You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. However, to the extent that you do, it is a moot point how you might justify it. You don't think that an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. Yet the actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. Possibly an argument could be made that the people undertaking these actions are harmed in some way by them. But you don't think that an act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So even this doesn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios wrong in terms of your moral outlook. It is a bit of a puzzle!

That's me. I just wish that there were in fact things we could do which harmed no-one.

Who are you talking to? Who sees very little wrong in the actions depicted? He posted a link, said it was fun... I don't see where anybody said anything about their moral outlook, or what their test results were. Where is this coming from? It's a bit of a puzzle! But that's just me.

This was what the 'taboo' link told me about myself. I'm not convinced that I need a website to tell me how my moral compass deviates, but it is more or less traditional to post the results when a blogger directs his readers to such a site sir.

Ahhh... OK, I get it. Sorry, I thought you were criticizing someone and didn't know why. I would have expected quotation marks around it, but since I did the test I should have figured out the way they word things. Also the "That's me" statement should have tipped me off. Now that I re-read it, it's really obvious. Please accept my apologies. Also, I agree, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but it did kill some unwanted downtime so I don't mind...

BTW, I'm not a guy, but if I was one, I wouldn't ask to be addressed by 'sir' anyway. ;-)

Not at all miss. I shall use quote marks or html in future, and no-one should have to ask to be addressed politely, it is due implicitly as far as I am concerned, my bank manager is 'sir' and so is my dustman.

Alchemist

it seems you have responded to the Taboo sights assessment of your answers. You said, "I just wish that there were in fact things we could do which harmed no-one." It would be interesting to know which of the scenarios you found to be harmful and what way you thought they were, just as the assessment suggests.

Also you still haven't answered why you said some of the scenarios were wrong in light of the fact that you said on the survey that you don't think an act can be wrong solely because it is harmful to the person undertaking it. Either you need to change your view on this or add a reason in addition to there being harm for the person undertaking the act.

In order to make your answers coherent you would have to answer these questions or rethink your answers and change them. I am sure many people answered the survey in a similar way as you did. One point to be gleaned from it is that things we find disgusting aren't necessarily morally wrong and we should be on our guard about this in making moral judgments.

Chris, you have apoint, particulalry when you said 'things we find disgusting aren't necessarily morally wrong and we should be on our guard about this in making moral judgments.'

Most of the questions on the taboo test make it clear that for the purposes of the test we can be assured that the given activity will cause no harm. We can never be sure in real life, indeed usualy we can take it as read that whatever we do causes harm to someone. To my mind a man (or woman, but I tend to say 'a man' meaning anyone) canm do whatever he wishes to himself, provided he harms no-one else. Unfortunately, everything he does can possibly harm another, and probably will. Therefore some degree of relaxation is required to make my view practical. It's unfortunate.

Chris, you have apoint, particulalry when you said 'things we find disgusting aren't necessarily morally wrong and we should be on our guard about this in making moral judgments.'

Most of the questions on the taboo test make it clear that for the purposes of the test we can be assured that the given activity will cause no harm. We can never be sure in real life, indeed usualy we can take it as read that whatever we do causes harm to someone. To my mind a man (or woman, but I tend to say 'a man' meaning anyone) canm do whatever he wishes to himself, provided he harms no-one else. Unfortunately, everything he does can possibly harm another, and probably will. Therefore some degree of relaxation is required to make my view practical. It's unfortunate.