Since participants should be as un-skewed as I was before taking the test, my remarks regarding it will come after the jump.
That is positively the worst “moral sense” measuring tool I can imagine without involving Nazis or Islam.
I am willing to let the fact that a “Harvard” sponsored test hasn’t been proofread and the word “this” is substituted for “thinks” in one question (I believe it was #5).
What I’m NOT going to forgive is the fact that every single example involved punitive damages, yet the damages would be paid to a general “Government Fund.”
So even when I would have awarded damages, I see no reason for the government to get a nickel because some jackass punched me in the face. I might deserve some money, but every single question ended in the same way–by saying the government would get the money. Where’s the moral sense in that?
And so I vented my moral outrage accordingly: I took the test again. As an
- 100 year old male white non-hispanic
- with a graduate degree
- who works in Administrative support
- in Vatican City
- who spent most of his childhood on Christmas Island
- but identifies most with Turkmenistan
- and speaks Urdu as his native language
And if THAT wasn’t enough, I also lied about the next 3 questions regarding if I’d ever participated or read about the Moral Sense Test, and had I ever taken courses on Moral Philosophy.
I have, and one of the most important lessons is this: take care in the way you phrase your questions or you may not get accurate results.