I dislike this test, it's questions are very poorly constructed. There's far to many questions behind the questions. For instance:
"Your country has come under attack by a foreign power. Unfortunately, the fight does not go well, and defeat seems likely."
Fine, what was my country's involvement in the initial conflict? Did my government provoke the attack? Was my government generally good and beneficial for the people, based upon sound motives and always acting with the interests of the many at heart? Is the aggressor, now the ruler of my country, considered just? Is their cause one that will benefit my people and so on.
Take the two following scenarios, both fitting the description in the question:
1) My country is Germany Circa 1945. The Russian forces have just swamped Berlin and the Allies are on their way. The Nazi party's leader is dead and crushing defeats are reported across the warzones. Should I lay down my life for the Nazi party, knowing full well that their beliefs made no-sense, were often self-refuting and were wholly unjust?
2) My country is the United Kingdom Circa 2012. Hypothetical Nation P has attacked my country. P is a dictatorially led nation with a strong history of war-crimes and barbaric, sectionally-serving leadership. Whilst not perfect, the United Kingdom has, in recent years, operated as a constitutional monarchy-come-representative democracy. When the government have made bad decisions they've done so because the public have given them leave to. My United Kingdom has always operated on standards of fairness and decency.
See the massive disparity between the two circumstances? In one scenario I'd consider myself foolish to fight the aggressor and in the other I'd be foolish not to. This isn't just me nit-picking one dodgy question in a generally good bunch. Consider the following:
"12. On the first day of class, you were assigned a seat. Of course, you got stuck with the chair that rocks and the desk that has a permanent tilt. Half way through the semester, due to a rally of some sort, your class appears to be at half-attendance. The teacher should be arriving in about five minutes. Do you..."
Why was there not simply an option to try and explain the problem to your teacher, why had I not done so already? I know the first thing I'd do if I sat at a crummy desk is point it out to the authority and see if they have a solution and, if they don't, try and fix it myself. I wouldn't come up with an array of ludicrous solutions which effectively narrow down to "steal someone else's stuff in the most egregiously anti-social way possible" OR "Do nothing and cry about my lack of gumption".
It got unbearably cheesy when I hit:
"28. Your attitude towards the issue of homosexuality most closely is:"
The current prevailing thought in society is that tolerance is a positive thing and that we should tolerate others' lifestyles regardless of our own feelings towards them. This is fine, I'm not about to make a long attack on tolerance that will earn me the ire of the internets. However, I will say that a complex issue, any complex issue, is unlikely to be solved categorically and, even if such a thing were possible, the issue of whether or not homosexuality is morally reprehensible is most certainly not 'solved'. That's not to say that I personally disapprove of homosexuality, it's simply to say that one isn't 'good' because they're pro-tolerance, just as they're not 'bad' because they're anti-tolerance. Are you tolerant of paedophiles? Are you tolerant of murderers? How about rapists? Clearly ceaseless tolerance is not a good thing, so if we are to come up with reasons as to why we're fine with homosexuality we can't just fall back on tolerance, we'll have to actually come up with reasons and since such reasons are not assessed in this test there's no way it can reward any form of morality for the reasons.
I love the basic premiss of these little morality testers, but they should be so much more thorough if they want to have any meaning. Having a chance to test one's morality could be enlightening if the tests were realistic enough to draw the participant in.
That said, here I am:
You are 44.4% Good.
You are 20.5% Lawful.
Alignment: Neutral Good
"Your country has come under attack by a foreign power. Unfortunately, the fight does not go well, and defeat seems likely."
Fine, what was my country's involvement in the initial conflict? Did my government provoke the attack? Was my government generally good and beneficial for the people, based upon sound motives and always acting with the interests of the many at heart? Is the aggressor, now the ruler of my country, considered just? Is their cause one that will benefit my people and so on.
Take the two following scenarios, both fitting the description in the question:
1) My country is Germany Circa 1945. The Russian forces have just swamped Berlin and the Allies are on their way. The Nazi party's leader is dead and crushing defeats are reported across the warzones. Should I lay down my life for the Nazi party, knowing full well that their beliefs made no-sense, were often self-refuting and were wholly unjust?
2) My country is the United Kingdom Circa 2012. Hypothetical Nation P has attacked my country. P is a dictatorially led nation with a strong history of war-crimes and barbaric, sectionally-serving leadership. Whilst not perfect, the United Kingdom has, in recent years, operated as a constitutional monarchy-come-representative democracy. When the government have made bad decisions they've done so because the public have given them leave to. My United Kingdom has always operated on standards of fairness and decency.
See the massive disparity between the two circumstances? In one scenario I'd consider myself foolish to fight the aggressor and in the other I'd be foolish not to. This isn't just me nit-picking one dodgy question in a generally good bunch. Consider the following:
"12. On the first day of class, you were assigned a seat. Of course, you got stuck with the chair that rocks and the desk that has a permanent tilt. Half way through the semester, due to a rally of some sort, your class appears to be at half-attendance. The teacher should be arriving in about five minutes. Do you..."
Why was there not simply an option to try and explain the problem to your teacher, why had I not done so already? I know the first thing I'd do if I sat at a crummy desk is point it out to the authority and see if they have a solution and, if they don't, try and fix it myself. I wouldn't come up with an array of ludicrous solutions which effectively narrow down to "steal someone else's stuff in the most egregiously anti-social way possible" OR "Do nothing and cry about my lack of gumption".
It got unbearably cheesy when I hit:
"28. Your attitude towards the issue of homosexuality most closely is:"
The current prevailing thought in society is that tolerance is a positive thing and that we should tolerate others' lifestyles regardless of our own feelings towards them. This is fine, I'm not about to make a long attack on tolerance that will earn me the ire of the internets. However, I will say that a complex issue, any complex issue, is unlikely to be solved categorically and, even if such a thing were possible, the issue of whether or not homosexuality is morally reprehensible is most certainly not 'solved'. That's not to say that I personally disapprove of homosexuality, it's simply to say that one isn't 'good' because they're pro-tolerance, just as they're not 'bad' because they're anti-tolerance. Are you tolerant of paedophiles? Are you tolerant of murderers? How about rapists? Clearly ceaseless tolerance is not a good thing, so if we are to come up with reasons as to why we're fine with homosexuality we can't just fall back on tolerance, we'll have to actually come up with reasons and since such reasons are not assessed in this test there's no way it can reward any form of morality for the reasons.
I love the basic premiss of these little morality testers, but they should be so much more thorough if they want to have any meaning. Having a chance to test one's morality could be enlightening if the tests were realistic enough to draw the participant in.
That said, here I am:
You are 44.4% Good.
You are 20.5% Lawful.
Alignment: Neutral Good
