Taboo
The aim of this activity is to tell you something about your moral intuitions. It comprises twelve questions. There are a few points to take into account before you start.
1. This activity contains descriptions of a mildly adult nature. If that bothers you, then don't click on the link below.

Link

Hm. It apparently thinks I'm confused because I don't think any of the given scenarios should be punished, yet I find them "a little wrong". Apparently, one is not allowed to personally think something isn't right without thinking there should be punishment for doing it.

Yeah, it thinks I'm messed up also.

Pretty much the same here.

I was rated 'fully permissive'.. I guess I can't really get worked up over what other people do, if they do not hurt anyone doing it.

The text at the end was interesting.

What I got out of it was that I'm the type that thinks people should be able to police themselves on moral issues. I'm not the type to blow the whistle on some guy if he wants to screw dead chickens before eating them, but I think it's kinda wrong for him to do it.

I must be confused too.

If he feeds it to me and I find out about it, he wont need to buy another chicken.

This brings up a pertinent question. Can you even have sex with a frozen chicken? And wouldn't the temperature cause significant shrinkage?

Any I apparently am confused as well but I'm right above the X axis on the far right side of the graph. What ever that means.

Well like Tul I turned out to be "fully permissive." Interesting activity but I am not sure what the point is. Oh well, got to go, defrosting a chicken.

I didn't finish the "test" as I thought the choices of answers was too limited. Morals are not concrete, yes or no answers. There are ALWAYS cercumstances that could sway feelings one way or the other.

Gonna have to chip the ice to get your chicken out of the freezer huh?

But the question is more along the lines: Are you against it if it doesn't hurt anyone?

There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. It is likely that you think that what makes any of these actions morally problematic has to do with God or some other source of morality external to nature, society and human judgement. You indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. There is nothing contradictory then in a claim that the actions depicted in these scenarios are morally problematic.

Sooo - that means 'what' again?

Bottom line it for me, Word Man.

can't take it now-- will try to this evening, but I have to pack for the trip.....

I have a pretty defined idea of what I believe to be right and wrong and there is no waffling on my part, or so it would seem, according to the test. As the above note said, even if no one is hurt and an "act" is done alone, if it is "wrong" then it is wrong (for me and in my opinion.) However, I answered all questions that gave me a choice: if they could be punished, should they be, I said no. People shouldn't be punished just because we don't like their act morally. When it comes right down to it, it is none of our business, if no one is hurt physically, emotionally or psychologically both short and long term.
How's that?

like sodomy

some like it, some dont

yet, because of the bible, the us govt has banned it in many states

morally, i feel that its ok

if some one wants to screw frozen chickens, thats fine too

morals are personal opinions, and should not be used, or forced upon groups as a whole

BUT, if people hurt others, then morals do not come into play, as personal injury or death, is a crime

I am in the smae boat as you t_b. In fact I am guessing we had similiar outcomes on the scoring.

I wasn't too impressed with this test, like AcesHigh said, the answers are too limited and the questions too open ended.