One's morality can be measured in terms of parsimony. One's moral framework can be either more parsimonious or less parsimonious. The variation in parsimony measures how much consideration one would take in making a moral judgement on situations rather than making a broad judgement for everyone, regardless of situation.
Since that was pretty wordy, here's a for instance: Alice steals a loaf of bread from Bob. She gets caught and is brought before a judge. A very parsimonious judge would hear the case's facts: Alice stole from Bob, then sentence her to do two months in jail for "minor theft." Any small or relatively worthless item stolen would also fall under the "minor theft" category, regardless of personal value, and the theft of such would merit the same exact sentence.
And another, from the opposite side of the spectrum: Alice steals a loaf of bread from Bob. She gets caught and brought before a different judge. This judge is not parsimonious, and his decision goes like this: he hears the facts, just like the last judge. This time, however, other factors come into play. Alice is very poor and only stole from Bob because he is a baker and has many loaves to spare. She only needed the one loaf to hold her over, and since it was an act of simple desperation, it isn't likely to happen again. The judge sentences her to spend a week in jail, after having her show him proof that she is getting on her feet soon.
So basically, rigidity versus flexibility. There are arguments for both sides. I found a neat place where you can see where you measure up on this sliding scale:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.php
I thought it would be neat to see where people fell, so feel free to post your results. My Moral Parsimony Score was 41%; I'm more flexible than most.
A place to think, explore, and debate rationally, like the Old Masters of philosophy and art used to do.
My Moral Parsimony Score is 74%
ReplyDeleteMy Score was 39%.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if I agree with the results of the test, though. Not really enough information on any given situation.
Okay, so let's have some situations. When is it right to give your decisions some wiggle room, and when is it right to stay rigid or keep with tradition?
ReplyDeleteOk so I got a 59% moral parsimony, but honestly I don't like that I just had a number attached to my ability to judge independent situations based on a case by case basis. But at the same time I am VERY torn, because once you start down this path, is it not easier to go down it again, in a less worthy circumstance? As for what Cogs has said, it is NEVER right to decide based on tradition. That is how species go extinct, by sticking to tradition. It is ok to consider it in your decision, say if by breaking tradition you will cause civil unrest and risk public outcry.
ReplyDeleteIf then, what Chase says is true, that tradition is how people/species go extinct, why then, have things like religion (especially the oldest ones) been around for so long? Surely we could "shake the tradition?"
ReplyDeleteI disagree with chase. After all, is it not true that species survive based on instincts that have been refined for millennia? Would you not call that tradition? Species have been driven to extinction because of the "rational" mind on man. Certain forms of tradition are far safer than independent thought or "logical" decision making.
ReplyDeleteBtw, my score was 39%
ReplyDeleteis 43% good or bad?
ReplyDeleteMy score was 96
ReplyDelete