If I were really to dissect the quiz, yes, of course, it is fallible and shallow. I chose the test because in the elitist quiz some people did not like to be labeled and this test makes no judgement. As they stated, is moral parsimony bad or good, and there are many arguments in favor of a high moral parsimony.
To address two questions on the quiz, turning one's brother in if he had seriously injured someone and would I be less likely to donate to Australia or the US or...then I would to donate to India in case of disaster.
I chose to turn my brother in, and my reasoning was two-fold. One, if it is simply a matter a serious injury, then it is better to engage the justice system in an offensive manner than a defensive manner. Since the scenario was vague, I also assumed a situation where my brother (all apologies to my brother) committed a heinous act that I could not in good conscience support. I am strongly tied to my family but there are theorectical situations which could cause the relationship to be severed. I would expect no less from them.
The other question had to do with whether I would donate to India in a disaster. I said yes. In the addendum to the question they asked if I would donate if the country was Australia and I forget their reasoning for the decline in the support which they said occurred when they substituted a richer country.
Again, a vague scenario. This was my reasoning, if it was disaster along the lines of the recent tsunami, I would donate to any country(ies). There are few countries, if any, who could handle such a disaster. If it was a similiar disaster to the US's recent spate of hurricanes in Florida, I would not donate. The reason I would not donate is that I believe (rightly or wrongly) that Australia has a well-developed social assistance program and tragic as the event maybe, they are capable of handling the situation. I would have no problem with governments sending assistance in equipment, search and rescue, etc. but I would not feel personally motivated to provide monetary assistance.
As to Cyber's belief that one should assist locally first, in many ways I agree. Forinstance, adoption, we have many children in this country who need good homes and I do feel that these American children should be provided with good homes before adopting another nation's children. A reason for many of these foriegn adoptions is the desire to procure a baby, and in the American system there a few babies available, many children and adolescents with possible severe emotional and behavioural problems. On the other hand, there are many countries with no developed social emergency structures, and again, that motivates me to help those countries (in my insignificant way) than my own country which has an imperfect yet well-developed system. However, I have not adopted a child nor plan to in the future, I would perhaps consider fostering a child at some point. My hesitation comes from the knowledge that many of these children are dysfunctional and I would not want what is dear to me possibly injured.
Which to my mind brings up a potentially interesting point. What constrains me (to some extent) in my life is potetial injury or hurt that I could bring to my loved ones as opposed to what I might do if I were unattached, not just single, but had no blood relatives and other ties.
As to my quiz scores, I no longer remember my elitist results, or the full morality play score, but in the sins of omission section, I had a score in the nineties. As to the smallest, I could'nt make up my mind between moral persuasion or arming the workers.
