100% consistent. I'd rather not post how exactly I answered, because I see major shitstorm potential here and I don't want to get involved if one happens.

Also I think the torture question somewhat compromises the whole set. There is little to no evidence that torture is an effective means of gaining information, while there is evidence that torture increases the likelihood of gaining false information. The question specified a greater than even chance of getting correct information, which is an inaccurate representation of torture. If the question wanted to accurately model peoples' responses to torture, it needed to give them complete, accurate information.

Any information gathered from the torture question is meaningless. It only tests the individual's opinion on a misguided, incorrect notion of torture. If the people taking the test had complete, accurate information, I suspect the results for that question would be greatly different.

Also yes I'm aware that I pretty much just posted a shitstorm bait post when I said before that I wanted to avoid a shitstorm, but when I wrote the above I did it with a conscious aim to be objective about the issue and not put my own opinions into it.

I got 100% too. The only differences I had from yours was that I said that torture is always wrong, and not to torture the saboteur. I found the objection the site raised about that to be questionable, since the claim was that "if it is possible to save the lives of innocent people without reducing the sum total of human happiness, and without putting your own life at risk, then there is a moral obligation to do so." But it only raised the point that it's possible to argue that torturing the fat man is justified in this case, when one could also make the argument that the act of torture is "reducing the sum total of human happiness" as well, in a stronger manner than a near-instant and near-painless death (e.g. pushing the saboteur) would offer.

>>266509
Agreed. Because in the real world there's no evidence of torture being effective, to have the reader make the decision (based on their real-world understanding of it) and then later on to set up a situation that very strongly makes an assumption about how well it works, is a poor way of setting up the question. It would have been much better if the quiz initially offered that "75% success rate" assumption as part of the question on whether torture is always morally wrong.

Morals and ethics cannot be summarized in a flow chart.
fffffffffffffff

This doesn't measure whether or not you are moral, it only measures whether or not you are consistent in your beliefs vs. your actions.

>>266513
I'm not really a "pro-torture" person, I just don't think it's objectively wrong.

These hypotheticals are such bullshit

>If the fat man is tortured, then there is a 75% chance that he will give up the bomb’s location.

In a real situation there is absolutely no way you could possibly know that torturing would increase your chances of him spilling the beans.

The way it words the questions is misleading. Expressing a value as "the sum total of human happiness", rather than "loss of innocent life".

Changing the direction of the track was unavoidable
Throwing the fat man off was avoidable

Gaping holes all over this test

I say waterboard the fucker with lemonade, mentos and soda if peoples lives are immediately at stake and other methods fail to work. When time is of the essence, all bets are /off/.

>>266522
Yeah, the distinction they're trying to make is "wrong to cause another person's death" vs "wrong to cause death." By flipping the switch one is causing the death of the person on the siding, and technically it's avoidable because the other five people could die instead with no "causing" on your part. For all the gaping holes in the test I wouldn't consider this one of them, unless one views not diverting the train as causing the death of the five by taking an action through inaction.

this test is beyond retarded.

If you believe stealing is wrong and then you go out and steal, that doesn't mean you are morally inconsistent, it just means you did something you think is wrong.

Also; there is no way in hell
A) Pushing the fat man on the tracks would stop the fucking train.
B) You would ever know if there really was a 75% chance that torture would have him reveal the answer

Of course what do you expect from a stupid fucking internet survey. Can't take this shit seriously.

Thanks for wasting my time Sogeking.

>>266533
But then I would have killed five people through inaction because I answered yes for question 4

Either way you're fucked, and the questions are set up that way

>>266533
>unless one views not diverting the train as causing the death of the five by taking an action through inaction.

Exactly. Choosing not to act when you have the means to is a choice. For all we know the other guy could trip and fall and bust open his head and die if you choose to not divert the train. He could easily die with no "causing" on your part.

Wow it sure is PHI1000 bullshit in this test!

Something a little more thought out but different.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

Look out for the faith versus rationality questions.

One can argue that rational Scientific belief hinges on faith that beliefs are justified by the difficulty of them to be disproven.. Semantics are poopy like that.

>>266541
Q: People who add trick questions to tests in order to feel smug when they have no choice but to answer wrong should be tortured by a fat man.

A:
1.) Yes 2.) No 3.) Fish flavored dirt.

>>266548
There aren't any trick questions. I was just warning you that you need to be strict with your responses insofar as recognizing what the author thinks are opposing ideas. Reason vs faith should be a clear dichotomy unless you make it confusing for yourself by focusing on the gray areas.

I've seen this before. It's a completely Bullshit test.

>>266534
In other variants of this question I've seen, the idea is that the conductor doesn't notice the people on the track and the other man's body is the only way you can get his attention so he can put on the brakes.

>Reason vs faith should be a clear dichotomy

>>266572
You haven't really read what I've been saying at all have you?

Reason requires faith and one can apply reason to things that are supported by faith blah blah. thanks for missing my point. Like I said, author's simplified semantics, not mine.

>>Your moral consistency score is 100% (higher is better) Well done. This score suggests that you are admirably consistent in the way you view morality. In fact, none of the people who have completed this activity demonstrate greater moral consistency in their responses than you manage. But don't feel too pleased with yourself. Most people don't think about morality very clearly!

No one? Really? Shenanigans on that, I say.

>only 70% of people are more consistent
>only

I don't like this test. Its too narrow minded. I wouldn't choose one man or five men, id try to switch the track right when the train arrived so it jumped the tracks and ran aground avoiding everyone. Or more likely id scream and run and likely die in the process trying to get to whoever was on the track in the way of the train to save them. I don't know how to operate train tracks in the first place, so switching it wouldn't cross my mind even.

I wouldnt push the fat man because that's murder, I couldn't justify doing that. It also would never cross my mind, that's entirely on the test. It may cross my mind to jump in front of the train myself if I thought it would help.

And the test assumed I thought it was morally sound to torture the fatman. I never claimed that. You can do things you know are wrong. Id claim it was justified to save people but id never claim it was right.

This test is stupid.

Also, one common response I've seen to the train problem is "throw yourself off the tracks," mostly from people who prefer to save five people over one but don't want to commit murder to do it.

>My face when all of plus4chan is angered by first day Ethics 101 questions.

It's not meant to provide a logical real-world situation. It just demonstrates a common logical fallacy. All this "durr how can a fat man stop a train" or "I'd get it to jump the tracks!" or "How can I get information with torture" stuff avoids the true meaning of the test.

Then again, with all this anger, I guess the real truth is that the test called you out on some logical fallacy you held as truth. Fine by me, I guess. 75% of all people seem willing to kill an innocent fat man.

>>266604
I see maybe four people who can be called annoyed, and nobody in this thread is outright angry.

>>266604
Just for the record, I never voted to kill the fat man.

I've seen these tests before. I've never liked them.

>>266604
The logical fallacy is to put you in a situation where you have to kill one man or five men and then call you inconsistent for killing one man when his death was unavoidable

>>266605

Chev, you know better than to bring "logic" or "facts" into an argument with Moe, King of the Tripfags.

>>266607
It wasn't avoidable. You could have just not killed him.

I have no problem doing morally unsound actions for the greater good. Especially if it means other people won't have to. This test can go suck a cock.

>>266616
Pretty sure that's not how it works.

>>266620
You are wrong, therefore you must be killed.

>In fact, none of the people who have completed this activity demonstrate greater moral consistency in their responses than you manage.

That's because the majority of people are filthy hippocrites.

>Most people don't think about morality very clearly!

That's because there is no such thing as good or evil, only action and reaction, cause and effect. The determination of ones actions originally evolved to ensure the survival of a group as a whole. Morality is a concept partially based on that notion but heavily tainted by religion.

>This test

Is a joke about fat people

>>266663
The scenarios in this "test" are also stupid. There is no way a human body, no matter how fat, would stop a train. At most, it would derail but still continue for a long distance until it would come to a stop. Furthermore, torture is a very ineffective way to extract information. Even the military knows this, but they do it anyway.

Sorry for the shitstom, but this thread raised my rage meter to moderate. I was brought up in a class full of atheistic and rational thinking people. I remember us tormenting our ethics teacher to the point where, after two years, he resigned and entered a cloister.
I am not an atheist though.

>>266604
My problem with this isn't the implausibility of the situation, but that it relies on certain presumptions about your philosophy, and then if you don't comform to those presumptions, it then declares you're morally inconsistant.
For example, "What Makes Most People Happy isn't always right". If you say yes to this, it assumes you're a utilitarian, and not a very good one at that, if you say no to this, it assumes you assume the inherent nature of actions causes their morality. If you happen to agreee with those statements, without believing in either of those, you're "Morally inconsistant".
But most importantly (because), it assumes that any action chosen by you, you consider to be moral. It fails to consider the possibility that there is no ethical option in some of the scenarios given.

>>266687

I don't need no test to tell me about my morals. I've studied Business, Political Science, and the Law, the unholy trinity, and I did it for the money. I know my morals are fucked. The fact that I don't stab you in the back while robbing you right now means I'm acting more moral than 70% of my peers.