Liberal/Conservatives Test

[WTF]

http://www.yourmorals.org/

Liberals score higher in the first two catagories and conservatives in the last three.

Take it and see where you stand.

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, that wasn't slanted at all - NOT!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, that wasn't slanted at all - NOT!

What do you mean slanted?

There is no right or wrong.

Liberals score higher on 1 & 2 (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity

Conservatives score higher on 3,4 and 5 (ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity)

All it shows is that Liberals and Conservatives plave different values on different moral traits.

How did you rate?

[CuteOldGuy]

I did the lowest on purity. LOL! Go figure. My highest was harm, but not as high as the liberals. I was lower than both on fairness. Lower than both on loyalty. In between them on authority, and way low on purity.

The questions have nuances that can't be analyzed in an agree/disagree type test. Sounds like it was written by a graduate student.

[I B Hankering]

Fell midway (3.3) between liberals and conservatives on harm and fairness. Scored 'more strongly' than liberals and conservatives on the other three: 4.0 for both loyalty and authority and 3.5 for purity.

[Sensia]

LMAO.. Purity and Authority is like really low on the graph for me..go figure.

[WTF]

If you want a really good understanding of how our brain(s) have evolved , read Shermer's, The Believing Brain.

I know, I know, I tout that book ever chance I get but it is a good one that really tries to speak without bias ... not that we all do not have bias but knowing your bias (and others) is a very useful tool!

[TexTushHog]

Fairly interesting, but also predictable. Authority and purity were both very low, even for a liberal. Fairness, a trait which my profession is very concerned with, was higher, even than the average liberal.

Interesting test, although I thought that I would have scored a bit higher on loyalty. One reason I would guess I did not was the questions were framed as " . . . to your group," " . . . to your family," and neither of those seem to be high loyalty situations to me. To me it would be clients, employers, and ideological causes that I would think one would be most loyal to (outside of immediate family). But because family had no modifier, I took it to mean extended family.

[WTF]

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! That's why we are in the mess we are in. TTH, lawyers should be about JUSTICE, not Fairness! I was a lawyer, too, with an LL.M. in Taxation and a CPA.

I once beat a lawyer in a case when I was prosecuting, very early in my career, and his client got more time than a co-defendant who pled. He shouted at the judge, THAT"S NOT FAIR! The judge gave him a lecture on fairness that you should have heard.

We're not about fairness. You can't enforce fairness.

[TexTushHog]

Justice is fairness and vice versa. Especially procedural fairness.

[CuteOldGuy]

Tell me where justice and fairness are the same thing. That is ridiculous.

[TexTushHog]

In any advanced set of procedural rules, they should be as near the same as humanly possible. That should be the measuring stick of any set of procedural rules. How would you describe a set of procedural rules that were "fair, but not just"? Or "just, but not fair"? Perhaps we have different ideas of the terms. But if you will describe the attributes of those two systems, perhaps I can understand better.

As far as substantively, the obvious place to start would be John Rawls concept of "Justice as Fairness" which was one of the central tenants of his book A Theory of Justice. I'm not sure of the publication date of the book, but it's probably mid to early 1970's. Rawl's book is fairly widely considered to be one of the, if not the most important work of jurisprudence in the second half of the 20th century by many. I studied more as an undergrad in philosophy although we did cover it some when I took a jurisprudence class in law school. It's a pretty dense read, but it's worth the slog if you're interested in that sort of thing. It's very comprehensive and he basically boils it down the a small hand full of principles. It has also been an immensely influential book.

[CuteOldGuy]

I'm a lawyer, too. So don't try to hide behind some fancy words or an intellectual midget like John Rawls. Here, let's start with something easy.

A guy walks into a convenience store. He steals a loaf of bread because his family didn't have any food. What is the "fair" result? What is the "just" result?

[WTF]

The store owner hires him so he does not have to steal to fed his family anymore