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.

Zombrex

About a 7 I would say, if I'm being honest.

My immorality is legal, I guess you could call it "minor" immorality. I tend to lie too much to people about minor things, and I also tend to talk behind people's backs to much. If they ever found out they would be upset, though obviously this isn't robbing banks or raping people. I also get too fixated about people liking me and therefore don't stand up for things when I probably should, which I guess you might call hypocritical.


* Gandhi probably isn't a good example, he had a racist streak and also tended to sleep naked beside young girls to "test" his celibacy.

Dades

I don't think it's possible to rate yourself, or see the point. Most people will admit they aren't perfect, but are for the most part moral by their own standards - which are of course different to everyone else's.

I am reminded of Come Dine With Me.

RedXIV

Gonna give myself a 6 as I can have moral and immoral days but will usually err on the side of moral

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I also get too fixated about people liking me and therefore don't stand up for things when I probably should, which I guess you might call hypocritical.

What is it about religionistas then that you don't care what they think of you?

* Gandhi probably isn't a good example, he had a racist streak and also tended to sleep naked beside young girls to "test" his celibacy.

..only a problem if sleeping naked beside young girls falls to the end of your moralty scale.

AhSureTisGrand

I'd say Hitler would have answered with a nine or a ten. The comparison with famous figures is somewhat misleading, as it suggests we're being asked not to rate our integrity but to rate how different we are from Hitler

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

I don't think it's possible to rate yourself, or see the point.

I think it's possible to have a standard. And figure how well you rate against that standard. Indeed, an individual is in the very best place to do it.

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 remember reading of a similar survey carried out amongst serious criminals: rapists, murderers, child molesters and the like. And they scored themselves around the 7 mark. It'd be interesting to see if that's where the peak of the normal distribution occurs here.

Most people will admit they aren't perfect, but are for the most part moral by their own standards - which are of course different to everyone else's.

Of course.

I am reminded of Come Dine With Me.

I've not injected that particular drug into me yet

antiskeptic

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I'd say Hitler would have answered with a nine or a ten. The comparison with famous figures is somewhat misleading, as it suggests we're being asked not to rate our integrity but to rate how different we are from Hitler

If comparing yourself to those who you see to be very good / very bad is unhelpful then ignore that aspect and score yourself according to your own ideal.

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for point? I would have scored myself at around 2 or 3 before becoming a Christian

That says a lot about you tbh.

Personally, I don't see the point of the poll, apart from you comparing people who score themselves high to rapists and murderers of course.

Turtwig

I'm giving myself : 1>morality>0

Considering how much of the world I don't understand, how likely I am to be wrong about pretty much everything I think I know, I'd say that's the only rational figure I give myself. That said, I do believe I am far more "moral" than past human generations and I do have a belief, whether rightly or wrongly, that humanity will become more cooperative and ethically smart with each successive generation. (Assuming some nuts, most likely religious, don't wipe out the entire species of course.)

liamw

Dades wrote: »

I don't think it's possible to rate yourself, or see the point. Most people will admit they aren't perfect, but are for the most part moral by their own standards - which are of course different to everyone else's.

I am reminded of Come Dine With Me.

Also, this cognitive bias will come into play. Nobody will serious rate themselves below a 5.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have scored myself at around 2 or 3 before becoming a Christian

I'm not really sure where you're going with this poll, since I suspect the results are essentially meaningless.

FWIW, I stick to my own ethical code fairly closely, I'd say 95% of the time, so I'm going to give myself a nine and a half out of ten; call it nine since you don't have a 9.5 in the poll.

However, I've no doubt that you would view my ethical code as being quite immoral -- since mine's based upon a different basis than yours -- so I imagine you'd probably score me around the same level you scored yourself.

.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

I'm not really sure where you're going with this poll, since I suspect the results are essentially meaningless.

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

However, I've no doubt that you would view my ethical code as being quite immoral -- since mine's based upon a different basis than yours -- so I imagine you'd probably score me around the same level you scored yourself.

I have virtually absolutely no insight into your moral code so as to have an opinion tbh. But thanks for polling anyway.

antiskeptic

liamw wrote: »

Also, this cognitive bias will come into play. Nobody will serious rate themselves below a 5.

That bias appears to involve a persons rating of themselves compared to others. This poll only asks the person to rate themselves wrt to their own ideal.

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote: »

That bias appears to involve a persons rating of themselves compared to others. This poll only asks the person to rate themselves wrt to their own ideal.

Oh in that case google the dunning Kruger effect.

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

That says a lot about you tbh.

Go on..

Personally, I don't see the point of the poll, apart from you comparing people who score themselves high to rapists and murderers of course.

See my post to robindch above.

antiskeptic

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh in that case google the dunning Kruger effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.

a) Let's suppose the population here involves both the skilled and unskilled and that the results therefore, will balance out.

b) I'm not sure that holding cheating to be wrong permits an unskilled person to erroneously conclude they haven't cheated. Not from an competance perspective at any rate. It's quite another matter to self-justify your cheating away.

sbsquarepants

I gave myself a 7, but i'm on an upward trajectory - i was somewhat of an amoral swine in my younger days, as i get older i find i'm getting more empathic, and in general these days i make the effort to be nice to people just for the sake of it.
I would like to think i am a much nicer person now in my 30's than i was in my teens or twenties. I suppose the same is probably true of a lot of people (well the ones that aren't destined to remain a$$holes forever that is) I think developing morals is largely to blame for it. (God damn it!)

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) Let's suppose the population here involves both the skilled and unskilled and that the results therefore, will balance out.

b) I'm not sure that holding cheating to be wrong permits an unskilled person to erroneously conclude they haven't cheated. Not from an competance perspective at any rate. It's quite another matter to self-justify your cheating away.

I honestly have no clue in the nay of Jay what you are on about here.

antiskeptic

Malty_T wrote: »

I honestly have no clue in the nay of Jay what you are on about here.

The Dunning-Kruger effect had to do with estimation of personal competancies (the unskilled likely to think they did better in an exam than they actually did - being my personal application of the effect ).

This poll concerns morality, which isn't a competancy based pursuit. The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply in that case.

antiskeptic

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I gave myself a 7, but i'm on an upward trajectory - i was somewhat of an amoral swine in my younger days, as i get older i find i'm getting more empathic, and in general these days i make the effort to be nice to people just for the sake of it.

It's too late now, but it would have been interesting to see what you'd have scored yourself when you were an amoral swine.

antiskeptic

liamw wrote: »

Also, this cognitive bias will come into play. Nobody will serious rate themselves below a 5.

Assuming Malty's

1>morality>0

..constitutes a 1, would the other person who scored themselves 1 please stand up?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) Let's suppose the population here involves both the skilled and unskilled and that the results therefore, will balance out.

Er, the whole point of Dunning–Kruger is that it doesn't.

antiskeptic wrote:

This poll concerns morality, which isn't a competancy based pursuit. The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't apply in that case.

Dunning–Kruger concerned self-assessments, so it does apply.

To reply to the idea that ethical concerns aren't based upon competency -- well, just "wow".

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

To reply to the idea that ethical concerns aren't based upon competency -- well, just "wow".

If a person includes "cheating is wrong" in their personal moral framework (with "cheating" being whatever it is they consider it to be) then I don't see how they can be suddenly too incompetent to recognise when they have cheated (according to their defintion of it).

I'm not supposing a person measuring up to societies idea of a moral standard, in which case their competancy does come into it.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

If a person includes "cheating is wrong" in their personal moral framework (with "cheating" being whatever it is they consider it to be) then I don't see how they can be suddenly too incompetent to recognise when they have cheated (according to their defintion of it).

Like anything in life, one can either be ethically competent, or incompetent. Dunning–Kruger also point out that one can also be competent or incompetent at assessing one's own ethical competence or incompetence. And finally, in the absence of a belief in a value-system not derived from a religious book, one could hold the view (seemingly commonly believed by the religious) that one's only concern should be to feel good, and that might include intentionally inflating one's own self-assessement (as well as unintentionally, via Dunning–Kruger).

Given these various problems, as well many more I've left out, I'm not fully sure what it is that this poll is measuring, nor -- if I did know -- how reliable the poll results are.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Like anything in life, one can either be ethically competent, or incompetent.

I don't see how competency comes into it (aside from being incompetent to the point of being a-ethical, like a plant pot is).

Perhaps the term your supposing is 'relative sophistication'? In which case I'd agree that some moralities are more sophisticated that others.

What you can't be is sophisticated and unsophisticated at the same time. If capable of erecting a sophisticated morality then you are capable of measuring your performance against it with that same measure of sophistication.

baalthor

antiskeptic wrote: »

If a person includes "cheating is wrong" in their personal moral framework (with "cheating" being whatever it is they consider it to be) then I don't see how they can be suddenly too incompetent to recognise when they have cheated (according to their defintion of it).

I'm not supposing a person measuring up to societies idea of a moral standard, in which case their competancy does come into it.

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. 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.
And this applies to theft, cheating, killing and all the other things listed by the 10 commandments and other moral codes.

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)

Delirium

whats the point of the poll?

I could give myself a 9, but be a serial killer in my spare time. Is the poll attempting to see how everyone views themselves in terms of morality?

And surely it's a bit pointless, as we don't know every detail about each other. Everyone could vote 8 for example. What would that result illustrate?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

What you can't be is sophisticated and unsophisticated at the same time.

As baalthor points out, it's quite easy to be both and I'd imagine, quite universal, particularly amongst the religious for whom "morality" equals whatever one can convince oneself one's religious books says it is (granted, the religious are not the subject of this poll!).

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?

sbsquarepants

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's too late now, but it would have been interesting to see what you'd have scored yourself when you were an amoral swine.

Looking back now, i'd say about a 3 - if you'd asked me then i'd have said 8 or 9, but like i said, i couldn't be trusted:D
Not sure if that proves or disproves this cognitive bias theory!
I think what it does prove though is that this poll, being entirely subjective, proves absolutely nothing.

sbsquarepants

robindch wrote: »

As baalthor points out, it's quite easy to be both and I'd imagine, quite universal, particularly amongst the religious for whom "morality" equals whatever one can convince oneself one's religious books says it is (granted, the religious are not the subject of this poll!).

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?

Eh, thou shalt not steal? Plus, last time i looked there was no thou shalt not abort.
She doesn't stick that rigidly!