[SpamCop-Social] Re: Take the test - taboos
dlane-olson at synoffsys.com
Fri May 13 11:52:33 EDT 2005
"D.F. Manno" <dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com> wrote in message
news:dfm2a3l0t2-82790E.21072412052005 at news.cesmail.net...
> In article <d608eh$ffl$1 at news.spamcop.net>,
> "Deborah" <dlane-olson at synoffsys.com> wrote:
> > "D.F. Manno" <dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com> wrote in message
> > My scores were 0.03, 0, 0.
> > >
> > > The test was confused by a couple of my answers, questioning
> > > was thinking straight about morality. Probably because I answered
> > > things like watching a man screwing a dead, frozen chicken would
> > > bother me. It would because it's weird, not because I find it
> > Geez - we match!
> > 0.03 - More permissive than the norm
> > 0.00 - less likely to recommend societal interference in moral
> > 0.00 - less likely to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms across
> > cultural differences
> > Your answers to the first few questions must've been different than
> > mine, tho, because the test said that I was completely consistent in
> > attitudes toward morality. And I said that I would be bothered
> > both the frozen chicken and the brother/sister scenarios.
> The brother/sister scenario didn't bother me. The pet-cat-for-dinner
> because the idea of eating roadkill, and the fact that cats do carry
> disease and the family wasn't likely to properly dress it, squicked me
The cat bothered me a little, when I first thought about it, but not
enough to merit a "yes" answer. Just as long as it wasn't MY cat...and,
after all, the poor thing was already dead, it wasn't like they had
actually killed it for food after having kept it as a pet...sort of on
the order of having a pet chicken or pig and then slaughtering it. That
would bother me a lot more. And I assumed that if they were cat eaters
then they knew how to properly dress and cook the beast. This is
probably a perfect example of how we rationalize our moral judgements...
More information about the SpamCop-Social