate and who I am. I personally tend toward a modified
form of act-consequentialism, but I don't have any problem being
part of communities where many people work on rigid, justice-based
form of moral thought. By whatever interaction of genetics and
upbringing, I seem to have a greater sense of empathy than some
people I know; I'd rather have those people keep themselves in line
with a reasonable list of "Thou Shalt Nots", if that's what they're
best suited for. A sophisticated consequentialist ought to realize
that to flourish, human societies require a rich variety of
personality types, the realm of moral reasoning being no exception.
Societies are better judged than individuals, in terms of the
balance of their moralities.
|11.30.05 @ 6:37PM|#
Surprisingly, I'm an exceptionist (38i, 20r), though I feel I
should be an absolutist.
But on closer inspection, this survey is utter crap. In addition to
all the shoulds and coulds, it includes some compound statements
whose components are possibly self-contradictory, such as
No rule concerning lying can be formulated; whether a lie is
permissible or not permissible totally depends on the
situation.
Moral standards should be seen as being individualistic; what
one person considers to be moral may be judged to be immoral by
another person.
What if one believes (as I do) that it does depend on the
situation, but a rule can takes that into account can be
formulated? And that, obviously, people may differ in their moral
judgements, but that one may be right and the other wrong?
Like the Smallest Political Quiz, the questions are framed to
ensure that most people will wind up in one classification, that of
exceptionist. The way it's set up, you'd have to be lying, an
idiot, or an asshole to get an absolutist score. No offense,
Ruthless. ;-)
|11.30.05 @ 6:41PM|#
What I think creates the results we're seeing is that this
survey also tests your willingness to inforce your personal code,
or any single code, on other individuals.
You're totally wrong about that. See, I am an absolutist!
;-)
But really, the survey says very little about coercing others to
follow your moral code; it deals mostly with whether you think they
should follow your moral code.
|11.30.05 @ 6:44PM|#
Subjectivist.
Quizzes like this are good clean fun for the whole family, and keep
grad students in their labs and out of the bars that have good
beer, raising the chances that I can find a place to sit. I can't
think of a better use of soft money, personally.
VM|11.30.05 @ 6:52PM|#
"ordered a cheeseburger". (47/66)
Stevo:
i understand where you're going with that codex, but how about
this: you stick to what you think is right, and that will,
sometimes land you in a bad situation. however, as you get more
info, you will make better decisions - what your guns were at 17
was different from 25, etc. so you're probably refining those rules
and adding new ones and throwing out old ones as (or at least
changing ranking and weighting) things that are important to you
change.
so you may follow a path until info gets updated.
and i'm glad you don't stick to your guns with a consistently bad
outcome for you :)
cheers (see you the 17th here in chitown?)
|11.30.05 @ 8:39PM|#
Subjectivist (45/71) though Sphinx said it beautifully: "I am my own guide, but I'm not going to claim the wisdom to tell anyone else how to live."
|11.30.05 @ 8:45PM|#
If I may offer a concise characterization of why so many here
think they should have tested as absolutists but got tagged
exceptionists instead...
The absolutist believes that someone's right to swing his fist ends
at someone else's nose.
The exceptionist believes that too, but also realizes that two
people swinging their fists can cause each other a lot of pain
without any possibility of hitting each other's nose.
|11.30.05 @ 9:21PM|#
Viking Moose: cheers (see you the 17th here in
chitown?)
Alas and dammit, Dec. 17 is the date of a Christmas party being
held at the house of my boss's boss, and I have to go to that.
Well, I don't "have" to in a butt-kissing office politics sense,
but my boss's boss is actually a really cool guy and I owe him a
lot. On top of that, it's actually a combo Christmas party and
going-away party for another co-worker and good friend who is
moving away to another state. Oh, and on top of that, it's also a
rare chance to get together with another ex-co-worker (and good
friend) who will show up to say goodbye to the the
soon-to-be-ex-co-worker. (The people in our department are all nice
people and fairly tight with each other, and have been for
years.)
So, in summary, I have at least three very compelling reasons to
attend my boss's boss's party on 12-17 instead of going to
Chicago.
But I would love to get together with you guys again ... hmm, the
next week is Christmas, then New Year's .... uh, in early 2006
sometime, I hope.
grylliade|11.30.05 @ 11:42PM|#
Exceptionalist (36 / 26).
Personally, I think there are universal moral principles, but
they're damn hard to distinguish from personal preferences. Which
doesn't stop me from trying to tell them apart. Outside of those
universal principles, utilitarianism is a good place to start, but
not necessarily the best place to end.
And I don't have much problem endorsing such principles as "Thou
shalt not kill" (with some obvious exceptions) and "Other things
being equal, choose freedom." I don't think that my inability to
prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that my moral principles are
correct means that I must tolerate slavery, the subjugation of
women in Islam, or a million other things. Sometimes you have to
take a stand, even if you're perfectly well aware you might be
wrong.
Oh, and the poll's up on grylliade.org's main page.
|11.30.05 @ 11:57PM|#
Very poorly worded questions. 1 through 5 were not tests for
idealism; they were tests for pacifism.
"One should never psychologically or physically harm another
person"
Interpreted as written, only a pacifist would answer higher than 4
on this.
|12.1.05 @ 12:51AM|#
I also had a beef with the quiz, since I don't remember exactly what was said in the last movie I saw that had a corny classroom discussion about the difference between morals and ethics...
|12.1.05 @ 11:09AM|#
I couldn't get posted yesterday. Went to the Reason server room and found the squirrels emaciated and near death. What sort of death camp are you bastards running?
|12.1.05 @ 12:28PM|#
I'm an exceptionist. I scored less than 30 on both scales. Didn't notice until after that the test is specific to ethics regarding research on human subjects.
|12.1.05 @ 12:33PM|#
>Very poorly worded questions. 1 through 5 were not tests for
idealism; they were tests for pacifism.
>"One should never psychologically or physically harm another
person"
>Interpreted as written, only a pacifist would answer higher
than 4 on this.
Good point, and that is how I interpreted it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245