Skip to main content

The Moral Matrix

Somebody's finally come up with another way of graphing political / moral tendencies. The Moral Matrix is like other political quizzes that place you on a four quadrant graph according to your views on social and economic issues. This one uses 1) how important you think morality is and 2) how much of your sense of morality is rules based to create the four quadrants. My results did not surprise me, except when it came to John Kerry being a closer match than George Bush. How should I put this? um.... no.... The following items best match your score:

Moderate Conservatism is the variation of Conservatism that balances Conformance and Independence.

People in this category will tend to have balanced opinions about enforcing the moral order (religious conformance, strict family values, lesser freedom of expression, stricter laws...) and about favoring individual initiatives (lower taxes, less corporate and environmental regulations, ...).

  1. System: Conservatism
  2. Variation: Moderate Conservatism
  3. Ideologies: Capital Republicanism
  4. US Parties: Republican Party, Democratic Party
  5. Presidents: Gerald Ford (93.01%)
  6. 2004 Election Candidates: John Kerry (84.38%), George W. Bush (74.81%), Ralph Nader (69.22%)
Avoiding religious terminology, I would describe myself as someone who is mildly libertarian, and who rejects utilitarian ethics. I think right and wrong are real things, not opinions, although I acknowledge they are difficult to discern and the process is a life's work. I also think people have to find these things out for themselves - legitimate legislation and the legitimate use of force are about self and social preservation, not teaching. Tip: Striving Against Opposition, who got it from Ghost of a Flea

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi