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.

Comments

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Ron Bailey]

Hakluyt: What about you?

[Lowdog]

Looks like I'm mainly an Exceptionist, although with the deviation listed I also lean towards being a Situationist. Seems fairly apt, I suppose.

[Hakluyt]

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

[The Great Ape]

Lets keep a running tally for the resonite community:

I am a subjectivist

Subjectivist: 1
Situationalist: 0
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionalist: 0

[The Great Ape]

Lets keep a running tally for the reasonite community:

I am a subjectivist

Subjectivist: 1
Situationalist: 0
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionalist: 0

[The Great Ape]

missed a few

Subjectivist: 1
Situationalist: 0
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionist: 2

[David]

I came out as an exceptionist.
Subjectivist: 1
Situationalist: 0
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionalist: 3

[Lowdog]

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

[mk]

Exceptionalist: 4 (including me)

[Eric the .5b]

I'm apparently rather firmly an Exceptionalist.

[Lowdog]

Oops, David got it...

[Ethan]

With some exceptions, I am either an absolutist or a subjectivist, depending on the situation.

[Rick H.]

I got "Situationist." First!

[Adam]

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.]

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.

[AnonCowherd]

Another exceptionalist here...

[jive miguel]

this looks like a good poll for grylliade.org

"Are you a(n):
a. Subjectivist
b. Situationist
c. Absolutist
d. Exceptionalist
e. Housepet"

[Yogi]

Subjectivist. 58 Idealism - 68 Relativism.

[MikeP]

I too am an exceptionalist.

[zach]

I seem to be a Subsitceptionist.

[Matthew Hogan]

I came out "Asshole".

But an exceptionist one. Lost track of tally but this is one more exceptionist.

[The Great Ape]

Subjectivist: 3
Situationalist: 1
Absolutist: 0
Exceptionist: 7

[Warren]

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.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I as an individualist REFUSE to be categorized. I will NOT be pushed, stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!!

[MikeP]

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.

[native NYer]

Subjectivist, 41 idealism, 63 relativism

[Julian Sanchez]

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]

No matter what my moral principles, I can't seem to fit in a fortune cookie.

[Timothy]

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.

[K. Toishi]

Idealism - 54
Relativism - 31

Exceptionist...

[Jason Ligon]

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.

[Jason Ligon]

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.

[matthew hogan]

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).

[Stretch]

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?

[Hakluyt]

Jason Ligon,

Better hope there aren't any Randroids laying in wait on this thread. 🙂

[Eric the .5b]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

49 Idealism, 70 Relativism

It seems I'm an exceptionist.

[Garth]

Exceptionalist

But I don't really like the way they mix "moral" and "ethical" which I view as two distinct things.

[Curious]

Jason, Akira, wouldn't those scores make you guys Subjectivists?

[Garth]

Er, Akira, methinks you are an "absolutist" since 62 is cut off between high and low and you score high on relativism

[Garth]

Opps.. scratch that - it's the other way around -- Subjectivist

[quasibill]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Whoops... sorry. Subjectivist it is.

[Umbriel]

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.

[Hakluyt]

quasibill,

Its amusing for exactly three minutes. 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

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'.

[Sphynx]

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 😉

[Hakluyt]

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.

[anon2]

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?

[Ruthless]

I'm an absolutist. The other three categories are going straight to hell!
I can give you chapter and verse.

[Jason Ligon]

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.

[Stevo Darkly]

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 ...

[Jeff]

Exceptionist.

[mjs]

37/63 -- Subjectivist.

[Sphynx]

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.

[J. Goard]

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.

[NoStar]

43 IDEALISM / 24 RELATIVISM

Hey, I'm exceptional!

[crimethink]

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. 😉

[crimethink]

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.

[Bee]

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]

"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?)

[Kwix]

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."

[MikeP]

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.

[Stevo Darkly]

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]

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.

[akl]

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.

[dead_elvis]

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...

[saw-whet]

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?

[vabs]

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.

[vabs]

>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.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

I got 30/43. I am an exceptionist.