Wow. Really? Loyalty above all of the others, high authority, and harm at the bottom? That's so wrong.

Loyalty seems to be the "highest" for me and I think that's true. — Agustino

:-}

Loyalty is one of the least relevant. I can think of countless cases where loyalty wouldn't be a good indication of whether someone acted rightly or wrongly, and countless cases in which being loyal would lead to immorality.

Likewise with authority. Police Officer? Priest? Soldier? President? Moralist? Whatever. Doesn't matter. If you're wrong, you're wrong.

Bottom left corner.

Loyalty is the most relevant in my opinion. There's probably nothing that I dislike more than betrayal. Having character is equivalent to loyalty - loyalty to principles, people, etc.

And yes, being loyal would indeed lead to immortality, as you yourself say :D

As for authority, it is moral to obey authority when (1) that authority is right in its views and (2) you clearly perceive it is so. To do otherwise is to be immoral. Therefore there needs to be respect for just authority. But yes, if the authority is wrong, then it isn't an authority anymore... Clearly!

That's so wrong. — Sapientia

That is your opinion blud.

...and countless cases in which being loyal would lead to immortality. — Sapientia

That doesn't sound so bad.

That moral foundations test is terribly designed. Almost all of the questions are super abstract. It doesn't test how you think about things; it tests how you think, abstractly, about your moral self-image. This one, though clearly low-rent, is way better. It's not great, by any means, but it at least has the virtue of being concrete.

Here are my test results from that one.

That moral foundations test is terribly designed. Almost all of the questions are super abstract. It doesn't test how you think about things; it tests how you think, abstractly, about your moral self-image. This one, though clearly low-rent, is way better. It's not great, by any means, but it at least has the virtue of being concrete — csalisbury

Agreed. Even the very first question when I decide whether something is right or wrong, do I consider it relevant whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society. For me that is a yes, but I assume that in saying yes it would lean towards conservative, but I do consider whether a person who has committed an act be someone who has conformed to fundamentalism or other forms of radical ideology. Loyalty to country vs. whistleblower against government corruption vs. security?

When I did the test the first time, my loyalty was shockingly low and so I went back and analysed the questions to find that by ticking agree to not just 'I am proud of my country's history' of which I am not because of what it done to our indigenous community, but also "People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong" which I absolutely did not agree with along with "If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty" which I moderately disagreed with. It changed my 'loyalty' exponentially, but I am loyal already, I studied law and am devoted to the wellbeing of my country even if that means speaking up against injustice.

The test is stupid.

Personally I found the test better relative to the others. I found that even on those questions where something had to be sacrificed, because of the gradations of answers (slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree, etc.) one could answer somewhat satisfactorily.

I am proud of my country's history — TimeLine

I answered "slightly disagree" on this one because I'm not exactly proud of my country, nor do I think this is a moral value. At the same time, neither is not being proud of your country a moral value so... Slightly disagree fits the best.

"People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong" — TimeLine

I answered "moderately agree" - I could see exceptions, but for the most part they should be loyal to family. For example if my wife or child steal something, I'll do my best to save them from facing the consequences of it, especially if it was the first time they've done such a thing, and they were compelled by some reasons to do them. Now obviously I'd also try to convince them never to do such a thing again. But then it depends, in some circumstances I wouldn't defend them - say if my child rapes someone, then I wouldn't be loyal to him. So it depends on the gravity of the offence, and on their intentions.

"If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty" — TimeLine

I answered "slightly agree" because you're in the army - you have to obey, for the most part. The only times when you can disobey is when you have (1) tried to convince your commander otherwise, and (2) when what you're being asked to do goes against the interests of the army. For example if the commander orders something that consists in betraying the cause the army is fighting for, then you have grounds to disobey. If the commander proposes a course of action you disagree with, you can try to convince the commander otherwise, but ultimately you must listen to what he says - he's the commander for a reason. Without such principles the army couldn't function, nor could pretty much any other organisation.

Loyalty is the most relevant in my opinion. There's probably nothing that I dislike more than betrayal. Having character is equivalent to loyalty - loyalty to principles, people, etc. — Agustino

But it is good to betray bad principles, people, etc., whether you dislike it or or not. (Unless perhaps it was over something lacking significance). And having character is not equivalent to loyalty; loyalty is just a single quality or characteristic, whereas having character means more than that.

And yes, being loyal would indeed lead to immortality, as you yourself say :D — Agustino

Yeah yeah, I meant immorality. X-)

As for authority, it is moral to obey authority when (1) that authority is right in its views and (2) you clearly perceive it is so. To do otherwise is to be immoral. — Agustino

So authority is secondary. Whatever makes the authority right in its views is primary - and I think that that very often relates to fairness and harm.

Therefore there needs to be respect for just authority. — Agustino

There should be, but only when those conditions are met.

But yes, if the authority is wrong, then it isn't an authority anymore... Clearly! — Agustino

No, not clearly. Authorities can and have been wrong countless times, yet people still meaningfully refer to these authorities as authorities. You're just using the word differently.

But it is good to betray bad principles, people, etc., whether you dislike or or not. And having character is not equivalent to loyalty; loyalty is just a single quality or characteristic, whereas having character means more than that. — Sapientia

No, it's never good to betray them. Betrayal involves deception, and that's never good. Having character emerges out of loyalty - it is loyalty that structures the character.

So authority is secondary. Whatever makes the authority right in its views is primary - and I think that that very often relates to fairness and harm. — Sapientia

Yes, but when it exists in its proper form it has to be accorded with the necessary respect, and it would be immoral not to.

There should be, but only when those conditions are met. — Sapientia

Yes

No, it's never good to betray them. — Agustino

On the contrary, if they're bad enough, and if you subscribe to a duty-based ethics, then it's your overriding duty to betray them. Either way, it'd be the right thing to do.

It would've been good to betray the Nazis. If you can't accept that, then there's a big problem with your moral foundations.

Betrayal involves deception, and that's never good. — Agustino

It doesn't necessarily involve deception. It only necessarily involves going against them, which you can do without either letting them know beforehand or deceiving them. For example, you could have a sudden change of heart and just walk away from a criminal organisation and alert the authorities.

And anyway, if deception avoids terrible consequences, such as those risked in a hostage situation, then deception is the good option in contrast to bad options.

Having character emerges out of loyalty - it is loyalty that structures the character. — Agustino

That's your personal view of character, not a truth about character itself.

Yes, but when it exists in its proper form it has to be accorded with the necessary respect, and it would be immoral not to. — Agustino

Firstly, it isn't about "need" or "has to be". It's about what ought to be. I don't need to do anything.

If you change your terminology appropriately and accordingly, as per the above paragraph, then I agree.

It would've been good to betray the Nazis. If you can't accept that, then there's a big problem with your moral foundations. — Sapientia

No I can't accept that. It wouldn't have been good to betray the Nazis, it would have been good to oppose them. That is different. Everyone hates traitors, even those who benefit from them.

which you can do without either letting them know beforehand or deceiving them — Sapientia

These are acts of betrayal. There is a difference between betrayal and opposition

And anyway, if deception avoids terrible consequences, such as those risked in a hostage situation, then deception is the good option in contrast to bad options. — Sapientia

:-} Deception is still immoral, but maybe necessarily immoral per @Heister Eggcart's usage of the term in such circumstances

That's your personal view of character, not a truth about character itself. — Sapientia

And this is your personal view as well, not a truth about matters themselves.

Firstly, it isn't about "need" or "has to be". It's about what ought to be. I don't need to do anything. — Sapientia

If you don't do it in that case, then you are immoral. So it is a need if you want to be moral.

Yeah, in terms of "what we should allow people to do," I'm definitely libertarian, and a minarchist libertarian at that. In terms of economics, though, I'm an idiosyncratic sort of socialist, where among other things, I think it's ridiculous that we've arranged things so that people have to do without or even worry about whether they're going to have shelter, food, healthcare, education, transportation, etc.

That moral foundations test is terribly designed. Almost all of the questions are super abstract. It doesn't test how you think about things; it tests how you think, abstractly, about your moral self-image. This one, though clearly low-rent, is way better. It's not great, by any means, but it at least has the virtue of being concrete. — csalisbury

>:O Like 30% of the questions are sexually related...

I've done it and.... disaster :P :


It says I am a Left-Liberal :’( ... What should I do?

>:O

I seem to share more with Left-Liberals on care, fairness and liberty, and more with conservatives on Authority, Loyalty and Purity, even though I out-do the conservatives for the latter two :P

Deception is still immoral, but maybe necessarily immoral per Heister Eggcart's usage of the term in such circumstances — Agustino

No I can't accept that. It wouldn't have been good to betray the Nazis, it would have been good to oppose them. That is different. Everyone hates traitors, even those who benefit from them. — Agustino

That's crazy. And no, everyone doesn't. In some cases, many people share my view that they should be lauded for doing the right thing in difficult circumstances.

These are acts of betrayal. There is a difference between betrayal and opposition — Agustino

I didn't deny that they were acts of betrayal. My point there was only that they don't necessarily involve deception.

Deception is still immoral, but maybe necessarily immoral per Heister Eggcart's usage of the term in such circumstances — Agustino

There's no "still" about it, in my view. Deception isn't immoral in itself, and in some situations it would form part of a moral act. But if it can be avoided without consequences like the one in the hostage example, then it would be ethical to do so.

And this is your personal view as well, not a truth about matters themselves. — Agustino

It could also be a truth about matters themselves. But my point was mainly that you aren't justified in making those claims about character as if your personal view of it was objective and applicable to others. It'd only be applicable relative to your personal view, which wouldn't mean much if your personal view is rejected, and especially if there is good reason to reject it (which there is).

If you don't do it in that case, then you are immoral. So it is a need if you want to be moral. — Agustino

Agreed.

I get about the same results there:

Your scores are:
Care 97.2%
Fairness 86.1%
Loyalty 25%
Authority 19.4%
Purity 22.2%
Liberty 27.8%

Your strongest moral foundation is Care.
Your morality is closest to that of a Left-Liberal.

That's crazy. And no, everyone doesn't. In some cases, many people share my view that they should be lauded for doing the right thing in difficult circumstances. — Sapientia

I don't think it's crazy at all. From a pragmatic point of view, there's nothing worse than a traitor. That's why, for example, in Chinese strategy manuals it is advised to kill traitors after you use them, because they are scum, good for nothing, when the world is most dear to you, they will betray you. That's why nobody from a pragmatic point of view likes traitors. Traitors lack commitment. Traitors mean disaster.

Deception isn't immoral in itself, and in some situations it would form part of a moral act. — Sapientia

Nope - the ends don't justify the means.

and especially if there is good reason to reject it (which there is). — Sapientia

Yeah, maybe in another lifetime you bother to actually provide it :-!

Like I said, the first test really measures one's own idea of one's moral foundation. You spend a lot of time consciously grooming your moral self-image, so it's not surprising that the results of the first test would seem more pleasing and correct to you.

"Some men have a private, all-male club and feminists take them to court, demanding that they open it up to women."

>:O >:O >:O

"Sarah's dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head."

:-O

~

Scores:

Care - 100% - Strongest Moral Foundation
Fairness - 97.2%
Loyalty - 47.2%
Authority - 61.1%
Purity - 75%
Liberty - 63.9%

Closest Morality - Left Liberal

Relative:

Care - 22.5%
Fairness - 21.8%
Loyalty - 10.6%
Authority - 13.7%
Purity - 16.8%
Liberty - 14.6%

Like I said, the first test really measures one's own idea of one's moral foundation. You appear to spend a lot of time grooming your moral self-image, so it's not surprising that the results of the first test would seem more pleasing and correct to you. — csalisbury

Okay but if you analyze my scores, it doesn't seem I fit the left-liberal pattern. For one, left-liberals show a tendency for high scores in care and fairness, low scores in loyalty, authority and purity, and a median score in Liberty. I don't fit that pattern. I have high scores in all of them (with just authority being the lowest). This does actually reflect how I am. But it's not a left-liberal pattern - the assigning algorithm fails in my case. I'm closer to conservatives, but I don't fit in with many conservatives either, but I fit better than with left-liberals.

It says I am a Left-Liberal :’( ... What should I do? — Agustino

"Some men have a private, all-male club and feminists take them to court, demanding that they open it up to women." — Heister Eggcart

When I saw this one, I said there's something wrong (but not maximum wrongness) with feminists seeking to do this. They should just open women only clubs :P

"Sarah's dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head." — Heister Eggcart

This one was fucked up - I gave it maximum wrong. I also gave maximum wrong to the cheating ones >:O

Loyalty - 10.6% >:O — Heister Eggcart

We're not doing business together Heister... >:O

We're not doing business together Heister... — Agustino

What're those scores relative to? I'm about as loyal to the good as I can be, dunno how I'm failing in that category. I wouldn't consider someone loyal if they put up with sluts and cheaters, :-|

What're those scores relative to? I'm about as loyal to the good as I can be, dunno how I'm failing in that category. I wouldn't consider someone loyal if they put up with sluts and cheaters, :-| — Heister Eggcart

Me neither lol. The relative ones are the relative weighting of that respective factor compared with the other factors (that's why they add up to 100%). So that shows that loyalty has a relatively low place in your moral scheme.

That's true. Maybe they only base your 'label' on your top foundation.