This Hums Blog has been created to support students who are studying History, Geography, General Studies, Law, RE and Sociology at Dixons City Academy and Dixons Allerton Academy.
The results showed that family relatedness had an important impact on my moral decisions and that I am happier to help a member of my own family rather than someone I do not know. I also tend to believe that those who act have a greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act.
The results showed I had a high percentage in the Family Relatedness section meaning I would help someone I know i.e a family member rather than a stranger who I have never met before.
Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
I have a moral Parsimony score of 55% My score suggests that I have used a wider range of moral principles then most. My geographical distance is also lower then average which suggests that distance is less of a problem then the average person. My family relatedness score of a 100% shows that family has no significant workings upon my moral framework. My score on acting and omitting is very low at 17% which suggests those who act have greater moral culpability. My scale score which is significantly lower then average suggests that the number of people affected is an important part of my of moral thought process.
It showed that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking, so i am willing to help people within my family. I also tend to believe that those who act have a slightly greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act.
The results showed that family is an important factor in my moral thinking, feeling a grteater moral obligation to those who are close to me, rather than those who are not. The distinction between acting and omitting to act is sometimes a relevent factor in my moral thinking.
This showed that i had a higher moral obligation to people related to me. Also that geographical distance does not have a large impact on my moral thinking.
The results say that geography has no effect on my moral thinking, family relatedness was a relevant factor at 51%. I gained 67% for acts and omissions. Scale is an important factor in my moral thinking, so how I would act is based on the effect it would cause.
My results show I can employ a wide range of principles which vary according to the circumstances at hand. Family relatedness is a very important factor to my moral thinking, meaning I feel a greater moral obligation towards people I am related to, rather than people I am not.
It stated that my family relatedness is an important factor in my moral thinking, and I have a feeling of a greater obligation to help those related to me, than those I am not.
I tend to think that those who act have a great moral culpability than those who omit.
Geographical Distance only plays a very marginal role in my moral thinking, whereas family relatedness is highly important to the extent that I would feel greater moral obligation towards people who are related to me over those who are not. The distinction between acting and omitting to act holds no real significance. The scale of an incident is very important in my moral thinking.
i got a score of 84% The results showed that i do not have greater moral obligations to family rather than to members of the public. Which suggests that my morals do not differ regarding the type of people whom i come into contact with. Inayah :)
The results showed the impact of family loyalty and suggests that it is low enough to suggest issues. However the higher your percentage score, the more parsimonious moral framework is.
The results showed that family relatedness has a serious impact on my moral impressions. The results also stated I had a more concentrated thought for family then for people I had never met.
I compared the results and they stated that I would face consequences for my actions if I focused mainly on family.
This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
i gained 55% in my moral parsimony score,which is less than the average person. my moral principles vary acording to the situation however family relatedness is an important factor to me .
I gained a moral parsimony score of 63% The results showed i am more likely to help people who are related to me rather than people i have never met before.
The result showed my moral parsimony score to be much higher than average, and I am more likely to help someone if I know them, i.e. a family member as I scored 67% in the family relatedness section.
The scale of the situation is important, as i scored 76% in this category. Another important factor is family relatedness, showing i am more likely to help a family member than someone i do not know.
The scale of the situation is important, as i scored 76% in this category. Another important factor is family relatedness, showing i am more likely to help a family member than someone i do not know.
i gained a moral parsimony score of 53% Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
I gained a moral parsimony score of 53% Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework.In this respect, your score of 86% is significantly higher than the average score of 67%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably smaller range of moral principles than average.
The analysis shows that I scored 100% in the geographical distances, suggesting it doesn't play a role in my moral thinking.In the family relatedness, I scored 67%, which suggests I only have a slightly greater moral obligation towards family members compared to people I am not related to.
32 comments:
I gained a moral parsimony score of 55%
The results showed that family relatedness had an important impact on my moral decisions and that I am happier to help a member of my own family rather than someone I do not know.
I also tend to believe that those who act have a greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act.
Chris Trevelyan.
I am 51% parsimonious
I have a wide range of principles that vary according to the situation.
Family relatedness is important to my morals, I have a greater moral obligation for people who are related to me.
i had 100% in scale showing the scale or number of people has no importance when making moral decisions.
Farzana Jamal =]
My Moral Parsimony Score is 79%
The results showed I had a high percentage in the Family Relatedness section meaning I would help someone I know i.e a family member rather than a stranger who I have never met before.
Anjali.
Your Moral Parsimony Score is 35%
Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
I have a moral Parsimony score of 55%
My score suggests that I have used a wider range of moral principles then most.
My geographical distance is also lower then average which suggests that distance is less of a problem then the average person.
My family relatedness score of a 100% shows that family has no significant workings upon my moral framework.
My score on acting and omitting is very low at 17% which suggests those who act have greater moral culpability.
My scale score which is significantly lower then average suggests that the number of people affected is an important part of my of moral thought process.
Faizal Patel
I gained a moral parsimony score of 65%
It showed that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking, so i am willing to help people within my family. I also tend to believe that those who act have a slightly greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act.
Sumera :)
I gained a moral parsimony score of 67%
The results showed that family is an important factor in my moral thinking, feeling a grteater moral obligation to those who are close to me, rather than those who are not.
The distinction between acting and omitting to act is sometimes a relevent factor in my moral thinking.
i gained a moral persimony score of 75%
apparently i have a parsimonious moral framework
I got a score of 57%
This showed that i had a higher moral obligation to people related to me.
Also that geographical distance does not have a large impact on my moral thinking.
Eleanor Barton
My moral parsimony score is 43%
This showed that family relatedness is a higher moral obligation, and my priciples vary depending on the situation.
Saman Ul-Haq
Moral Parsimony Score is 63%
It showed that geographical distance only plays a marginal role in my moral thinking.
Also I have a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to me than towards those who are not.
Steph Dalby
My Moral Parsimony Score is 61%
The results say that geography has no effect on my moral thinking, family relatedness was a relevant factor at 51%. I gained 67% for acts and omissions. Scale is an important factor in my moral thinking, so how I would act is based on the effect it would cause.
Jenny Barker
My moral parsimony score is 75%
My results show I can employ a wide range of principles which vary according to the circumstances at hand. Family relatedness is a very important factor to my moral thinking, meaning I feel a greater moral obligation towards people I am related to, rather than people I am not.
Hafsah Gull.
I received a moral parsimony score of 55%
It stated that my family relatedness is an important factor in my moral thinking, and I have a feeling of a greater obligation to help those related to me, than those I am not.
I tend to think that those who act have a great moral culpability than those who omit.
Nathan Lightowler
My Moral Parsimony Score is 63%
Geographical Distance only plays a very marginal role in my moral thinking, whereas family relatedness is highly important to the extent that I would feel greater moral obligation towards people who are related to me over those who are not. The distinction between acting and omitting to act holds no real significance. The scale of an incident is very important in my moral thinking.
Megan Whitehead
I am 51% parsimonious. The results showed that i am less parsominous than the average person, which has a score of 67%.
The results also show that family comes into account when making my decisions, as does the scale, and therefore, consequences of my actions
Matthew Waller
I GAINED A MORAL PARSIMONY AT 43%
i got a score of 84%
The results showed that i do not have greater moral obligations to family rather than to members of the public. Which suggests that my morals do not differ regarding the type of people whom i come into contact with.
Inayah :)
My moral parsimony score was 79%
The results showed the impact of family loyalty and suggests that it is low enough to suggest issues. However the higher your percentage score, the more parsimonious moral framework is.
Sidrah Ansari
I gained a moral parsimony score of 39%
The results showed that family relatedness has a serious impact on my moral impressions. The results also stated I had a more concentrated thought for family then for people I had never met.
I compared the results and they stated that I would face consequences for my actions if I focused mainly on family.
Aston Bose
My moral parsimony score is 59%.
This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
Umar
My Moral Parsimony Score is 33%
Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
Grace
i gained 55% in my moral parsimony score,which is less than the average person.
my moral principles vary acording to the situation however family relatedness is an important factor to me
.
Sameera
I gained a moral parsimony score of 63% The results showed i am more likely to help people who are related to me rather than people i have never met before.
Amie Rodgers 13SRA
My Moral Parsimony Score is 71%
The result showed my moral parsimony score to be much higher than average, and I am more likely to help someone if I know them, i.e. a family member as I scored 67% in the family relatedness section.
Emma Stead.
My Moral Parsimony Score is 74%
The scale of the situation is important, as i scored 76% in this category. Another important factor is family relatedness, showing i am more likely to help a family member than someone i do not know.
Matthew Buckingham
My Moral Parsimony Score is 74%
The scale of the situation is important, as i scored 76% in this category. Another important factor is family relatedness, showing i am more likely to help a family member than someone i do not know.
Matthew Buckingham
i gained a moral parsimony score of 53% Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
adam shabir
I gained a moral parsimony score of 53% Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.
adam shabir
My moral parsimony score is 76%
This suggests I have used a small range of moral principles.
Family relatedness is important to my morals, I have a greater moral obligation for people who are related to me.
Saif Modak
As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework.In this respect, your score of 86% is significantly higher than the average score of 67%. This suggests that you have utilised a noticeably smaller range of moral principles than average.
The analysis shows that I scored 100% in the geographical distances, suggesting it doesn't play a role in my moral thinking.In the family relatedness, I scored 67%, which suggests I only have a slightly greater moral obligation towards family members compared to people I am not related to.
Pooja Dhunna
I gained a moral parsimony score of 65%
It showed my brain is affected by online monkeys from demonoid invitations core page
Post a Comment