shows that loyalty has a relatively low place in your moral scheme. — Agustino

It's probably what I "care" about most, though, haha.

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

No - look at TGW, he's classified as conservative (despite having care at the top). It's a more complex algorithm I think, but obviously I don't think it's very good :P

It's probably what I "care" about most, though, haha. — Heister Eggcart

That's like me, although for me too care shows at the top. But your scores on care and fairness though .... pff your morality is like perfect :-O did you cheat?! >:O

That's like me, although for me too care shows at the top. But your scores on care and fairness though .... pff your morality is like perfect :-O did you cheat?! >:O — Agustino

I am Christ returned. Just believe me, you may not understand, but it's the truth (Y)

I am Christ returned. Just believe me, you may not understand, but it's the truth (Y) — Heister Eggcart

>:O Blasphemy!

For a few of the questions, I voted for the first level of "okay" where what I meant by it was, "I think it's morally okay, but I don't think it's cool to do." In other words, it's something that I see as a dick move, but I wouldn't say it's immoral. An example is the guy wearing the other-colored shoes on the soccer team. That's not immoral, but I'd probably think the guy is a jerk (unless there were unusual circumstances).

There were also a couple where I answered the first level of "not okay," but where it would really depend on more detailed information. For example, someone killing a rabbit on a TV show. It would depend on what sort of TV show it is. Is it some sort of survival show a la Survivorman? In that case, I'd be okay with it. He's got to eat, that might be the only food available, and he's showing folks how to survive in extreme situations. In most cases I'd think it's not okay though.

I don't think it's crazy at all. — Agustino

You wouldn't though, would you? (Because you're crazy). :D

From a pragmatic point of view, there's nothing worse than a traitor. — Agustino

An ethical point of view is the only relevant point of view, given that we're discussing moral foundations. So unless you're suggesting that a pragmatic point of view is the ethical point of view, then that's not relevant. And if you are, how so?

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. — Agustino

That's very obviously one sided. They're not good for nothing, nor scum if what they're doing is the right thing, which it could be. They're also pragmatically valuable for the other side, given that they can be advantageous, in that, for example, they can provide intel about the enemy, exposing weakness.

And no, someone who has committed an act of betrayal - a traitor - won't necessarily do so again, nor do they necessarily lack commitment outside of that very narrow context, in which lacking commitment isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway. Nor do they necessarily mean disaster. And you're using these emotive terms which connote something bad, but bad things happening to bad people is often deserved.

Nope - the ends don't justify the means. — Agustino

They can do for me. Talk of deception in itself, rather than as it relates to consequences, can be pretty meaningless, ethically, I think. I suppose this is where your notion of purity comes into play. But I don't care for purity if it leads to bad - or terrible - consequences, like an innocent hostage being tortured or killed. The latter is far more important. This notion of purity should be thrown in the trash before it causes real harm.

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

You could just open your eyes. The terrible consequences I mentioned? The qualities that people speak of as virtues are not necessarily so, and are not so if they aren't balanced or put to good use. There's nothing virtuous in loyalty to scum. Loyalty to scum begets scum. You shouldn't be proud about it either; you should be ashamed. If you were a soldier who was loyal to the Nazis, and carried out heinous acts because of said loyalty, then you're more deserving of a military execution than a medal. It's a good thing that they didn't see it that way at the Nuremberg trials. "Oh, you were just following orders? How good of you to have demonstrated such loyalty! Forget about the millions of innocent lives that were brutally and unjustly taken because of people like you. Here, take this medal. You've earned it".

These are the good reasons I referred to, and this isn't the first time I've brought them up.

I'm about as loyal to the good as I can be... — Heister Eggcart

This statement suggests two things: (1) that loyalty is secondary to whatever it is that makes something good; and (2) that loyalty in itself isn't good, but is only good in relation to the good.

Your score for liberty: >:O

(Y)

That thumb's pointing in the wrong direction.

What I said to Agustino about a quality being virtuous only if it is balanced and put to good use also applies with regard to liberty. Liberty isn't good if it is excessive or used to cause needless harm. That's why there are laws and authorities, and why there are prisons filled with prisoners. Chaos is not paradise.

What I said to Agustino about a quality being virtuous only if it is balanced and put to good use also applies with regard to liberty. Liberty isn't good if it is excessive or used to cause needless harm. That's why there are laws and authorities, and why there are prisons filled with prisoners. Chaos is not paradise. — Sapientia

I didn't answer anything in the quiz in favor of "causing needless harm" in my opinion.

I didn't answer anything in the quiz in favor of "causing needless harm" in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

Okay. I don't know the questions or how you answered, so I can't judge for myself at present. But if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech, then, by implication, you're in favour of causing needless harm. For example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Okay. I don't know the questions or how you answered, so I can't judge for myself at present. But if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech, then, by implication, you're in favour of causing needless harm. For example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. — Sapientia

Incidentally, this is one of our many disagreements.

Incidentally, this is one of our many disagreements. — jamalrob

Ah, okay. Perhaps you are more liberal than me, then.

But if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech, then, by implication, you're in favour of causing needless harm. — Sapientia

I'm not of the view that speech causes any harm--thus it can't cause needless harm. If people are hurt in a theater after someone yells "Fire," it would be because of idiots panicking, trampling others, or whatever exactly happened.

I'm not of the view that speech causes any harm... — Terrapin Station

Yes, I know. I think that that's absurd.

...thus it can't cause needless harm. If people are hurt in a theater after someone yells "Fire," it would be because of idiots panicking, trampling others, or whatever exactly happened. — Terrapin Station

That is to cherry pick only those factors which are consistent with your stance, and wilfully ignore others.

That is to cherry pick only those factors which are consistent with your stance, — Sapientia

Why isn't it that you're cherry-picking only those factors which are consistent with your stance? Because it's your stance, hence it's correct? (haha)

Why isn't it cherry picking only those factors which are consistent with your stance? Because it's your stance, hence it's correct? (haha) — Terrapin Station

Because I acknowledge the other factors, like the ones you mentioned.

I'm not ignoring that someone yelled "Fire" in the scenario. I don't count that as causal for whatever harm might ensue.

I'm not ignoring that someone yelled "Fire" in the scenario. I don't count that as causal for whatever harm might ensue. — Terrapin Station

I said that you're wilfully ignoring it as a factor, which is how I interpret your second sentence. Your first sentence doesn't reflect my criticism of your position.

Right, so what makes it correct that it's causal?

Right, so what makes it correct that it's causal? — Terrapin Station

Most obviously, it wouldn't have happened otherwise, or at least without a similar trigger, such as a noise which sounds like a gunshot.

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. — Agustino

It probably might be, but whether or not it is better, it is still flawed. What on earth is purity?

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. — Agustino

I think this was an attempt to connect your moral values politically to align it into a category, albeit a measly one. I instantly saw the logic and connections with the questions and potential result, which makes it easy to manipulate.

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. — Agustino

I think ones moral values should transcend emotional connections and to value principles above people, even if it is family. I believe it starts with the individual, then family, then community, and if the individual cannot understand and apply righteousness, it effects the family and then the community. If your wife did something bad, you would do your best to save her; for me, if anyone that I knew did something bad I would try to save them and if they do not listen then facing the consequences of justice is the causal result, which would be to lose me as a person and potentially their place in society depending on their actions. Without a doubt, some people I may care deeply for I would want to try harder by giving them more leeway to change, but if they fail, I become aware that I cannot do anything further.

I am absolute on righteousness, however cold it may appear.

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. — Agustino

This is a tricky one but I too selected slightly agree, only because tactical offences could be beyond the scope of a soldier' understanding and it could jeopardise the result. But then, when you think of WWI and the mass slaughter of soldiers by Hamilton' blunder in Gallipoli. What would have happened if they said no?

Most obviously, it wouldn't have happened otherwise, or at least without a similar trigger, such as a noise which sounds like a gunshot. — Sapientia

Haha, you're explaining what "causal" would refer to, as if that's at issue. I'm asking for the evidence of it being causal versus contrary views.

You wouldn't though, would you? (Because you're crazy). :D — Sapientia

:-}

An ethical point of view is the only relevant point of view, given that we're discussing moral foundations. So unless you're suggesting that a pragmatic point of view is the ethical point of view, then that's not relevant. And if you are, how so? — Sapientia

No I'm not suggesting pragmatism as a point of view, I'm merely illustrating that acts of betrayal say something about the lack of character of the traitor.

That's very obviously one sided. They're not good for nothing, nor scum if what they're doing is the right thing, which it could be. — Sapientia

They can't be doing the right thing by betrayal. The right thing is opposing immorality, but not by immorality.

They're also pragmatically valuable for the other side, given that they can be advantageous, in that, for example, they can provide intel about the enemy, exposing weakness. — Sapientia

Yes, hence why it is suggested to use them, and then throw them away, because otherwise they become dangerous.

And no, someone who has committed an act of betrayal - a traitor - won't necessarily do so again, nor do they necessarily lack commitment outside of that very narrow context, in which lacking commitment isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway. Nor do they necessarily mean disaster. And you're using these emotive terms which connote something bad, but bad things happening to bad people is often deserved. — Sapientia

An act of betrayal is immoral, and betrayal isn't the right way of opposing something or someone, unless one is absolutely compelled to resort to it.
A traitor

Haha, you're explaining what "causal" would refer to, as if that's at issue. I'm asking for the evidence of it being causal versus contrary views. — Terrapin Station

The sequence of events, repeatability, observing what happens in the absence of such a trigger, what we know about human nature - specifically about how people are likely to react in those sorts of situations...

Those people didn't just think to themselves out of the blue "Let's panic and run for the exit". They did so as a reaction to someone shouting "Fire!", which caused panic and alarm, which caused them to run for exit, which can cause harm, which would be needless harm if there was no good reason to shout "Fire!".

The real question is, why are you feigning ignorance? Do you care more about being consistent than representing the truth? Because it is the other way around for me.

What on earth is purity? — TimeLine

Chastity? Respect for the sacred? That kind of stuff.

I think this was an attempt to connect your moral values politically to align it into a category, albeit a measly one. I instantly saw the logic and connections with the questions and potential result, which makes is easy to manipulate. — TimeLine

In fact quite the contrary :P - I did see the logic of it, and would have said that I agree to it because that fits in with my political view (conservatism) - but I didn't.

I think ones moral values should transcend emotional connections and to value principles above people, even if it is family. — TimeLine

I disagree with this, and I think that any such morality is ultimately an abstraction, completely removing feeling - especially fellow-feeling, compassion - from the equation.

I believe it starts with the individual, then family, then community, and if the individual cannot understanding and apply righteousness, it effects the family and then the community. — TimeLine

As you know, I adopt the opposite starting position. For me it starts with community and asks "How can we live and flourish together?" In fact it starts with community and asks "How is individuality even possible?" For me, the idea of the individual entirely separated from society is incoherent, for the simple reason that none of us are born as individuals. Our individuality develops in society - we are nurtured by society. If it wasn't for society you wouldn't be alive in the first place, much less be an individual. So it's our society that allows us to develop our individuality and know ourselves. In it we move and have our being. It is true that our society is more often than not not harmonious and it becomes better not to take part because of this, but this is only an a posteriori consideration.

If your wife did something bad, you would do your best to save her; for me, if anyone that I knew did something bad I would try to save them and if they do not listen then facing the consequences of justice is the causal result, which would be to lose me as a person and potentially their place in society depending on their actions. — TimeLine

Well if they do not listen there's not much you can do to save them, is there?

This is a tricky one but I too selected slightly agree, only because tactical offences could be beyond the scope of a soldier' understanding and it could jeopardise the result. But then, when you think of WWI and the mass slaughter of soldiers by Hamilton' blunder in Gallipoli. What would have happened if they said no? — TimeLine

Yes, obviously obeying the commander doesn't guarantee a good outcome. But the commander given the fact that he's supposed to have greater knowledge, experience and understanding compared to the soldier is more likely to take the right decision - now of course this doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. So as a principle, it still is right to obey the commander.

Chastity? Respect for the sacred? That kind of stuff. — Agustino

How is my chastity politically relevant? I choose not to sleep around and I choose to wait until I meet a genuine love, but that is my choice and no one else is required to follow that neither should anyone tell me what I should or should not be doing. I choose to do what I want despite my environment. That is because I live in a liberal democracy where there is no intense involvement in our personal affairs from religious sources. Hence, why the questionnaire is flawed; it is culture-specific, or, lacks relativism. Politics should always be separate from religion.

I disagree with this, and I think that any such morality is ultimately an abstraction, completely removing feeling - especially fellow-feeling, compassion - from the equation. — Agustino

It is not removing feeling, it is transcending irrational emotions. On the contrary, the feeling becomes more genuine and real because you realise that your previous attachments were infantile at best; love is a decision, it is not some sweeping form of randomness that comes out of nowhere and there are reasons behind these feelings that can be adequately understood. But if my loved one committed a wrongdoing, I would not 'switch off' and would still feel pity and sadness, but not ridiculous enough to continue supporting wrong-doing only because I love them. No, my principles are above my emotions.

As you know, I adopt the opposite starting position. For me it starts with community and asks "How can we live and flourish together?" In fact it starts with community and asks "How is individuality even possible?" For me, the idea of the individual entirely separated from society is incoherent, for the simple reason that none of us are born as individuals. Our individuality develops in society - we are nurtured by society. If it wasn't for society you wouldn't be alive in the first place, much less be an individual. So it's our society that allows us to develop our individuality and know ourselves. In it we move and have our being. It is true that our society is more often than not not harmonious and it becomes better not to take part because of this, but this is only an a posteriori consideration. — Agustino

All learning starts with the community, through social constructs and other considerations and then we work backwards, where we meet and love our partners and family and friends, before we take another step back to ourselves where we mirror our flaws and develop a conscience, moral consciousness and finally our individuality. When we do that, we start working - authentically - back up because we have transcended the initial 'learning' phase and started to see our responsibility and individuality. So - by choice - we meet a partner and start a new family with them and form friendships with likeminded people and then participate willingly in a community that we hope to develop into something good. The latter half is genuine, authentic and applied consciously, whereas the initial phases are not, though still necessary.

No I'm not suggesting pragmatism as a point of view, I'm merely illustrating that acts of betrayal say something about the lack of character of the traitor. — Agustino

What do you think you illustrated? Because it looked to me like you basically just resorted to a bit of name calling ("scum", "good for nothing"), mentioned a strategy which is based on pragmatics rather than ethics, and made some unwarranted assumptions, e.g. about what someone will do, what something entails, what something will lead to...

What shines through is that you disapprove, but beyond that...?

They can't be doing the right thing by betrayal. The right thing is opposing immorality, but not by immorality. — Agustino

I think that in difficult either-or situations, there can be a right thing to do and a wrong thing to do, and that the right thing to do can involve betrayal. I further think that it's unjust to accuse such people of immorality, when they've done the right thing despite what it involved and despite how less considerate people might judge them. According to my position, betrayal isn't in itself immoral, so your point wouldn't even apply.

Yes, hence why it is suggested to use them, and then throw them away, because otherwise they become dangerous. — Agustino

Correction: they can become dangerous. They could be perceived as a danger - rightly or wrongly. They kill them anyway, because it's one less thing to be concerned about, and because it might give them a strategic advantage which they wouldn't otherwise have.

Now, what has that got to do with morality?

An act of betrayal is immoral, and betrayal isn't the right way of opposing something or someone, unless one is absolutely compelled to resort to it.
A traitor — Agustino

You've said that it's immoral, but I don't agree (not in itself or in any situation), and saying that doesn't shed any light on the issue.

At least you accept that it is the right thing to do if one is absolutely compelled to resort to it, but it isn't clear to me what exactly you think that would require, i.e. what conditions would need to be satisfied.

I'd go further. I think that it is the right thing to do if it prevents ethically worse alternatives, or if it is the right thing to do in principle, even if things go awry. That it involves betraying someone's trust is not at all ethically relevant for me if that someone is immoral. If they're immoral, then betraying them would be the right thing to do. Wilful complicity in immorality can't be moral, whether it's because of loyalty or some other reason.