nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Score your own morality - on a scale of 1 to 10

antiskeptic

Where ever it might stem from, an atheist would likely say that they operate within a moral framework. Which means that they would likely see some folk as less moral/good than they themselves are and others as more moral/good than they themselves are. They might for instance, see Hitler or Stalin as scoring lower than them on the moral scale. And Nelson Mandela or Gandhi as scoring higher.

So, if your choice of 'Hitler' is said to score 1 on the moral scale and your choice of 'Gandhi' scores 10, where do you place your own morality/goodness on that scale of 1 to 10.

Find more posts tagged with

morality

Comments

Turtwig

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Looking back now, i'd say about a 3 - if you'd asked me then i'd have said 8 or 9, but as like i said, i couldn't be trusted:D
Not sure if that proves or disproves this cognitive bias theory!

Awareness of a biases always helps though probably much less than we'd like to think.:)

Goduznt Xzst

I'd imagine I'd score pretty low, morally, if judged by the society I live in.

However, if self scoring, I'd score myself pretty high. I'm aware and copacetic of my own reality, what I need to enjoy it, and how people facilitate that need. My morality is without veneer.

In life there are givers and takers, people can alternate between the two states and in fact do based on a pattern I've discerned.

In the burgeoning phases of a relationship, be it friendship or otherwise, people give, pro bono, quite a lot. Being merely verbally grateful increases the length of time that an individual seems willing to give without receiving.

Inevitably, that person wishes to cash in on their investment. Most people, to preserve the friendship and their own opinions on morality and ethics, will abide.

I do not. I maintain a small circle of friends who I enjoy the company of and would help. I then also have a wider circle of acquaintances in the burgeoning phase of a relationship with me who give freely and aid me. When they start to switch to taking, I find a new person to replace them with. I don't end the relationship, I just don't give it any more of my time. There is always more people.

I'm aware this manner is viewed parasitic, but it maintains my own happiness and increases the ease at which I live my life. By switching up my peripheral circle of people frequently I also receive a lot of new information and knowledge from them that would otherwise stagnate with a more consistent sphere of association.

A lot of people do this to some degree, just not consciously or premeditatedly. Most people also feel a need to help those that have helped them. I, largely, don't.

My morality is, by and large, cui bono.

antiskeptic

baalthor wrote: »

You have lots of people who believe stealing is wrong but who see nothing wrong with taking office stationery(e.g. pens and paper)home for their personal use. So they might still give themselves a high rating on your morality meter.

Which is perfectly okay when it comes to answering the poll. They either:

- don't see taking paper clips as stealing (and so their self-score isn't impacted negatively by taking paper clips)

OR

- they only think some stealing is wrong, with stealing paperclips not being (and so their self-score isn't impacted negatively)

OR

- they see stealing paperclips as wrong (and subtract from their self-score because of it.)

Most people have moral or ethical standards but they often rationalize or justify deviations from these standards or in many cases the deviation is so common that no one regards it as a moral breach.

My interest is less in how people arrive at their moral standard and more how they see themselves as adhering to it.

Also you can't separate personal standards from society's standards. Morality/ethics is all about relating to others where "others" can be people, supernatural beings, animals or even bacteria (if you're a Jain)

Whilst society will influence the standards a person adheres to, a persons standards are personal. And so separable for the purposes of this poll.

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

whats the point of the poll?

It's..

koth wrote:

...attempting to see how everyone views themselves in terms of (adhering to their own - antiskeptic) morality

Why do that? Well...

Let's suppose 90% of the population score a 7. Now it could be that folk establish their moral framework independently of their own ability to adhere to it and that they all happen to score 7 when measuring themselves against that external-to-personal-performace framework.

Or it could be that folk flex their moral framework in order to maintain a reasonable score. Such could be argued to be the case in the case of rapists and murderers scoring themselves a 7

Which would you think more likely (if either)?

antiskeptic

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

However, if self scoring, I'd score myself pretty high. I'm aware and copacetic of my own reality, what I need to enjoy it, and how people facilitate that need. My morality is without veneer.

Given your rather unusual (if frank) approach, where would it be that you see yourself dropping points?

I do not. I maintain a small circle of friends who I enjoy the company of and would help. I then also have a wider circle of acquaintances in the burgeoning phase of a relationship with me who give freely and aid me. When they start to switch to taking, I find a new person to replace them with. I don't end the relationship, I just don't give it any more of my time. There is always more people.

Am I correct in supposing you giving to the few in order to maintain a relationship that would otherwise decay for want of reciprocation? Or do you just give to those you find you don't mind giving to (in which case the small circle is small through accident rather than design)

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

As baalthor points out, it's quite easy to be both

And as I've pointed out in return above, it's actually not that easy. Whichever option of the three 'OR's' you pick, you've got consistancy of sophistication between the assembly of the persons moral framework and their acting in relation to it

For example, one heavily religious woman I know obsesses about abortion to the point of distraction and would, I suspect, set herself on fire on Grafton St at lunchtime if she thought she could save a single foetus. Having said that, I know from visiting her house that her loo is filled with shampoos, lotions and soap pilfered from innumerable hotels and guesthouses.

Where would she sit on your scale, assuming she believes -- as I believe she probably does -- that her "morality" is biblically inspired and therefore, infallible and something she sticks to rigidly?

Religion is too big an area to be able to comment on anothers view.

When it comes to me I'd have to score myself a 1 (for want of being able to score small fractions of 1).

robindch

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Eh, thou shalt not steal?

Pilfering (unused) shampoo from a hotel isn't "stealing" since the "hotel makes it available for our use, so it's ours, not theirs".

sbsquarepants wrote: »

last time i looked there was no thou shalt not abort.

Nope, there isn't. But she extends the "Thou shalt not kill people without legal sanction" to cover the act of abortion, when legalistically, it should probably be the other way around.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

She doesn't stick that rigidly!

That's the whole point of an ethical code based up a highly personal view of a religious book with an uncountable number of interpretations

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

you've got consistancy of sophistication between the assembly of the persons moral framework and their acting in relation to it

And as I pointed out by example, no you don't, particularly with ethical codes based upon religious texts.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Religion is too big an area to be able to comment on anothers view.

While you may not agree with her view (or know very much about it), her belief in her belief is almost certainly pretty much the same as your belief in yours -- that's the problem.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

And as I pointed out by example, no you don't, particularly with ethical codes based upon religious texts.

The example you gave involved a religious person - not one who claims (consciously or not) to assemble their own moral compass and steer or otherwise according to it. The poll (and our argumentation surrounding it) involves the latter group.

While you may not agree with her view (or know very much about it), her belief in her belief is almost certainly pretty much the same as your belief in yours -- that's the problem.

What she believes in might be completely different to me despite her referring to the bible. But to answer your question: I'd score her a 1 if she's a Christian - just like I'd score all Christians a 1.

Gregor Samsa

I always act according to my own moral standard. But then, my own moral standard is "whatever phutyle does is right", so it's a bit hard to act against it.

Which is probably very similar to most people, in practice. Most people who do wrong try to justify it to themselves.

strobe

I think it's an interesting thread. (Would have preferred a non anonymous poll though, as I think knowing if the posters are atheists or theist and male or female, old or young etc would be interesting).

antiskeptic wrote: »

I
As for point? I would have scored myself at around 2 or 3 before becoming a Christian (from whence Jesus' 'blessed are the poor in spirit' beatitude) so I'd be interested in what folk have to say were they to score themselves so.

I'm just curious. Is that you looking back on yourself with hindsight and scoring yourself a 2-3 or is that how you would have scored yourself at the time if the question was put to you? Or are both answers the same?

=====================

Still curious...Why do we here get this thread? Is there some outcome you expect from A&A folk that you would not from theists? (Might be worth starting a mirror thread over the fence to compare results?)

======================

Quid pro quo. Guess I should answer the OP.

I'd probably score myself a 9ish. That's at this moment in time. But if I was to think back and apply my current moral standards to a period about 6-7 years ago I would score myself, as I was then, somewhere around a 1. I was hanging around with a pretty unconventional group of people and was really into the idea of libertinism for a while there (or at least some corrupted version of it). I wasn't evil or anything, but I was definitely bad, or at least I did a lot of stuff that I now consider bad. But at that time if you had of asked me I probably would have scored myself about a 9 I think...

So come back to me in another 7 years and I may be looking back at my current 9 and marking that way down again, although I don't think that will be the case, then again how would I know?

recedite

This poll could also have been named;
"On a scale of 1-10, how much of a hypocrite do you think you are?"

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's..

Why do that? Well...

Which would you think more likely (if either)?

being honest, I would have thought you'd have a mix of both. You have people who feel able to rate themselves honestly and others that would rate themselves based on the ratings of others.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The example you gave involved a religious person - not one who claims (consciously or not) to assemble their own moral compass and steer or otherwise according to it.

Well, christianity is a religion which -- according to many of its believer populations -- should be freely chosen. In that case, before accepting christianity as true, people must assemble a "moral compass" which allows them to choose christianity as true.

In this sense, accepting christianity, and therefore christianity itself, requires just as much of the "moral relativism" that the more polysyllabic religious commentators make so much of.

In short, religious people assemble their own "moral compass", just as the non-religious do.

Zillah

I firmly believe that a person's moral code is a rationalisation of their feelings. Therefore, I give myself a perfect 10.

I am morally perfect. I make wildly affectionate gestures at times, much to the surprise and delight of those around me, because I also cultivate an aura of independence and callousness the rest of the time. I usually tell people exactly what I think, even when it is cruel and upsets them. Sometimes I lie to people, because it suits my purposes or because I feel like it (for whatever reason). I avenge myself upon those who have wronged me and I bear disdain for those I do not know. I also forgive rapidly if the circumstances make me feel magnanimous. I have been a pillar of strength for some, a sarcastic burden to others.

In my brain is an extravagant confluence of a billion factors, some hundreds of millions of years old, others overheard this morning.

So in essence, your question is both loaded and ridiculous, so I'm giving everyone on the planet a perfect 10.

antiskeptic

phutyle wrote: »

I always act according to my own moral standard. But then, my own moral standard is "whatever phutyle does is right", so it's a bit hard to act against it.

Which is probably very similar to most people, in practice. Most people who do wrong try to justify it to themselves.

I find it hard to believe that phutyle never does anything (in the moral realm) that phutyle wishes he didn't do (either during or after the fact). No regrets, no shame, no red-face? Ever?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Well, christianity is a religion which -- according to many of its believer populations -- should be freely chosen. In that case, before accepting christianity as true, people must assemble a "moral compass" which allows them to choose christianity as true.

Since you're discussing with this Christian and this Christian doesn't believe a person freely choses Christianity you might perhaps modify your argument*?

In this sense, accepting christianity, and therefore christianity itself, requires just as much of the "moral relativism" that the more polysyllabic religious commentators make so much of.

In short, religious people assemble their own "moral compass", just as the non-religious do.

Be that as it may, the issue under discussion is competency. The suggestions is that if a person has level A competency in assembling a moral framework then they also have level A competency in evaluating their adherance to that moral framework.

You seem to be suggesting a person can be competent to assemble a moral framework that says e.g. stealing paperclips is wrong - but they will somewhere along the line lose that competency and not realize stealing paperclips is wrong. Is that about it?

*I've no issue with a Christians aligning of himself with God's moral compass as sitting on a choice-par with the atheist's self-assembled moral framework. It is very much each to his own.

antiskeptic

Zillah wrote: »

I firmly believe that a person's moral code is a rationalisation of their feelings. Therefore, I give myself a perfect 10.

I am morally perfect. I make wildly affectionate gestures at times, much to the surprise and delight of those around me, because I also cultivate an aura of independence and callousness the rest of the time. I usually tell people exactly what I think, even when it is cruel and upsets them. Sometimes I lie to people, because it suits my purposes or because I feel like it (for whatever reason). I avenge myself upon those who have wronged me and I bear disdain for those I do not know. I also forgive rapidly if the circumstances make me feel magnanimous. I have been a pillar of strength for some, a sarcastic burden to others.

In my brain is an extravagant confluence of a billion factors, some hundreds of millions of years old, others overheard this morning.

So in essence, your question is both loaded and ridiculous, so I'm giving everyone on the planet a perfect 10.

I find it hard to believe that Zillah never does anything (in the moral realm) that Zillah wishes he didn't do (either during or after the fact). No regrets, no shame, no red-face? Ever?

Gregor Samsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that phutyle never does anything (in the moral realm) that phutyle wishes he didn't do (either during or after the fact). No regrets, no shame, no red-face? Ever?

Oh, I change my mind all the time. But this poll is about the act, not later analysis.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

I think it's an interesting thread. (Would have preferred a non anonymous poll though, as I think knowing if the posters are atheists or theist and male or female, old or young etc would be interesting).

I pretty much expected strong peaking around the 7 mark and, given the small numbers involved, didn't reckon to be able to extract any statistical significance from the other scores.

I was/am most interested in those who would score themselves low (2-3) given that that was the position I found myself in and I was wondering how they would explain things from their perspective. I've not seen anyone in that category comment as of yet (though I probably need to scan back and check)

I'm just curious. Is that you looking back on yourself with hindsight and scoring yourself a 2-3 or is that how you would have scored yourself at the time if the question was put to you? Or are both answers the same?

That's how I would have scored myself at the time. I had a self-assembled morality but whereas I had been capable of amazing feats of framework-skewing* over the years, I had run out of wiggle room in the years leading up to my conversion.

As a Christian, I'd score myself a 1 now (for want of being able to score an infinitely small fraction of 1). From this vantage point I'd consider myself to have been a >1 then too. In an absolute sense, not a lot has changed.

Still curious...Why do we here get this thread? Is there some outcome you expect from A&A folk that you would not from theists? (Might be worth starting a mirror thread over the fence to compare results?)

Hmmm. I'd suspect a lot of 1's (and 10's if people where citing how a Christian is viewed by God). Now that the Roman Catholics have largely left the fold there mightn't be an awful lot of in betweeners

I'd probably score myself a 9ish. That's at this moment in time. But if I was to think back and apply my current moral standards to a period about 6-7 years ago I would score myself, as I was then, somewhere around a 1. I was hanging around with a pretty unconventional group of people and was really into the idea of libertinism for a while there (or at least some corrupted version of it). I wasn't evil or anything, but I was definitely bad, or at least I did a lot of stuff that I now consider bad. But at that time if you had of asked me I probably would have scored myself about a 9 I think...

Although 7 is pretty much the average (even, I gather, amongst rapists and murderers and child molesters), the interesting thing is that (non-Christian) folk tend to give themselves a pretty good pass mark at whatever point in time you encounter them.

Even though the moral frameworks will differ dramatically between people (as you yourself have experienced in yourself over a few years) folk all manage to produce the same performance level.

Does it strike you as implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it then manage, to almost a man, to score a first-class honour wrt it?

It seems more reasonable to suppose that people work the other way around - that they construct a moral framework around their performance. And if they find that they can't perform according to their moral framework then the moral framework is altered to bring the score back up. They lower the bar as it were.

So come back to me in another 7 years and I may be looking back at my current 9 and marking that way down again, although I don't think that will be the case, then again how would I know?

You seem to have done just as I suggest folk do

-

Framework-skewing: I was a motorcycle mechanic in another life and ran a workshop from the shed down the back. One day, a local rogue arrived up with a Yamaha 350, the engine of which sounded like someone had thrown a handful of sand into it. "Your crank is shot I'm afraid - and they cost a fair wallop to overhaul - and a days labour on top of that"

A week later the rogue and his mate arrived up with two Yamaha 350's: the same shot one and a virtually new example. The deal was simple - change the frame and engine casing from the shot bike to the new bike and I could keep the bit's left over (which I could easily sell on). The frame and engine casing are the two bits with numbers on them. The new bike was a stolen bike.

I didn't even pause for thought and remember smirking when I encountered a magnetic medal of the virgin Mary stuck to the frame under the seat: "fat lot of good she did you..."

Two weeks later my own bike was stolen. And I was outraged at the wrong that had been done me. The sense of moral wrong that is . And I still didn't make a connection with the stolen bike bits all over the shed.

antiskeptic

phutyle wrote: »

Oh, I change my mind all the time. But this poll is about the act, not later analysis.

This poll is about you scoring yourself according to the moral framework you happen to hold to. If you did something yesterday that you hold to be wrong then you subtract something from a 10 score. How you managed to justify it to yourself for the moment it took to actually commit the act isn't the issue. The issue is measurement against a reasonably fixed standard that you hold to.

If you change your moral framework so often that you can't measure yourself against it (for want of it being not fixed enough to draw a bead on it) then fair enough.

antiskeptic

Would anybody
who scored themselves
a 2 or 3 or 4
care to comment further?

melb

I always act according to my own moral standards which are soo low so I can get away with pretty much anything. Tis great!

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

this Christian doesn't believe a person freely choses Christianity

Really? Who chooses for them then? God? I was under the impression that christians believe that a person must be a christian or else they will end up in hell when they die. If the choice to be christian is not in their hands, why would god punish them for it (especially if its god making the choice for them)?

meryem

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would anybody
who scored themselves
a 2 or 3 or 4
care to comment further?

I have scored myself at the rating of 4 against the available 10.

I guess to be fair it's not a very low score I believe indeed to keep alive in this full of lies world for the sake of survivability.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? Who chooses for them then? God? I was under the impression that christians believe that a person must be a christian or else they will end up in hell when they die. If the choice to be christian is not in their hands, why would god punish them for it (especially if its god making the choice for them)?

It would go a little to far off topic to get into it. Suffice to say I believe it's possible for folk who've never heard of God-of-the-bible or Jesus Christ can be saved.

They'd be Christians in the effective, salvation sense - even if they don't actually self-identify as such.

antiskeptic

meryem wrote: »

I guess to be fair it's not a very low score I believe indeed to keep alive in this full of lies world for the sake of survivability.

Are you saying that whilst you might e.g. like to tell the truth on all occasions, it's too dangerous to actually always do so?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for point? I would have scored myself at around 2 or 3 before becoming a Christian (from whence Jesus' 'blessed are the poor in spirit' beatitude) so I'd be interested in what folk have to say were they to score themselves so.

I know you don't accept the evolutionary explanation for religious thought, but that would be consistent with this theory.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I know you don't accept the evolutionary explanation for religious thought, but that would be consistent with this theory.

What would be consistent? My scoring myself a 2 or 3 in the years leading up to conversion?

How does the story go?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

What would be consistent? My scoring myself a 2 or 3 in the years leading up to conversion? How does the story go?

It's not a story, it's a constituent candidate explanation for the emergent phenomenon of religion. Which goes a bit like this:

...that a religion uses people's guilt mechanism in order to increase its memetic fitness. Different religions uses the mechanism in different ways, but christianity's appears to be one of the more effective methods; something that contributes directly to the overall success of christianity as compared to religions that use/hijack human psychology less effectively.