MoraI foundations test, by Johnathan Haidt

[Snowygerry]

These "tests" are usually used to determine your political profile, Cambridge Analytica used something similar iirc.

depending on your answers you will probably get different political adds

 

[Tee Kay]

Unlike it seems many of you I don't really struggle with feeling like the questions are loaded or not specific enough. I mean, a lot of them are for sure, but in which case I just answer either slightly agree or slightly disagree depending on which way I lean.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Surprised by the low "fairness" score as I can't think of a question where I championed unfairness, but struggled quite a bit with a number of questions where either a) I had two completely different opinions based on how I interpreted the question, of b) was outright told to conflate two different things about which I have entirely different feelings.

 

[Ronaldo_]

It’s interesting that some are objecting to the drugs/vaccination question, arguing the latter impacts other people; true or not, it is still regulating behavior. I’m pro-compulsory vaccination anyway, but I accept this is probably a ding on the armor of the “liberty” score.

My assumption is the strongly/slightly distinction on the questions is just to weight them on the final scores, but I answered them in how much I agreed or disagreed with the premise.

I agree. The test certainly has flaws but ultimately the point of the drug/vaccination question is whether you believe in bodily autonomy in ABSOLUTE terms rather than relative / case by case terms, which is why I don't personally have a problem with the question the way others do.

 

[Gorbles]

I agree. The test certainly has flaws but ultimately the point of the drug/vaccination question is whether you believe in bodily autonomy in ABSOLUTE terms rather than relative / case by case terms, which is why I don't personally have a problem with the question the way others do.

It's entirely possible to believe in absolute autonomy for personal decisions like drugs. Vaccinations aren't that. Vaccination is a decision that affects the group.

This isn't an appeal to the anecdotal, or to invite flawed comparisons to having to deal with people addicted to drugs, etc. This is a simple factual observation that vaccinating a society is predicated on a group threshold for effectiveness. Taking (any kinds of) drugs isn't the same thing.

 

[Arwon]

Recreational drugs is state preventing/allowing decisions about individual benefits and harms, with individual autonomy about whether people can make individual decisions about their own happiness at the potential expense of personal well-being, with the state policy also threatening individual well-being. While at best there's some claimed, but kinda nebulous group harms.

Vaccines is state mandating group benefits vs very slight individual harm, directly at the expense of individual autonomy. It's just autonomy vs group well-being.

A bunch of different effects relationships there.

For vaccines to be considered similar you would really need to assume:

1. People only or even primarily get vaccines for personal benefit which is broadly false and sometimes entirely so with anyone getting vaccinated for something that only protects others

2. Vaccines carry significant risks of personal harm like many recreational drugs

Like yes there's bodily autonomy in both issues but the policy question approaches them from nearly perpendicular angles. A question that jams them together is going to get many people trying to decide which of directly opposite positions to take on each half of it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Seat belt laws do too, but people get weird about things and start making tortured arguments about ejections and "keeping others safe." Which is nothing short of lulzy. I'm guessing a lot of the morality involved is rationalized "what's in it for me?" and not a whole lot else. The self being king in some predominant worldviews in morality.

But yeah, don't like the vaccine question at all. Too nebulous.

 

[Arwon]

That one is different again, it's a clear cut, literally no individual harm vs obvious individual benefit rather than debatable individual harms and benefits like with recreational drugs. And with essentially no group benefits or harms to impact on either side, unless you count like, the psychic toll of more grisly accident scenes on cops and paramedics.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's authority and not much else. Right?

 

[Samson]

That one is different again, it's a clear cut, literally no individual harm vs obvious individual benefit rather than debatable individual harms and benefits like with recreational drugs. And with essentially no group benefits or harms to impact on either side, unless you count like, the psychic toll of more grisly accident scenes on cops paramedics.

Some here have argued there is a group benefit to not having people throw out of their cars and causing further crashes. There is always some individual harm when you criminalise something that people do.

Oh, and there is the argument that risk compensation means that making people put on their seat belt will make some people drive faster, so increase the group harm.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, especially when you give police power to "I didn't see your belt on, my mistake, but now that we're here, my (minority) citizen..." pull over people for it. It's a straight up authority play. I really don't think there's anything else to it other than, "you should be forced to behave with yourself in a way I see fit." <insert rationalizations>.

A great deal of people prefer thier neighbors infantilized. Stripping an incredibly good decision that's super easy to make routinely from the "acting responsibly for myself when nobody is looking" mental realm to the "obedience and fear of punishment" mental realm is right on the money.

 

[Arwon]

That sounds like an argument for serious police reform more than anything. If you've got cops just roaming the streets in cars just looking for individuals to pull over on extremely minor infractions, you've got too many police and too many cop cars.

 

[Farm Boy]

They were tasked with strict enforcement of "click it or ticket." The bigotry comes with. Reliable as the dawn. Thus it is if not an intended consequence, which i think it is, then it is an acceptable one. Authority.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah that's a very dumb use of resources, especially when you've got a nation full of panicky cops who just shoot people at the drop of a hat. At least put them on speed cameras or random breath testing stops where they're less off the chain and less likely to do violence, if you've gotta make work for them lol.

 

[Ronaldo_]

It's entirely possible to believe in absolute autonomy for personal decisions like drugs. Vaccinations aren't that. Vaccination is a decision that affects the group.

This isn't an appeal to the anecdotal, or to invite flawed comparisons to having to deal with people addicted to drugs, etc. This is a simple factual observation that vaccinating a society is predicated on a group threshold for effectiveness. Taking (any kinds of) drugs isn't the same thing.

It's entirely possible to believe in absolute autonomy for personal decisions like drugs. Vaccinations aren't that. Vaccination is a decision that affects the group.

This isn't an appeal to the anecdotal, or to invite flawed comparisons to having to deal with people addicted to drugs, etc. This is a simple factual observation that vaccinating a society is predicated on a group threshold for effectiveness. Taking (any kinds of) drugs isn't the same thing.

I understand what you mean, but quite frankly the same argument could be made about drugs such as Fentanyl which have a tendency to cause its users to behave more violently towards others.

I would also personally consider it to be more authoritarian for the state to force citizens to consume a drug (vaccine) than it is for citizens to not consume a drug (fentanyl) since the former demands its citizens before an action on behalf of it rather than deferring to inaction.

 

[Gorbles]

I understand what you mean, but quite frankly the same argument could be made about drugs such as Fentanyl which have a tendency to cause its users to behave more violently towards others.

I covered this when I mentioned (imo flawed) comparisons in having to deal with people addicted to drugs. This includes behaviour modification, etc, at the personal scale. This is different from vaccinations which only work for the group if enough of the group is immunised to create herd immunity status. Regardless, Arwon does a better job than I of identifying the tension in the question posed by the test (which avoids us getting bogged down in a tangent, too).

 

[Somebody613]

Some questions are extremely biased and/or clunky, putting entirely unrelated categories into one instance of choosing an approach.
In any case, here's what I got.
Huh? How do you download the image properly?

 

[Synobun]

I understand what you mean, but quite frankly the same argument could be made about drugs such as Fentanyl which have a tendency to cause its users to behave more violently towards others.

That is rather explicitly not the result of fentanyl use. It's the result of withdrawal. Fentanyl is actively used as a sedative in hospitals. It would not be very effective at this task if it turned patients into uncontrollable assailants.

 

[amadeus]

I would say whether we count something as against ”liberty“ (quotes because I’m just going by how I assume the test scores it, don’t read otherwise too much into it) is the proportionality: a vaccine for a disease that spreads to potentially anyone is going to collectively be thought less of an intrusion than one that affects 1 in 10,000. Would that ratio be OK to have a compulsory vaccine program without infringing on one’s liberties?

I think the question is worded well enough. If we are talking about harms, I could well argue that drugs do harm beyond the person using them—if someone becomes lethargic as a result of their use, and a burden to society, am I not harmed in some way? People that advocate prohibition, even that of alcohol, make this argument.

 

[Gorbles]

If we are talking about harms, I could well argue that drugs do harm beyond the person using them—if someone becomes lethargic as a result of their use, and a burden to society, am I not harmed in some way?

The question quite clearly specifying a vaccine mandate, obviously because of Covid. Covid does harm on a scale far beyond individual cases of drug use (even at scale). As has been the case every time we've suffered something that's been classified as a pandemic. The situations are not the same, and thus, the tools are not the same.

Some people may be able to interpret this as a static value of liberty because their interests align in both cases (or due to playing devil's advocate), but that doesn't eliminate the tension. Your attempt to establish consequences beyond the personal for individual drug use is an example of an attempt to eliminate / reconcile said tension. But doing so only proves that it exists. We don't have to do this for the pandemic context, because everyone automatically understands.

The issue isn't that a vaccine mandate can be argued to be negative liberty. The issue is grouping vaccine mandates in with individual drug use. Again, Arwon explained the differences here.