Are you morally consistent? Philosophy Experiments has put together an interactive version of the Trolley Problem that will put that question to the test.
Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:00 AM
Search First Things
/ 
Masthead
March 8th, 2010 | 9:15 am
I scored 100%. The computer-generated analysis said I was the first to do so, which I don’t quite believe.
Perhaps because I understood two things that were not discussed in the scenarios: the additional moral agency of the driver of the *oncoming* train, and the providence of God.
March 8th, 2010 | 10:00 am
[...] have “100% consistency” on that morality exam. (YNNN YNYN were my answers for what its [...]
March 8th, 2010 | 10:01 am
[...] have “100% consistency” on that morality exam. (YNNN YNYN were my answers for what its [...]
March 8th, 2010 | 11:17 am
The last question in the first set was worded awkwardly, and it wasn’t until I saw the analysis that I understood how they interpreted it.
I got 100%. Though when the test says “In fact, none of the people who have completed this activity demonstrate greater moral consistency in their responses than you manage” I guess that means nobody can get higher than 100%… shades of Socrates and the Oracle
March 8th, 2010 | 4:00 pm
Such tests never seem to take into account alternative moral frameworks, such as a psychopathic hatred of people and a desire to see as many of them die as possible. I wonder why that is?
March 8th, 2010 | 8:04 pm
Personally, I think the test is flawed. For example:
Question 1: Torture is always wrong. Yes/ No
A person can believe that torture is always wrong and also believe that it is sometimes necessary. Being the lesser of two evils.
For example, their ticking atomic bomb scenario.
The fact, that torture may be useful in saving a million lives, does not make torture right. It may make it necessary, but it doesn’t change the nature of the act.
March 8th, 2010 | 9:56 pm
I gotta ask, Mr. Carter. You let that nuke go off, didn’t you?
March 10th, 2010 | 6:04 pm
John,
My thoughts exactly. For my answers the final summary takes me to task for inconsistency in moral reasoning, without ever allowing for the fact that – in a fallen world – human beings will sometimes have to choose a morally wrong or even a morally abhorrent act as the lesser of two evils. (Whether that act be the torture of a perpetrator of evil or the deaths of a million people.)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact