Moral Alignment Test

[Flexacon]

Seen this online test doing the rounds and for such a quick and easy test it seems pretty accurate.

https://www.idrlabs.com/moral-alignment/test.php

If you want to share your results right click to copy image




Chaotic Evil

People who are Chaotic Evil are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. In their view, the strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When Chaotic Evil personalities band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate but rather to oppose their mutual enemies. Such a group can, as a rule, only be held together by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness, or by anyone who can scheme to take his position away.

[NoPEDsNoBB]

Well you suck.







Not sure how I got close to the "Lawful" area though (when I went full-disagree-other-way whatever that main law-related question was).

[BB]

.

True Neutral
True Neutral people believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. True Neutral individuals do their best to avoid siding too strongly with any one force, whether that force is good or evil, lawful or chaotic. For this reason, True Neutral personalities sometimes find themselves drawn into rather peculiar alliances, friendships, and life paths. To a great extent, they side with the underdog, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. Such people often see good, evil, chaos, and laws as simply prejudices that lead to dangerous extremes. Like the Taoist masters of ancient China, they tend to believe that the universe functions best when the light and the dark, the yin and the yang, are in balance.

[Mayday]

Flex you Evil Cnt lol 😂


I came out smack bang in the middle which is what I figured would happen.

Neutral is good because you get to play both areas for advantage which means it has the most opportunity 

[TheGrinch]

[beakdoctor]

Lawful Good
People who are Lawful Good believe that an orderly, strong society with a moral government can work to make life better for the great majority of the people. When the laws are fair and the people respect them and try to help one another, humanity as a whole prospers. Therefore, people who are Lawful Good strive for a social order that will bring the greatest benefit to everyone and cause the least harm. Lawful Good personalities may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey the law or do good when the two conflict. For example, when upholding the law of the land would lead to unfairness or harm or when there is a conflict between two orders of what is right, such as between the ways of their community and the law of the government.

[Matt]

Cool test.

I don't know what to make of it. The writeup applies to me, I think.

To be clear - I care about my friends. I can't say I care about some random homeless person. Mainly because in my experience, they did that to themselves, by not getting a grip on their drug or alcohol consumption, or by burning bridges with family and everyone else.

Even among my friends, I demand they want to help themselves before I help them.

As for me being "lawful", lol.

I follow laws that impact others.

If I wanted to smoke crack all night and destroy myself in the process, that's my business.

I wouldn't do that - but my point is: the law wouldn't be a concern.

Only laws protecting the privacy, property, or physical well-being of otherw, I will follow. I may follow other laws I don't care about - but only because [as per the above example], I don't smoke crack.

Example:

Buying steroids in Canada is illegal.

That wouldn't stop me from buying them.

So how does that make me "lawful"? Lol.

[Tapeworm]

Oh cool a thing with lots of pretty colors and graphs asking me to reveal a bunch of personal shit. Nothing to think twice about there.

Lol you fucking morons. Ask someone to turn on parental safety mode for you.

[wes]

They say this cat wes is a bad motherf...............HU SH YOUR MOUTH !!!!!


^^^^I`m  dating my old ass self again....no one will know what I`m talking about unless they know the "Theme From Shaft" by Isaac Hayes.

[falco]

[Tapeworm]

If there's a bad law then you can be lawful or you can be good but you can't be both.

In b4 "if it isn't good then it isn't really a law."

[Tapeworm]

If there's a good law then you can't be lawful evil.

If you're chotic then you can't be obligated to be the opposite of lawful because an obligation makes you non-chaotic. If you have to break every law then you're predictable. That's not chaotic. So you're the same as neutral, who can do anything, which is more chaotic than being the obligated opposite of lawful.

Is strangling Baby Hitler evil or good?

Is death sentencing a murderer evil or good? What he has the cure for cancer?

Is it worse to eat animals or people? What if I eat a guy who would have eaten 10,000 animals? What if I eat a guy who would have eaten 10,000 people?

Should you eat Hitler if he could have ended cannibalism?

[IroNat]

I  scored as a Lawful Neutral.

[delon]

If there's a good law then you can't be lawful evil.

If you're chotic then you can't be obligated to be the opposite of lawful because an obligation makes you non-chaotic. If you have to break every law then you're predictable. That's not chaotic. So you're the same as neutral, who can do anything, which is more chaotic than being the obligated opposite of lawful.

Is strangling Baby Hitler evil or good?

Is death sentencing a murderer evil or good? What he has the cure for cancer?

Is it worse to eat animals or people? What if I eat a guy who would have eaten 10,000 animals? What if I eat a guy who would have eaten 10,000 people?

Should you eat Hitler if he could have ended cannibalism?

Basically Utiliarianism vs Deontology

Tough one

[Wiggs]

.

[Tapeworm]

Basically Utiliarianism vs Deontology

Tough one

Weinstein just on Rogan vexed me some with his retelling of Johnson's refutation of Berkeley. "That guy who kicked the rock to prove the other guy wrong." Goddamnit Brett you're on fucking JRE.

What's your take on this whole internet thing? Greatest human advancement since the plow, instrument of comtol, or just a bunch of yapping bozos not worth a discussion?

[NoPEDsNoBB]

Oh cool a thing with lots of pretty colors and graphs asking me to reveal a bunch of personal shit. Nothing to think twice about there.

Lol you fucking morons. Ask someone to turn on parental safety mode for you.

If there's a bad law then you can be lawful or you can be good but you can't be both.

In b4 "if it isn't good then it isn't really a law."

If there's a good law then you can't be lawful evil.

If you're chotic then you can't be obligated to be the opposite of lawful because an obligation makes you non-chaotic. If you have to break every law then you're predictable. That's not chaotic. So you're the same as neutral, who can do anything, which is more chaotic than being the obligated opposite of lawful.

Is strangling Baby Hitler evil or good?

Is death sentencing a murderer evil or good? What he has the cure for cancer?

Is it worse to eat animals or people? What if I eat a guy who would have eaten 10,000 animals? What if I eat a guy who would have eaten 10,000 people?

Should you eat Hitler if he could have ended cannibalism?

[Flexacon]

Well you suck.

Brutal, but true. Fortunately I've known this for a long time so know when to pull back so I don't go full retard.

Flex you Evil Cnt lol 😂


I came out smack bang in the middle which is what I figured would happen.

Neutral is good because you get to play both areas for advantage which means it has the most opportunity 

Being able to play all sides is definitely ideal. If I have to do things that take out of my comfort zone I'll either walk away from it or just burn everything down. Definitely not ideal

[Flexacon]

If there's a good law then you can't be lawful evil.

If you're chotic then you can't be obligated to be the opposite of lawful because an obligation makes you non-chaotic. If you have to break every law then you're predictable. That's not chaotic. So you're the same as neutral, who can do anything, which is more chaotic than being the obligated opposite of lawful.

Is strangling Baby Hitler evil or good?

Is death sentencing a murderer evil or good? What he has the cure for cancer?

Is it worse to eat animals or people? What if I eat a guy who would have eaten 10,000 animals? What if I eat a guy who would have eaten 10,000 people?

Should you eat Hitler if he could have ended cannibalism?

I tend not to see it as good vs evil. I see it more as risk and reward.

Is strangling Baby Hitler evil or good? Assuming I believe Hitler to be evil, I'd strangle baby Hitler only if I knew there would be no repercussions for me. No jail time etc. Ideally there'd be some kinda reward. A lifetime tax on all the Jews I saved  and their future progeny

Is death sentencing a murderer evil or good? What he has the cure for cancer? Do I have cancer? Is cancer one of the biggest killer of the elderly? Do we need a bigger elderly population? Cancer is a painful way to RIP and I don't want to experience it. If I can eliminate that risk then great. For that reason I'd be against the death penalty for this particular individual even if say he killed my mother. We can go 50/50 on the profits of his cure 

[joswift]

stupid fucking questions

How the fuck do you know how other people feel about you?

[wes]

stupid fucking questions

How the fuck do you know how other people feel about you?

Hanky knows how we feel about him. 

[joswift]

Hanky knows how we feel about him. 

I really dont think he does...

[delon]

Weinstein just on Rogan vexed me some with his retelling of Johnson's refutation of Berkeley. "That guy who kicked the rock to prove the other guy wrong." Goddamnit Brett you're on fucking JRE.

What's your take on this whole internet thing? Greatest human advancement since the plow, instrument of comtol, or just a bunch of yapping bozos not worth a discussion?

If I had an overriding philosophy /outlook (I don't really tbh)I i would say it's that more often than not the best or most correct solution is somewhere away from the extremes and more towards the middle

So re: internet I don't personally think it's either of the above in a binary sense, it's both and neither and ultimately the whole witches brew and ebbs & flows resulting in it landing somewhere inbetween. Humans are still gonna human no matter what platform they do it on and how they do so, and the same basic drivers aren't going to change 

And in a similar sense, decision making, while having a basic framework, should be bespoke and evidence based.  Philosophies are fun but need to be a guide and caddy rather than determinant

AI is the real moral dilemma shaping up on the horizon, Larry summers called it the fire and wheel in its consequences, HUGE basically. And part of that - to my point a couple of paragraphs above - is that it literally takes humans out of the equation, a truly massive unprecedented paradigm shift

Not an exciting clickbait answer to your question i know, but it fits my worldview and has got me through to-date

[Grape Ape]

Cool test.

I don't know what to make of it. The writeup applies to me, I think.

To be clear - I care about my friends. I can't say I care about some random homeless person. Mainly because in my experience, they did that to themselves, by not getting a grip on their drug or alcohol consumption, or by burning bridges with family and everyone else.

Even among my friends, I demand they want to help themselves before I help them.

As for me being "lawful", lol.

I follow laws that impact others.

If I wanted to smoke crack all night and destroy myself in the process, that's my business.

I wouldn't do that - but my point is: the law wouldn't be a concern.

Only laws protecting the privacy, property, or physical well-being of otherw, I will follow. I may follow other laws I don't care about - but only because [as per the above example], I don't smoke crack.

Example:

Buying steroids in Canada is illegal.

That wouldn't stop me from buying them.

So how does that make me "lawful"? Lol.

Didn't read write up, but chart seems accurate

[Griffith]

Chaotic Neutral.

You are 26.7% evil, 47.5% chaotic, making you chaotic neutral.

Chaotic Neutral people believe that there ultimately is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as their guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever their fancy tells them to. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic Neutral people are often extremely difficult to deal with. Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Chaotic Neutral individuals are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others, but if they join a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with their own at the moment. They resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of their personal goals. Yet their methods of achieving their goals are often disorganized, unorthodox, and almost entirely unpredictable.