Guest Blogger - Morality Quiz
by Rose (2006-07 AP Biology)
This quiz is supposed to help scientists learn more about the phenomenon of empathy and how it might affect our morals. There are five moral-compass situations with two outcomes in which you can see where you compare to others. Are you a kind-hearted compassionate being or a cold-harded monster? Find out!
But, as I was taking this quiz it was really difficult to choose my answer. I found myself empathizing with both people in most of the situations. I thought, well what makes one person’s life more valuable than another person’s life? And also, why isn’t there a choice where you could sacrifice your own life instead of another persons? Because if you’re truly ‘moral’ than I would think that you would sacrifice your own life to save others instead of choosing whether to kill this person or another person…
What do you think?
zyban wellbutrin smoking zyban 150mm canada what is zyban what is a yellow xanax bar nicotene zyban wellbutrin zoloft side effects side effects frequent use viagra zoloft and headaches meds no pharmacy prescription zoloft zoloft dui lorezapam zoloft buspar zoloft together what type of drugs are xanax cheapest xenical online buy zanaflex online mixing valium with xanax buspar zoloft occasional klonopin works awesome zyban drug discount xenical pharmacy discount xenical buy xanax online no rx ultram long term cheapest zoloft
January 24th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Before commenting, make sure you read the corresponding article that connects with this quiz found here:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619,00.html
January 24th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Wow, this quiz is so amazing. It really makes you step back and look around. in one sinario it made you think about if you would throw off an injured person to lighten the load or not. For me all of them were really hard because in both cases you were going something good but also something bad it was never a win win situation. Sometimes I think we can make the best dicissions when we are truly in them but for others I know that is not true.
It is very interesting how in the article us as humans are seperated out due to our mind which helps us make the dicissions between good and bad. Tis truly is one characteristic that separates us I have to agree with because in order to have empathy for others you really have to develop a very complex mind. I also really like how the article really hits on that we don’t really have to try or catch on to morality it is just a thing we learn very fast and are hesitant if someone would ever tell you to hit someone. I think this is a really awesome thing that the human mind is able to achieve.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I thought that the article was very well written and brought up a lot of good points. My favorite two lines from the article were these:
[”Of course, the fact is, that child will sometimes hit and won’t feel particularly bad about it either—unless he’s caught. “]
- This is something that seems prevalent even at an older age. When someone gets in trouble for doing something, likely something they know is wrong, they will often respond by telling the person who caught them that they are ’sorry’ for what they have done. In reality, they are not sorry for having done something wrong since they knew it was wrong, but they are more so sorry that they had the misfortune of being caught in the act.
[One of the first and most poignant observations of empathy in nonhumans was made by Russian primatologist Nadia Kohts, who studied nonhuman cognition in the first half of the 20th century and raised a young chimpanzee in her home. When the chimp would make his way to the roof of the house, ordinary strategies for bringing him down—calling, scolding, offers of food—would rarely work. But if Kohts sat down and pretended to cry, the chimp would go to her immediately. “He runs around me as if looking for the offender,” she wrote. “He tenderly takes my chin in his palm … as if trying to understand what is happening.”]
- This paragraph made me have to step back and really rethink some of the thoughts that I had about different animals. I think as humans a lot of the time we feel and even think that we are far superior to all the other organisms that inhabit the earth along with us. That just made me think that maybe we really aren’t so far ahead of animals in terms of intelligence and emotions. Maybe there is a whole other side to animals that we still have yet to discover. If an ape is able to be compassionate enough to leave the roof, which it may have considered its territory, to comfort and even look for the attacker of a human that was crying, then maybe animals have more of a capacity for emotions than we could ever imagine.
Now onto the quiz. I agree with Rose in saying that there should be an option to sacrifice your own life to save everyone else because that would be the most moral thing to do, in my opinion at least. I thought that the quiz brought up some situations that are hard to answer even though it is not actually occurring. I think the answers would vary quite a bit if the readers that answered the quiz were actually presented with the situation and didn’t really have time to consider everything. In addition to that, people may say that they would do one thing but then with the risk of the situation act in a different manner.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
wow. I agree with Rose. There should be an option to chose yourself, but honestly, if you were in that situation and having to make a split decision, how good do you think your decision would be? As I was reading the article, I found it amazing that the chimp was so genuinely concerned with its owner when she pretended to cry, but when i read the next story about the gorilla rescuing the 3-year-old boy, I was even more amazed! I can understand more an animal being close to its owner, but I never thought an animal could be so gentile toward a human that just fell it its cage. This article is an interesting article and it really showed me different perspectives!
January 24th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Great post! That quiz really makes a person think about who you are. It is easy to say the answer you know is right when you are sitting at your computer, but would it be that easy if you actually had to suffocate a baby or kill someone to save a few others. It really is a much bigger responsibility than a quiz on the computer makes it seem. I agree with Charlotte that it is fascinating how young children seem to automatically learn morality. They quickly learn that they are not supposed to hit someone. The article and the quiz really started a debate inside my head. I started wondering, if young kids catch on to morality so fast, why does it take a little longer when we are adults. If a young child feels so bad when they punch someone, how are adults able to kill other people, steal things, and abuse people? It is so frustrating to think of how many awful things we do. The quiz and article made me wonder if the human brain has another side, and evil side. This might not be the best way to word this, but I can’t think of another way, but it seems almost like all people have a multiple personality disorder. One minute, we are all nice and we don’t hit, cheat, steal, or anything like that. We have friends that love us, and good families. Then the next minute, we are bad and we envy our friends and say mean things and fight, steal, and all that bad stuff. It’s really amazing how the human mind seems to have so many levels.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
These senaroio’s are tragic, if I were in any of these situations i would not kill a person, i cannot find myself to kill someone to save someone else it is just to heavy of a job. I personally would rather die than kill someone, if noone was willing to sacrifice themselves and no one was willing to kill anyone then everyone was going to die anyways. either everyone dies with you or you alone die. the only scenario where i was able to kill someone was scenario 3a. Doing nothing to save someone when you know they are going to die is the same as killing them. but if you kill someone to save someone you have just murdered and you have survived the tragedy. If yuo do not kill someone and everyone dies then you have also mordered because you knew death was comming and you died as well. The only choice in these situations is to sacrifice you life for others, otherwise you are a murderer with terrible memories of what you have done for the rest of your life. The guilt of that burdon just seems too much, i would rather be dead than suffer everyday with the pain of remembering the sight of someone dieing because of me and feeling the guilt of killing them. Death seems like abetter option, and i would be in heaven which is almost like doing myself a favor, if you had a choice between death and an honored name forever or earth and guilt forever what would you choose? heaven is my personal choice.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
In response to Anna’s question at the end, I would definatly agree with her and choosing death. I could not live with myself knowing I had killed a person, even if it was to save others. I would rather die and be with the Lord forever.
Taking this quiz was quite difficult however. Some scenarios I couldn’t even imagine happening they were so wild. If anything happened to me personally in real life, it would be hard to react. Sitting here and choosing between things to do is easier than to actually be in the situation and have to react fast. In response to the article, What Makes Us Moral, as I was reading the section about the ape, as Grant had stated earlier, the quote by Nadia Kohts“He runs around me as if looking for the offender,” she wrote. “He tenderly takes my chin in his palm … as if trying to understand what is happening.” To add on to what Grant said, this reminds me a lot of my dog. Anytime I’m in a bad mood or upset about something it’s as if he can sense it and comes up to me and starts licking me. Its truly amazing how animals can sense things like this. Animals are more like humans than I ever thought. Good post!!
January 25th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Wow that quiz was really tough! Just like Anna and Mary Claire I would want to be dead rather than be alive and living with the guilt of killing someone even if it saved someone or multiple people. What really shocked me the most about the quiz was the fact that in most of the questions the results were pretty close to being 50/50. It just took me by surprise that that many people would save their own lives over the life of someone else or they would choose one life over another. Just like Mary Claire said that choosing between the two on the internet is easy, but when you were actually placed in the situation it would be a lot harder. Just like in the question about the switch I said that I would flip the switch, but when I really thought about being placed in the situation I dont know that I could bring myself to do it.
As I read the article from the Time Magazine I found it really neat how in certain situations people would feel bad because they knew that their partners were in pain, but when it came to the trolley situation they became very puzzled and made the irrational decisions. My favorite part of the article was the first page second paragraph because when you read it you know that it is so true. Humans are very weird like that and at one moment we can be so nice and the next we can be so cruel.
This was a really good post! It brought up a lot of interesting points about humans.
January 26th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I think that quiz was the hardest quiz I have ever taken! Choosing who dies and who lives in situations like that would be just too stressful! The question Rose brought up made me think, why didn’t they have an anwser choice to sacrifice ourself? I think many peoples anwsers would have changed if you chose between sacrificing someone else’s life or your own. I think many people would probaly choose someone else’s life over their own, but there are a few people who wouldn’t. However, I think that those few people would change their minds if they actually had to make the decision in real life. I agree with Anna, Mary Claire, and Caroline in that dying would be better than living with the guilt of killing someone. I would definatly rather go to heaven and be with the Lord than go insane! I found it very interesting in the article about morality that the ape felt so much empathy for its owner when she pretended to cry. It really does show how similar our emotions are to animals! Great post, it really made me think!
January 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
This quiz was very difficult. I am not one that is good at making decisions, so I had an especially hard time with it. But, when it comes down to it, you could never really know how you would respond to one of those situations unless you were actually put into one. I agree with Rose because this quiz does seem pretty selfish. Why is there never an option to sacrifice your own life, only to sacrifice another’s? If you were a truly moral person, you would put the other people’s lives before your own. For me, I hate to see anything suffer, whether it is a human or an animal. But truthfully, I don’t know what I would do if I was placed into one of those sitations.
I found this article to be very interesting. I especially liked the example it gave about a child knowing right from wrong, like Grant mentioned. But just because you know right from wrong doesn’t mean you will always make the right decision. Morality is something that is very well-debated. Why do some people choose the right things, while others choose the wrong things? What makes us different in our human race that would cause us to have different morals?
This can be heavily debated, but I believe that every person has a bit of good in them, because we were all created by God. I think that deep within, we all have a certain longing to do good, but sometimes things in this world cause us to act against our good instincts. Of course all humans do bad things, but that is why there is forgiveness.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Grant and Maryclaire pointed out the same exact thing that caught me, with the chimpanzee test. It’s funny how animals can have enough sense, and a strait enough mind, and not be so detoured with things that we can see us humans ourselves give ourselves to be distracted with. Also, I agree with maryclaire on not wanting to do anything at all, especially with the baby, and the boat. That baby could be the next president of Isreal, or even Isreal’s founder. That kid could be someting special, and you would have to answer for killing what could be your “Luke Skywalker”. I’d also just swim, and help the injured person on the boat, and if not, I wouldn’t do anything. It reminds me of that song, “Jesus Loves the Little Children”. That injured man is loved just as much by God as you are. We don’t hold that ultimate authority to say who’s better in those terms. Heck, we just celebrated MLK day. That’d almost be like discriminating. I also liked how the article said that doing good was a result of reasoning by the individuall that what they gave up now, in order to be considered “nice” would benefit them later.
Though I don’t believe in it, people use the term “karma” alot, and they believe in it. That’s really all it is. But from my point of view, in the Bible, in Matthew 25:34, it talks about when God separates his “sheep” from the “goats”. HE chooses the sheep on his right hand, and tells them that they can inherit the kingdom, because “when he was hungry, they fed him”, along with other , what we would consider morally correct deeds. When they ask when could they ever feed God, he replies and says, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My bretheren, you did it to me”- Matt.25:40. Perhaps another reason is that because morals and emotion are considered to be from the soul, we want to answer to a higher, supernatual authority. I for one want to be one the right hand side.
Another thing that I also thought about was in Matthew ch.25:1-14.It talks about 10 virgins who were going to meet a bridegroom, and how they needed oil in their lamps to see in the night. When 5, who didn’t plan carefully didn’t have anymore oil for their lamp ran out, they asked the other 5 for some oil. They rejected the other 5 foolish ones, got to the bridegroom, and secured their postions. When the other 5 finally got there, the bridegroom said”I do not know you”. And they missed out. Sometimes, morality cannot be so easily judged, because in this passage, the 5 wise women were simply prepared. Not just when the kingdom of heaven comes, but in everyday life! When you go to go get a job, and some guy shows up in dickies, and you show up in buisness atire, if you don’t tell that guy you’ll change clothes with him for his interview, so he can have a better chance than you, that’s not being morally good, that’s being stupid. Perhaps later on down the line, you might go banmkrupt, and need a job, but because you gave up the oppourtunity, you become homeless. “You never know”, as my deciesed nanna always said. I’m still not so sure if even in psycology, if human morality can be explained through science. Can science, the study of the natural world, actually account for such an unpredictable human emotion? Yes there’s proof that morality can be shown in other animals, and possibly at times predicted, but like everything in science, it must be considered carefully. I think it’d be pretty cool to do some tests of our own on this topic. WHY NOT?!?That was very detailed, credible, and interesting work done by Nadia Kohts. And as always, TIME magazine was captivating as usuall. Hats off to Rose!
January 28th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Those were difficult situations, and I dont think that I could ever Kill a human being. If the situation presented itself i would probably have a different opinion though. It is fantastic how the human mind has such a developed sense of right and wrong. that is what was so hard about those questions; they were neither right OR wrong. this is why the decision was so hard. who in their right mind would want to kill a baby?
It is also an amazing thing that animals other than ourselves are capable of empathy. Although, part of me is not supprised about the ape because our species are so similar.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
The Bible says that one shouldnot ask “foolish and unlearned questions.”
I believe that these are those types of questions because they dont benefit our cause for Christ and are not benefitting life. I am not sure what this post has to do with science because it seems to deal with the supernatural or your spirituality. Could i get clarification on that.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Ben,
Quantitative analysis to people’s reactions to situations are certainly within the realm of science as are qualitative predictions that are made based on the analysis. Moral decisions and values based off of the research are not.
I heartily disagree that these are foolish and unlearned questions. The value of understanding how moral decisions are made can be greatly beneficial, especially in times of war.
I found most of the student comments to this post to be rather interesting. We face these kind of moral situations daily and the overwhelming response is not to sacrifice oneself. The response is to turn away. Look at my previous post which links to an article on Darfur entitled “Psychic Numbing”. Is this the correct, moral response to make? Science can definitely not answer that question.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I need to step in, and strongly agree with ben here. I have nothing wrong with understanding how moral decisions are made but i disagree with the manner in which this quiz tries to measure it. There are plenty of other ways to to see how someone makes moral decisions, other than asking them whether they would KILL a baby. I think the everyday questions would apply better, such as something like: You buy something with cash, and the cashier gives you back seven dollars more than he was supposed to and doesn’t notice. Do you tell him and give back the money, or pocket the cash? That can show you what kind of decisions a person will make, without putting uncofortable situations upon them. And honestly, i feel no need in asking unnecissary questions like these anyway. Besides no one knows exactly how they will behave unless they are put in that situation.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Rose, i took the quiz and was actually very startled at the feedback. Almost every question had a 50-50 ratio, thats alot of people willing to make a desicion that would cause someone their life.
Anna, Mary Claire, and Caroline make a good point though i would much rather have the choice to switch spots with the person about to be killed because if i did kill them or choose something that resulted in them diening i would never be able to forgive myself. I really enjoyed taking this quiz becaseu it made me pause and take a look at how i would react ion several situations, but i also thought about how i would act on impulse because if i was having to choose from pushing someone off of a boat and saving the rest of us then I’d have to make that desicion very quickly which makes this quiz even harder to answer with a “yes, i would push them off” or a “No, i couldn’t push them off”.
Ben, i agree with Miss Baker in the fact that these questions are definetley NOT foolish or unnecessary at all. The quiz was trying to get the numerical data as to how many people would be willing to sacrafice oneself instead of saving yourself with the result of harming others.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Thank you for clarifying that this was an attempt on quantitative analysis. however Becasue of the limited answer options a true analysis can not be obtained.Because the most important option is not presented. Take the first question for example. I would do the second option but that would leave the assumption that all would die. Not only would i not smuther the baby but i would also take a further action of running through the street to distract the men away from the others. This is only because of my love for God and his people and my willingness to follow his commandment of “Thou shalt not kill”
January 29th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I have to say that quiz was cool. But you never know what your going to do in a situation like that. However how does this make us moral or unmoral. To tell you guys I am very very sensitive on lives. Take for example a baby I would never smother a baby to save other people. I grew up around babies being born and you have to see a joy on a mothers face to know that. But see we never know whats going to happen next. I think that at times we make the choice because we think its going to be right on quizes. Also choices right now are made on what would are friends do or parents do? I would have to agree with Caroline and Mary Claire on the fact that I would never want the guilt of someone dieing on my behalf I would rather die. Its like a doctor if you were doing surgery on one and they were about to die and you accidently cut the wrong vien and they died. How would you feel. I remember a couple of years ago my mom had a case and she had a mother who was high risked. Her baby ended up not living. When I she came home cause I always ask her was it a boy or a girl. She said that it was not alive. Now being a doctor or even a cop you cant let things like that get to you. I learned that from the best. All of the 9th grade should be able to relate this question to a Seperate Peace. After 15 years Gene still had that guilt of Finny dieing on his behalf now. I have to say Rose you did a good job on this by the way.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I just took that quiz and I found it so hard to make the descision. My heart went out to the other people but I could not deliberately shove a person onto a train track and watch them get killed. It really makes me think of what are the morality questions that we have in our highschool lives. Like for example, it can be like gossip for girls. Something like, you want to come on top of the situation but it could cost you your frienship with your bestfriend. Though that is not a severe as the quiz, I can infer that that is what morality is in our highschool lives.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
i dont really know what to think of the quiz. I would feel awful being the cause of someones death but i mean, if i said no to any of those questions then i think it would be worse. Letting one person live and letting many others die because you couldnt bring yourself to kill somone is almost a sign of weakness. I think that people hesistate to answer the questions because its not something they have ever been faced with. They wouldnt ever think of killing someone but if you said you wouldnt kill the lone person in the questions then your still killing someone….actually the “group” in each question because you could have saved them but you passed up the chance. i noticed alot of people said the quiz was tough but really its quite easy if you consider that doing nothing to save someone when you could have is the same as killing them
That was a really interesting quiz
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I personally had a really hard time taking this quiz. But as long as I know Jesus and except him as my lord and savior everything would be alright. I really would not want to kill anyone to save my own life but if you really think about it than when your really in one of these situations than you and I both would have a different thought in what to do. If someone asked you if you were a Christian and he had a gun and was threatening to kill you if you said yes what would you say? I really would not know what to say. I want to say that I am but I would never know untill I was actally put in the situation.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
This was a hard quiz to take. I think it was so hard, because we had time to think about what we would do. However, in the real life situations you don’t really have time to think about the consequences, we act on impulse. I mean if you were really in these situations and the baby started crying you wouldnt stop and say ok what should i do. YOU PANIC, and as a result probably kill the baby. However, I do agree with ben here. I do think these questions are some what foolish, because all of us would probablly never want to kill anyone, and honestly we dont really know what we would do, because we are not panicing and acting on impulse, we are logically thinking about our answers!
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
good point lacey, I think that somehow they should create a morality quiz that can assess your morality based on real situations. I imagine that anyone would panic in those situations and their morals may momentarily be forgotten. I think that the quiz would be more accurate if they had questions about situations that are more likely to happen and would allow the person time to consider options. The life or death questions are a bit extreme and may not result in accurate conclusions
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Wow, that was a really tough quiz. I agree with Lacey that it was hard because you have time to think about it now, but you wouldn’t if it was in real life. I also agree with Steven T. that most of the situations in the test were too extreme and that they should have some situations that were more plausible in real life. Even though I’d like to say I could kill the one to save the others, I really don’t know what I would do if I was in that situation in real life. All I know is that it would be a very tough decision. It would make sense to me though to kill the baby because even if I didn’t, it would still die. Now, I’m saying that that would make sense, I’m not saying I would be able to do it. In the article you told us to read, it was really cool how the 3 year old accidently fell in the gorilla’s cage and the gorilla saved it and took it to where i could be returned to a zookeeper. Also, I found this article about the subway samaritan on washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401756.html). It talked about how a man, with two daughters standing on the platform, jumped on top of a man having a seizure. They then fell into a ditch that helped the two survive! Now, the man who saved the other is regarded as a New York City hero! That, to me, is a great example of morals and empathy because he knew if he didn’t try to save the man, the man would surely die if the train did not brake.