Agreed. Interesting idea but poorly executed. Far too small a pool of political affiliations. I also disliked the choice of okay and not okay. It felt like passing moral judgement on these situations, rather than giving a subjective opinion. Okay, I think Jack was an asshole and I don't agree with his choice of words, but it's not place to condemn him for it.
It's interesting that you mention the case of Timmy and the money. While I thought Tim had every right to do what he wished with the money, I did mark it as slightly not ok. This was mainly because it was such a dick move by the dad. He's giving one of his kids more power over the other, which I thought was shitty parenting. Of course it could be he was trying to teach them a particular lesson. Though still, weird way to go about it.
Yeah. some questions were 'hard to answer' in a way becaue I'd be like 'well he's an absolute idiot.. but in what respect exactly can i say its ok or not?" Most of the time id put neutral or slightly ok or slightly not ok to these questions but it kind of felt 'random' (as in the question was not the right question so I didn't feel like any answer could be the right answer)
It would have been much better if they did a test asking 'would you' or 'a friend of yours...'. Contexts where people could actually answer HOW THEY WOULD REACT. not how judgmental or self agrandizing they are.
Also about every questions seriously lacks context. I don't make moral decisions based on so little data in real life. Why would I do that on a test? There are many highly likely interpretations of the situation without even considering far-out possibilities / unlikely scenarios / exceptions. Which makes me answers little more than random
I redid the test and got completly different scores.
So yeah. Great idea horrible horrible execution.
Your scores are:
Care 47.2%
Fairness 61.1%
Loyalty 33.3%
Authority 30.6%
Purity 47.2%
Liberty 75%
Your strongest moral foundation is Liberty.
Your morality is closest to that of a Libertarian.
Lets take a random example *opens test*
Jane's boss calls all of his employees by their first names but does not allow any of them to call him by his first name. When Jane insists that it must be a two-way street, he fires her.
If I'm the boss I would absolutly be fine with people addressing me exactly like I would address them, I would even encourage it. I know that because that's what I did managing about 50 people. So... Yeah.
If I was part of the team I'd dislike that. But is the boss breaking any law? If that person is the direct employer/not breaking company policies. Don't they have a right to ask people to address them however they want at long as its not demeaning? I don't have to think that it's a great move, I even find it a bit odd frankly, that doesn't mean I'm some kind of moral authority above the law of man, sitting at the right of shiva in passing judgment upon mere mortals.
