|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
billybrobby
Joined: 09 Dec 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Interesting Quiz |
 |
|
There's an article in the NY Times about morality, and it contains an interesting quiz. Here's the quiz with some surrounding text.
| Quote: |
It�s not just the content of our moral judgments that is often questionable, but the way we arrive at them. We like to think that when we have a conviction, there are good reasons that drove us to adopt it. That is why an older approach to moral psychology, led by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, tried to document the lines of reasoning that guided people to moral conclusions. But consider these situations, originally devised by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt:
1. Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that � was it O.K. for them to make love?
2. A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn�t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.
3. A family�s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. They heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog�s body and cook it and eat it for dinner.
Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong. It�s not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren�t. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, �I don�t know, I can�t explain it, I just know it�s wrong.� People don�t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think morality is about what is rationally wrong or right. It's about what feels wrong or right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Interesting Quiz |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1. Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that � was it O.K. for them to make love? |
Yes. What's more, there is absolutely nothing stopping them. Who owns your life - you, or the government? I own my life, I own my body, and if my sister and I wanna do it together, we can, and we will. Deriving satisfaction from deliberate cruelty is morally wrong. Two sibblings agreeing to protected sex is not. It's all a question of ownership. If I pull the legs off a spider I am essentially taking ownership of that creature's body and life. If I do something disgusting to a child, I am essentially taking ownership of that child's body and life. However, the two sibblings above are in ownership of their bodies and their lives so for me, although I wouldn't encourage it, if they want to do it there's nothing that can be done to stop them because of the issue of ownership.
| Quote: |
| 2. A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn�t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom. |
That's fine.
| Quote: |
| 3. A family�s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. They heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog�s body and cook it and eat it for dinner. |
No problem. Pass the boshintang!  Not that I am a dog-eater myself, but if it's a pet and it's been killed accidentally, there is no moral case to be made that eating the animal is wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't think morality is about what is rationally wrong or right. It's about what feels wrong or right. |
In other words, you don`t know what it is either. It`s impossible to define since moral rules do not actually exist on their own (a priori), because morality is just interpretation. Nietzsche called it the `herd instinct of the individual` (I kind of like that). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd have to go with Justin on this one. None of those scenarios were overly repugnant to me - not that I'd necessarily do it myself mind you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found no 1 and 3 to be repugnant. I can't logically explain why. I assume for number 1 that a distaste for incest is an evolutionary side effect as well as a cultural one. The third might be because I'm a dog owner. Simple as that maybe.
The second one I see no problem with regardless of which country's flag. I |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| I found no 1 and 3 to be repugnant. I can't logically explain why. I assume for number 1 that a distaste for incest is an evolutionary side effect as well as a cultural one. |
I accept the evolution defence and this also explains why you probably do not feel disgust at homosexual sex yet do so with heterosexual incestuous sex - simply because a great many homosexuals reproduced and passed on their genes whereas comparatively fewer incestuous couples did. Pulled outta my ass, no evidence, just a guess. There's been lots of inbreeding of course, but I'd imagine very few offspring the result of sibbling sex.
I nevertheless feel there is nothing ethical standing in the way of the brother and sister getting it on in the fashion described. The Kantian approach - what if everyone did it? (we'd have a whole load of inbred, deformed kids to deal with) - also doesn't stand in the way of two individuals making this choice about their own body and their own life.
This issue of ownership for me is the basis of morality. Rape, murder, torture, pulling the legs off a spider are all repulsive because the offender has committed the ultimate offence - taking ownership of another's body and life.
Last edited by Justin Hale on Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wormholes101
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That was good. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgreenster
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Location: too far from the beach
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the quiz, although didn't like the whole "morally obligated" part- saying it's obligatory gives the implication that I think everyone should do so. However, I'm under the philosophy that people should make their own moral decisions and what I choose for myself is quite different than what others "should" or "are obliged to" do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Interesting Quiz |
|
|
| billybrobby wrote: |
There's an article in the NY Times about morality, and it contains an interesting quiz. Here's the quiz with some surrounding text.
| Quote: |
It�s not just the content of our moral judgments that is often questionable, but the way we arrive at them. We like to think that when we have a conviction, there are good reasons that drove us to adopt it. That is why an older approach to moral psychology, led by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, tried to document the lines of reasoning that guided people to moral conclusions. But consider these situations, originally devised by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt:
1. Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that � was it O.K. for them to make love?
2. A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn�t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.
3. A family�s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. They heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog�s body and cook it and eat it for dinner.
Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong. It�s not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren�t. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, �I don�t know, I can�t explain it, I just know it�s wrong.� People don�t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification. |
|
I can't see how any of those behaviors are "wrong."
Using the American flag like that may technically be illegal (although the law is not enforced), which begs the question; is breaking the law always "wrong?"
Having sex with a sibling may be wrong if it has the effect of somehow ultimately destroying or degrading the [most likely important and valuable] relationship... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cangel
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: Jeonju, S. Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I got a 47% on the morality quiz. Hmmm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
