The Morality Quiz

Submitted by: LaChica 9 years ago in Quizzes
http://www.time-blog.com/graphics_script/2007/moralityquiz/index.html?iid=redirect-morality

Five moral-compass situations in which you can see where you compare to others. Or, are you caring or black-hearted?
There are 91 comments:
Female 38
I didn`t want to do any killing if I would live either way
but if it was life or death for myself
I was killing people left right and center
0
Reply
Female 15
All these are supposed to be questions of morality? he, ok. I`d have to be there in that situation before I could answer any of those.
I bet there are better ways to save people than to kill others if that ever happened. Who knows. I totally agree about the baby thing, you can make him pass out for a while as opposed to killing the poor thing. On the other hand, you may have to save the baby from others who would kill it for the same reasons, YOU NEVER KNOW what will happen in a crisis unless you`re there. Proven fact; people aren`t always thinking on their toes in a time of chaos. Most people freak out! So, you tell me, moral? Blahh.
0
Reply
Female 11
this is stupid. i menan seriously. if you see someone standing on a track when a train is coming any normal person would start screaming like crazy. they wouldnt sit there and think "should i throw the switch? would it be moral to throw the switch?" and you dont have to kill the baby to make it be quiet.
0
Reply
Female 1,398
llama I could totally smother a baby... and NOBODY? Ever hear about psychos and serial killers?
0
Reply
Male 300
Psh. The only one anyone here would ever do is 3a, because while the others involve you directly killing someone to save others, 3a involves you saving others and accidentally killing one person as a result.

And of course, the morality comes in because in every situation you`re being asked to play god. Hardly a great spectrum here. And on 3b/3c, what gives you the right to kill a man to save 5 others? The best option would be self sacrifice, otherwise you technically would be accepting that the other man on the bridge would be right to throw you off.

As for the boat one...the guy is fully alert, and if he`s gonna die soon then he probably would volunteer to throw himself overboard if he`s fully aware that he`d die either way, which they do indeed state.

While this type of thing would make for a good discussion, I doubt that could easily be found here.

0
Reply
Male 572
NOBODY I REPEAT NOBODY could smother a baby to death in their arms. besides aren`t there other ways to stop a baby crying??? also it`s not like a SOLDIER would kill a baby even if it was a bad soldier...
0
Reply
Male 34
wow depressing
0
Reply
Male 93
for most of these thinking about it I feel that it is right to kill the person/baby to save the great amount of people, but I answered no for a lot of them simply because I think that if I were in that situation I wouldn`t be able to. I don`t think I could live with myself if I knowingly killed a baby/person
0
Reply
Female 127
That`s about the lamest morality quiz ever. It`s really just a "under what circumstances might you murder someone" test, and a poorly done one at that since most of the questions revolve around the same scenario.

FAIL!

0
Reply
Male 68
Everyone that would die because of my actions in that quiz are worthless to me. I wouldn`t mind sacrificing them. They mean nothing to me.
0
Reply
Female 11
That train track question always pisses me off. How can you stand on the train tracks and not be aware of the fact that a train is coming? If you`re really that stupid, I don`t want you in the gene pool.

And the one about tossing a random man on the tracks? That`s completely unfair. Those 5 people are IDIOTS. He is an innocent bystander. He was smart enough to stay off the tracks, so why kill him when you can knock out 5 idiots instead by just walking away?...

The only ones that are really realistic at all is the first and second. Personally, I could smother the baby but I`m not entirely sure I could throw off the cripple.

0
Reply
Female 45
"That would be very noble of you Mantolwen, however things change when you are actually faced with the situation. Its easy to say you would throw yourself in front of a moving train."

I myself would give my life to save others.

I also want to say that there is an unlimited amount of factors you have to consider while answering these questions. For the baby one, there are no factors for me. I just couldn`t kill it. For the trolley ones, it depends on who`s on the tracks. For the boat one, however, I`d just throw myself overboard.

0
Reply
Female 1,297
i would kill the baby if i had to, and painter 13s idea of swimming behind the boat occured to me to, but i couldnt snatch a dying mans last moments of life from him, or abandon him.
the trolley one was really tough, the only rational thing i could think of was to kill the one man, but my head just kept going that he would die alone, and even if the others were strangers, they would still have each other. And i thought it would be easier to kill someone if i knew them, they would understand, right?
0
Reply
Male 533
on the trolley ones i would just yell at them to move and if they dont then they deserve to die.
0
Reply
Male 34
Well, I already knew I wasn`t the greatest person, so this quiz didn`t tell me a whole lot....
0
Reply
Male 1,365
I would pinch the babies juggler until he passed out, I would get in the water and swim behind the boat taking turns with others until rescue or the man died, and the street car scenario is ridiculous, a more important question is do you know CPR, and if not...why not.Too Lazy? Better to focus on how to fix the world than bean count human life for a morality meter.
0
Reply
Male 315
I`m really surprised at 3a`s results.
0
Reply
Female 496
I had no problems with sacrificing one life to save the lives of many, in any of the questions. I`d rather not be in that situation, but if I were I don`t think it`d be a problem.
0
Reply
Male 287
Scenario 3a ftw. 0% said they could not. 100% said they could.

:P

0
Reply
Female 76
i guess i`m a really horrible person..lol i said yes to all!}-)...(presuming that all people that would be saved werent mass murderers or something)
im always the one screaming at the movie going "push her out of the elevator dumbarse!" or something to that nature
0
Reply
Female 239
If you look at the picture with the second question, they`re all wearing lifejackets... I`d probably save the five for the first trolley question, but I`m not sure why any of those people are standing on tracks in the first place. For the second one, hell, if I have enough time to shove a guy in front of the other five, there`s probably enough enough time to tell them all to get the hell off the damn tracks. For the last question, ignoring the endangered people for a second, catapults seem like serious cartoony fun. Like in one of those Road Runner shorts, the catapult backfired several times, crushing poor Wile E.

And the moral of the story is not to trust catapults made by the enemy. *offtopic*

0
Reply
Female 360
There`s all this concern about preserving the lives of the 5 people, and sparing a baby`s life but losing the lives of the other`s hiding with you.. The sad fact about life is when it`s time to go, it`s time to go. No one knows when, or how it will happen, but if it`s going to happen in any of these scenerios I don`t think any of us would have a right to make that decision.. On the boat, the injured person might die anyway - or at the last minute before the boat totally sinks, you could be rescued.. Wouldn`t you feel like an a**hole for killing someone when you didn`t need to?? And you`ve got to figure that people trying to escape from an enemy in war time probably wouldn`t pick up an abandoned baby anyway.. harsh, but true.
0
Reply
Male 1,029
This was idiotic.
0
Reply
Male 646
You can`t really know what you would do if you were really in one of these situations... so why even bother with this?
0
Reply
Female 252
I couldn`t smother the baby no way, the others would depend on complicated circumstances
0
Reply
Male 8
uhhhh....i could do all of these, but i think the question should be "would i have any remorse or guilt". Big difference
0
Reply
Male 533
thats not fun...thats just depressing....
0
Reply
Female 5,139
lol i think im a softie, i couldnt have killed any of them except the first track scenario. the rest i couldnt do, especially the smothering of a baby, i dunno how anyone could do that.
0
Reply
Female 706
Why is there only two choices: to kill one or kill five?
Just have everyone move off the f u c k i n g thing!
0
Reply
Female 29
i didnt do any of them, because call me stupid but if everyone is going to die, then everyone is going to die and that`s the course that was set for them.

i could never live with myself knowing i`d killed an innocent person even if it was to save others

like the 1st train one, if there are 5 ppl on the track about to be hit, then that is what was going to happen if i wasn`t there.

id rather not get involved and let what would have happened naturally, happen, whether you got involved or not you`re going to have let one or more people die

I just kept thinking if the single person you`d kill was your dad or something. the injured person, the single man on the track, somebody loves that person.

i would definetly stay out of it.

i well got into that opinion

0
Reply
Male 126
Meh, I would do it in all the circumstances. It is the only logical thing to do. That said, there are other things that need to be considered. Like, what if that one person on the track is your brother and you dont know the others. These aren`t really the best kind of questions to ask becasue there are options that don`t involve killing...
0
Reply
Male 623
i answered could not on everything except the first trolley one
0
Reply
Male 147
Seriously, all of these questions are like "either everyone is going to die, or one person is, and you`re the one who decides which it is". And the answer where less people die is the "immoral" choice? I don`t get that.
0
Reply
Male 195
i said i could do all of them, because honestly they all where no brainers when it comes to saving lives. It really depends on weather or not you want to save those lives or you want the lives to be saved, either you want and do or you just want and in some of these die or in others regret
0
Reply
Male 397
i could do all of those.
what`s the big deal?
the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few
0
Reply
Male 521
Hmm, im actually pretty good :o
0
Reply
Female 511
What`s the point in not smothering the baby if it`ll lead to everyone being found and everyone (baby included) being killed anyway? People are always making new babies - not like there`s a shortage.

These questions are always tiresome. The issue shouldn`t be "could you do it?", but rather "could you do it without regretting it later?"

0
Reply
Female 462
Why did I have no problem smothering the baby, but couldn`t push the man?
0
Reply
Female 2,552
I could do everything but smother the baby.
But obviously you would have to sacrifice one person to save five people. What would be the point of killing everybody?
0
Reply
Male 946
In another version of the trolley dilemma, you and the man are on a bridge and you would have to push him onto the track to save the other five.

how would pushing a guy onto a train track help?

0
Reply
Male 180
self sacrafice should have been a choice on the trolley ones. if u need the guys body to slow the trolley down, why not your own? then you get to save everyone. and who cares if you do, everyone dies eventually.
0
Reply
Male 957
Pikachu is right and makes a valid point. However some of us are as consistent as possible in life.

I would smother the baby and toss the injured off the lifeboat. :)

The trolley one is, to paraphrase Ned Flanders, a "dilly of a pickle". I don`t like being hands on but if i had to push him i would.
Really for the trolley one it would depend on who the one guy was compared to the group of five people. If I was predisposed toward the one guy against the group i would go with the guy and vice versa.

0
Reply
Female 1,492
you know, i feel that unless we are in those situations we don`t know how we would we act. sure it`s ok to say what you would do if you`re reading it, but being in the situation is different.
0
Reply
Male 510
I really don`t think I could do any of these. I`d end up either being too filled with indecision to do anything or would end up sacrificing myself.
0
Reply
Female 275
and babies crying are annoying enough even in non-life or death situations :P
0
Reply
Female 275
i could never push the injured guy off the boat, especially i he knew what was happening. the baby i think i could do if there was no other way to stop it crying. i mean, i`d feel bad afterwards but the baby will die anyway if we`re found, along with everybody else. i think it would be selfish of me to NOT smother the baby.
0
Reply
Female 1,120
that was really weird and i did not like the baby one i thought it would be longer and give you results..
0
Reply
Female 414
i must be a monster, i`d do every one of these things. sometimes its about the greater good.
0
Reply
Male 213
There are alot of variations to these as well. Like what if the one man you have to kill is your friend/family. Another interesting thing is as people lose contact with the person they are killing they are more willing to kill that person. For example, if there is someone being mugged right in front of you, youll probably help that person. If hes down the street, you might help him. But if somehow you know for a fact theres someone being mugged 2 miles away, your less likely to go help. In Africa there are thousands of people starving, but we are less likely to help/send aid then if there were thousands of people starving in our town.
0
Reply
Female 913
I don`t think I could ever kill anyone...well, maybe in self defense.
0
Reply
Female 2,196
if more people could die cause of one kill that one just have someone else do it =)
0
Reply
Female 352
the only one I would do would be the 1st trolley one
0
Reply
Female 1,004
Kill a baby? Hells yes!
Wait, you mean there`s a reason behind it other than the fact it`s crying? Ö
0
Reply
Male 10,440
I agreed to doing everything
0
Reply
Male 10,440
tymberwolf> agreed. You cant always restrict things to yes/no. These questions werent that good but there are others out there that really make you think.
0
Reply
Male 438
the second reason it`s stupid is because it`s not asking you to care for the situational morality, ie how it will be viewed in a larger light. during war time or on a raft anything goes, but during day to day times nothing goes.

If you break this test down it`s more of a HOW MUCH OF A PUSSY you are exam than anything.

Finlly because different people are judging the situation with different levels of intelligence on weather or not they would do it on a 100% realistic vs logical scale the results are pointless and mean nothing.

Anyway the results of these types of things are to make you interested by confusing you and pitting people who constantly view themselves realistically versus those who think ahead.

0
Reply
Male 438
this is a stupid test designed to garner readership, the reason is stupid is because killing fewer people is ALWAYS logically better and the test is a set of logically outlined questions.

Unfortunatly it seems to insinuate what you would actually do, which is a stupid thing to make people judge for two reason. one because average reactiveness inaction and intelligence is not taken into acount. The questions say that there i a 100% chance that more people will die if you do not interveen and kill, well if you KNEW that under the circumstances of the question then obviously it wuld always be better to kill. Unfortunatly the obvious variable of the fact that everyone doesn`t know everything is put in in real life. obviously it`s bad to kill people on maybes. furthermore you wouldn`t always think to do that which is outlined in the choices, and finally most people are very inactive anyway so nothing would happen often as it`s not joe average`s job to save people on a day to day bassis.

0
Reply
Female 1,244
The only one I would be able to do is 3a.
0
Reply
Female 223
I don`t really care for these types of questions, because they make you doubt yourself and your morality. I am a perfectly good-natured person, and I`m sure a lot of people are, but when put in those situations, who knows how anyone will react.

We had to write about the trolley one in my English class last year, and I think I wrote that I would probably do the one that required the least amount of action because I would probably be too in shock to do anything about it.

Also, I could Never throw a dying man overboard because I would sympathize with them too much. Just that feeling of hopeless abandonment coupled with the fact that injury makes you need people the most. I imagine dying painfully and all alone is one of the worst things imaginable and I couldn`t do that to someone.

0
Reply
Male 1,383
I couldn`t do any of them. Maybe in the heat of the moment, but I couldn`t live with myself. I thought that it would make sense to do some of those things, like the baby one, but the reality is that I couldn`t.
0
Reply
Female 326
first off, 5 people in a track... is it possible? What are the odds of that and the crucial has to fall into your own hands...

That being said, it`s easy to say I can`t do all these things but once you`re in THAT situation, people would have a paradigm shift. And I agree to the comment about the lives of many versus one person.

Whichever way I choose, and whoever would die because of my choice, that would only mean its their time to die.

0
Reply
Female 738
Interesting quiz- wasn`t what I was expecting. It`s interesting to see how more personal contact with someone determined whether you could kill that person...
0
Reply
Male 13
those questions are stupid, i COULD push the guy in front of the trolly, but id much rather see the five die.
0
Reply
Male 1,590
Question: You`re trapped in an elevator with John Denver and Bob Denver and you have a gun but only one bullet. Who do you shoot?

Answer: Myself.

0
Reply
Male 24
That was a lot more intense than I expected. I would always choose to do the "bad" action every time. Like kill the baby and push the man.
0
Reply
Male 192
Yeah, Id do all of them. I mean, If the man is going to die he needs to realize that and jump off >\. As for the baby I probly would smother it. I dont really care for other humans that i dont know. Of course, if i knew the baby even for like a week id second guess. Still kill it though ;p
0
Reply
Male 2,159
Not really testing a broad variety of moral values, this.

Surely there are other types of moral questions...

0
Reply
Female 469
That would be very noble of you Mantolwen, however things change when you are actually faced with the situation. Its easy to say you would throw yourself in front of a moving train.
0
Reply
Female 31
i read a story somewhere were a mother and her baby were hiding from her abusive husband that was about to kill them and the baby started to scream and the mother tryed to keep it quiet by putting her hand over its mouth but she acidently killed it she started to cry and then her husband found her and shot her. it was really sad
0
Reply
Female 387
In the majority of situations, I`d jump off the lifeboat myself or jump onto the tracks myself. I would smother the baby (it`s a baby, and as I`m a Christian I think it would go to heaven anyway), and I would probably kill one to save five.
0
Reply
Male 19
"I hate questions like this, the word can`t be answered in yes or no questions most of the time."

That`s the point, to answer the questions as-is, not think into them and put different situations into them. You said there are ways to quiet a baby, and yes there are, but the question states that there is no other way. They`re hypothetical for a reason, you`re supposed to answer, not over-analyze.

0
Reply
Female 3,001
i couldnt kill a baby, but i could do all the others...
i think...
0
Reply
Female 105
It really depends on what the kind of situation one is put into. We all say that we could not do such things, but we really do not know, but we also do not want to know.
0
Reply
Female 105
This has nothing to do with being black hearted... But it also made me sad, especially the baby. But during the Holocaust and such, what choice did they really have?
0
Reply
Male 23
66% wouldn`t push a guy onto a track but only 56% wouldn`t smother a helpless baby.
0
Reply
Male 4,012
Wow, reminds me of heroes season 1. Killing off an entire city to `wake up` the rest of the world and ensure survival.

The only situation in which I would probably not have a guilty conscience would be scenario 2. And so does 75% of pollers do.

0
Reply
Male 267
All of these are pretty f`d up questions.
0
Reply
Male 4,004
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... seriously..if one person has to die for 5 to live then better one dead than all dead...

I am immoral apparently...but crying babies are asking for it...

0
Reply
Female 15
I`d do every single one of these,it`s only the rational choice.
0
Reply
Female 137
Actually, this isn`t a Morality test in the strictest sense, if I remember my first year Philosophy, this is actually a test at whether you go by a Utilitarian philosophy or Kantian Ethics. There was one they had asked us in class about saving a Bishop or his maid from a burning building.

Morality tests are usually measured with more every day situations like what you`d do with a lost wallet etc.

0
Reply
Male 300
Oh my God!!! I just found out that I`m a monster!!! |-(
0
Reply
Male 648
thats pretty messed up.
I am reminded of why I do not like TIME magazine.
0
Reply
Female 1,070
well i wouldnt kill someone if they were fully AWARE of it.
0
Reply
Female 48
It`s interesting... The only difference between The Trolly scenario 1 and 2 is that you have to actually push the person in 2. The % of people who could do it dropped from 76% in the first to 34% in the second.
0
Reply
Male 99
The only one I couldn`t do was the baby. Anyway these things are stupid beyond words, I mean there are always options/circumstances and what not that would play into this.

Question 1: There are ways to stop a baby`s cry from being heard that doesn`t kill the baby, or maybe stick the kid outside real quick, and let the soldiers find the baby and maybe they won`t notice you hiding. (Good soldiers would check out the house anyway)

2. This one is a no brainer, an injured man is nothing more than a liability. Explain to him why you are doing it and see if he can step up and do what is right, if he can`t he is useless anyway, over the side he goes.

3a. What if the one person is my father and the five are the people I know are murderers?

3b. Same as above.

3c. If a body will mess up the trolley, wouldn`t something else, like say the switch handle itself work?

I hate questions like this, the word can`t be answered in yes or no questions most of the time.

0
Reply
Female 447
The only one I said yes to was the one in the boat and the first trolley one. NO WAY could I have killed that baby.
0
Reply
Male 106
I couldn`t do it in most of the situations. MAYBE the smothering baby
0
Reply
Female 73
I would do anything to save myself, and I would be slightly less willing to do anything to save others. Does that make me a bad person, or just human?
0
Reply
Male 106
I couldn`t do it in most of the situations. MAYBE the smothering baby
0
Reply
Female 97
Kind of interesting. I didn`t really realize how much not touching a person would change my willingness to kill them off.
0
Reply
Female 1,596
Link: The Morality Quiz [Rate Link] - Five moral-compass situations in which you can see where you compare to others. Or, are you caring or black-hearted?
0
Reply