2/18    http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/morality_play.htm
        My score was 51%, meaning I am a moral relativist
        compared to most people. But I already knew that.
        \_ 84%. -- ilyas
           \_ Ah, the truth comes out, Ilya!  Funny, I NEVER would have guessed
              you would have scored so HIGH.  No, you?  NAHHHH.  I got %41 by
              the way, which I guess just proves once again how much of a
              Heathen I am.  --lye
              \_ You are not a heathen, your beliefs are just so much more ...
                 flaccid. -- ilyas
                 \_ Better than my beliefs being rigid.  Natch!  --lye
        \_ 75% -- I'm probably similar to those guys below but I think there
           are some cases of "not helping" people that would be wrong. I think
           the ones where you fail to notify authorities of crimes has some
           element of wrongness. You'd be allowing others to maybe come to
           harm. Ditto the one where you notice a machine will hurt someone.
           Then I allow for the case where if someone was in severe need and
           you could help at almost no effort, then you'd be an asshole not
           to. That's not to say that most street people are really in severe
           need, or that my "little cost" would actually help them. But if
           someone was lying there bleeding and I had a cell phone I think it
           would be wrong not to call the police or something. I guess it's
           hard to separate the moral obligation from the desire. But I look at
           the moral code as what I'd expect from others in my community. So
           I think it's ok to define some minimal level of helping that one
           is obligated to do. (There's also the biblical example where the
           Moses or someone said not to harm non-Jews, but if one was like
           stuck in a well, Jews shouldn't lower a rope (etc.). To me that's
           immoral. Also, seeing someone drop a wallet, I think it's immoral
           to just take it with no effort to return it. Actually though, the
           "helping others" aspect is not what that score measures, but rather
           the degree to which you (don't) vary your principles according to
           various factors such as relatedness.
           \_ never heard of this not lowering rope for non-jew thing.  are
              you sure it's a biblical example.  in fact it's directly
              opposite to what jesus teaches in the parable of the good
              samaritan.
        \_ 92%.  i drew a strong distinction between what i would do and and
           what i am morally obligated to do.
           \_ Can you make sure the answer review at the bottom matches
              what you chose?  92% is the score you get when you close
              your browser, and visit the last .cgi Success page directly.
              The script in this case determines all your answers were the
              first choice for each question.
              \_ i did review the answers, and they were logged correctly.
                 i take moral obligations seriously, and i try to be
                 consistent in their application.  ultimately, i do not
                 believe i have a moral obligation to help others.  if i
                 do help, i do because i wish to and not because i have to.
                 \_ Same theme for me.  Not sure why there is a discrepancy
                    between our scores.  I think maybe they vary the questions
                    a little between each run.  -- ilyas
                    \_ to be honest, i don't even know why i was docked
                       the 8%.  i thought i was quite perfectly consistent.
              \_ obtw, i did not choose the first alternative for all my
                 answers.  so it is quite possible to answer 'no' quite
                 often and still get a 92%.
        \_ 55%, though the interesting thing I found was that I am apparently
           a traitor to my gender. -- ulysses
        \_ 69%
           \_ That means you're orally relative.
                   \- that's pretty funny. not as good as "moaning
                      becomes elektra" but pretty funny. 46% btw. --psb
        \_ The questions are stupid.  As christians, we are obliged to
           help those in need.  However, we also need to know our abilities
           and where they are most useful and most in need, and allocate
           our resources accordingly.  We sometimes are also obliged to
           stop evil things from continuing.  The above two principles
           should be enough for all those silly questions.
           \_ Here is what bothers me about Christians.  Given their belief
              system, unless you go off like the hardcore medieval saints
              like St. Francis, you are basically a hypocrite.  I wouldn't
              be able to live with myself as a Christian, I would either
              rethink my beliefs or give away all possessions and go help
              lepers somewhere.  If I couldn't do that, I wouldn't really
              call myself a Christian.  -- ilyas
              \_ You don't need to go back to medieval times, there are
                 many doing it this very day and age.  However, to answer
                 your question, yes, Christians should not live extra-
                 vagantly.  However, helping those in need is an ongoing
                 life-long thing.  Do make sure you can take care of the
                 needs of your wife and kids, and that they are not
                 starving or dropping out of school or becoming drug
                 addicts.  Otherwise, you would need others to take care
                 of you instead of you taking care of others.  That would
                 not do anyone good.  However, yes, Christians should
                 always place the Lord above worldly possessions.  If one
                 day the Lord says to give away all your possesions to
                 the poor and follow the Lord, one should be ready to do
                 it.  I am not saying it's easy, and many Christians will
                 not be able to do it, but it is what one should strive
                 for.
                 \_ I don't have the will to be a Christian.  I would rather
                    be a good agnostic than a bad Christian.  -- ilyas
                    \_ That's your choice.  But even for Christians it's
                       not through the power of will, but through
                       salvation and becoming one with Christ.  It should
                       be full of joy!
                       \_ God won't kill your dragons for you.  -- ilyas
                          \_ Yes he does.  Being a good agnostic, on
                             the other hand, is a difficult job.
                             \_ I think we have some fundamental differences
                                on the nature of God.  As the old russian
                                seminary school joke goes "even God cannot
                                beat an ace with a deuce."  Similarly,
                                God can't beat a dunce into an ace. -- ilyas
                                \_ no, God cannot beat an ace with
                                   deuce, but he keeps getting aces last time
                                   I tried playing poker with him.  and yes,
                                   he unceasingly beat dunces into aces too,
                                   through christ.