H
Hallelujah
Guest
I do not agree with this. This is like saying killing Hitler as a 5 year old would have prevented WW2.
Robin Hood Morality Test
- Thread starter dontsnitch
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 54,636
- Reaction score
- 11,932
Considering morality is 100% a subjective concept, i do think its pretty hard to come up with facts
H
Hallelujah
Guest
It's not subjective.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 54,636
- Reaction score
- 11,932
Say you are in a barge that its sinking because its overcrowded, you can either let it sink and kill everyone on board or throw a few random innocents to their doom.
What do you do? let everyone die because its morally right or you kill an innocent (who was going to die anyway) to save a few folk?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 54,636
- Reaction score
- 11,932
It is in nature. Unless you have evidence that a religion is true morality is subjective.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 26,890
- Reaction score
- 1
Whether or not it's "complicated" is not really the issue. It's trying to remain consistent. If you check out that philosophy site I linked earlier, I'd be very surprised if you would be able to complete some of the tests at 100%, as it's basically impossible. I sneered when I was told that, but alas, it get's tricky.
The best variation of the Trolley Problem I have heard is: The train is barrelling down on the track with five people, with the one person on the other track. You believe that the lever forces the train to stop. However, upon lowering the lever, you discover that it doesn't stop, but it switches tracks. Do you now opt to switch tracks again?
For those that opted to not switch tracks in the normal variation, they often don't know how to answer this one.
Anyway, there's lots of these. I find them amusing.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 24,414
- Reaction score
- 0
Your answers suggest you have problems with facts too. Also, I think you have your left and right mixed up. You should probably check your shoes.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 24,414
- Reaction score
- 0
The Trolley Problem is really interesting, thank you for introducing it.
I have read that programming of self-driving vehicles uses utilitarian accounting and a pop sci article basically restated the Trolley Problem (but didn't refer back to it).
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 26,890
- Reaction score
- 1
Glad you liked it, there are many more out there.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 24,414
- Reaction score
- 0
It really does highlight the difficulty with being consistent.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2015
- Messages
- 3,037
- Reaction score
- 0
I did the test just for fun. The way I did was it kind of simple but it helps that I come from a background which has an unambiguous and concrete framework of morality from which to discern things. So the way I did it was I wrote the names all down in a list, went through the description of events and gave them +1 or -1 scores for each moral or immoral act, as determined by a black and white unambiguous view of morality.The reason I did it this way is that the question is asking about the moral issues rather than asking us to weigh or factor in the emotional issues &c.
So for example, Marion gets a -1 for sleeping with the sheriff (fornication) but a +1 for honesty when confronted by Robin. The sheriff receives a -1 for the indecent proposal, and another -1 for the act but a +1 for honoring his deal after the fact - regardless of whether the transaction involved in the deal is moral or immoral, it is nonetheless a deal and he is morally bound to uphold it after the fact.
Robin receives a -1 for abusing her (regardless of how understandable it may be from a human emotional perspective, the way he went about it was an objectively immoral act).
Little John receives a +1 for showing compassion, forgiveness and trust.
The result I received was;
"You are the slightly romantic realist. You respect truth, and are broadminded and flexible. Whether you are a man or a woman you are probably a happy person. You like people and they can readily make friends with you. You are not very adventurous, but this does not bother you. "
Which doesn't do a very good job of describing me at all.
I must point out, however, that I only did this for fun and spent less than 5 minutes considering the moral aspects of it - were it something I needed to take seriously and spend time thinking, analyzing and cross-referencing to ensure that my answer was 100% consistent with objective morality as I see it, it is possible the answer may have been different. I couldn't say at this point.
So for example, Marion gets a -1 for sleeping with the sheriff (fornication) but a +1 for honesty when confronted by Robin. The sheriff receives a -1 for the indecent proposal, and another -1 for the act but a +1 for honoring his deal after the fact - regardless of whether the transaction involved in the deal is moral or immoral, it is nonetheless a deal and he is morally bound to uphold it after the fact.
Robin receives a -1 for abusing her (regardless of how understandable it may be from a human emotional perspective, the way he went about it was an objectively immoral act).
Little John receives a +1 for showing compassion, forgiveness and trust.
The result I received was;
"You are the slightly romantic realist. You respect truth, and are broadminded and flexible. Whether you are a man or a woman you are probably a happy person. You like people and they can readily make friends with you. You are not very adventurous, but this does not bother you. "
Which doesn't do a very good job of describing me at all.
I must point out, however, that I only did this for fun and spent less than 5 minutes considering the moral aspects of it - were it something I needed to take seriously and spend time thinking, analyzing and cross-referencing to ensure that my answer was 100% consistent with objective morality as I see it, it is possible the answer may have been different. I couldn't say at this point.
I did Marion (obviously trying to save hood, most noble) then Robin hood (who only didn't forgive Marion due to believing her honour was worth more than his life) more honourable than Little John who ran off with his girl (dog move from him but you can't complain about Marion agreeing since Hood just dumped her for rescuing him). Then extorting rapist the Sherrif. If he just arrested hood then he would be fine but the fact he will release outlaws just to get some action is the most evil.
So Marion, hood, little John, Sherrif.
So Marion, hood, little John, Sherrif.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 30,568
- Reaction score
- 8
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2015
- Messages
- 3,037
- Reaction score
- 0
I used a specific moral framework, consistent with my religious beliefs. It violates the 6th Commandment, and potentially usually the 9th also. It's a free question with no right or wrong answer, so if you don't consider this to be an immoral act you aren't required to in order to answer the question. However as far as the moral framework I utilized in answering the question goes, there you go.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 54,636
- Reaction score
- 11,932
Didnt forgive is an understament, abuse and names where flying.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 54,636
- Reaction score
- 11,932
Didnt forgive is an understament, abuse and names where flying.
To me Robin seems like your stereotypical allahuakhbar.
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 8,665
- Reaction score
- 0
Marion
John
Sheriff
Robin
Marion seems innocent in this to me. I can find no fault in what she did.
Robin is clearly an immature, deranged, narcissistic psychopath.
The hard part was the debate between the Sheriff vs. John. John was a thief, and ended up in prison. He may have even killed people, I don't remember the particulars of his crimes. He did it for what he considered a moral reason, even if I disagree. He also did a moral thing in promising his devotion and love to Marion.
The Sheriff on the other hand.. he took advantage of a desperate girl. Not particularly criminal, other than the fact that he may be abusing his oath of office. I'd say most, if not all men, do this in some way. Catching a girl on a rebound, telling lies, alcohol, etc. Furthermore, he didn't force her to have sex, or even coerce her. It's not like he said "Have sex with me or I'll put your friends in prison". Her friends were already in prison, for legit reasons. He gave her an option of letting them out.
Toss up between those two, but I gave the edge to John.
John
Sheriff
Robin
Marion seems innocent in this to me. I can find no fault in what she did.
Robin is clearly an immature, deranged, narcissistic psychopath.
The hard part was the debate between the Sheriff vs. John. John was a thief, and ended up in prison. He may have even killed people, I don't remember the particulars of his crimes. He did it for what he considered a moral reason, even if I disagree. He also did a moral thing in promising his devotion and love to Marion.
The Sheriff on the other hand.. he took advantage of a desperate girl. Not particularly criminal, other than the fact that he may be abusing his oath of office. I'd say most, if not all men, do this in some way. Catching a girl on a rebound, telling lies, alcohol, etc. Furthermore, he didn't force her to have sex, or even coerce her. It's not like he said "Have sex with me or I'll put your friends in prison". Her friends were already in prison, for legit reasons. He gave her an option of letting them out.
Toss up between those two, but I gave the edge to John.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 9,794
- Reaction score
- 2,625
Also judging by the psychologists interpretation of the results, I think dude has a cuckolding fetish.
