Splendid!

One fascinating thing to me about the moral spectrum is how it ranges, from right to left, along a clear progresson from tangible to abstract.

"Purity" is a completely tangible value. It is also a completely selfish one -- it is about arranging the world with yourself in the center, into a fashion that pleases you.

Moving along the spectrum, "Authority" is a response to one, more powerful other, the submission to and recognition of, something you cannot control.

Next is "loyalty." This is the first point on the spectrum involving a reciprocal relationship -- loyalty is a two-way relationship, in which both sides give, and a failure on either side is a betrayal.

"Fairness" is more abstract still. Even without some reciprocal loyalty, "fairness" demands that on an abstract level everyone has rights, regardless of how they've earned them through demonstrations of loyalty.

Finally, "Harm" is the most abstract of all. It involves the most use of imagination, applying one's own feelings and emotions upon other living things -- humans, animals, and other entities.

While it is remarkable that conservatives tend to be more balanced in their views toward all five moral points on the spectrum, it is also remarkable that liberals tend to focus more on the abstract points on the spectrum, involving a complex relationship with other beings.

Those who are very high on the "purity" scale, on the other hand, could, based on the above analysis, tend to have a difficult time identifying with other human beings because the self-involved desire to control all, in an arbitrary fashion, is so strong.

Taking the quiz now. Some of the questions are very poorly worded.

"Whether or not someone suffered emotionally": a lot of times thr right thing to do brings anguish, so a 3.

"Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency": another 3; there are times for protocol and times to rip it to shreds.

"Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or vulnerable": this is an easy one, a big flat zero; caring is a subjective attitude, and people do all sorts of wrong stuff out of good intentions.

"Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority": some authority is legit and some ain't, so a 3.

Now for Part 2:

Defenseless animal: I just came back from McDonald's - zero.

Team player vs. expression: depends on the team and the expression; there is no answer to this question - 3.

Men/women's roles: yes, but the gap ain't as big as most societies make it out to be - 4.

Country's history: more positive than negative - 3.

Soldier: assuming the US Army, the same score as the history question - 3.

Unnatural: word is not defined, no possible answer - 0.

Compassion: there are only two answers but the quiz offers six; I think it's really asking you to rank that particular virtue - 3.

Family loyalty: the principle is that one should value another's well-being over that other's desaires, but there is no poassible answer that relays that sentiment - a 2.

Chastity: good grief, don't these people realize that married people exist? Oh, uh, ah, a 3.

Speak out against govt: anyone who reads my blog knows the answer, a big fat honkin ZERO.

Subversive: a lot of subversive stuff is freakin boring - 2.

The body is a temple: let in the Philistines in moderation - a 4.

And now the results...

Harm: 2.4
Fairness: 3.8
Loyalty: 0.9 (even more disloyal then the Left)
Authority: 2.9
Purity: 3.0

I would have scored higher on the "Harm" scale if I hadn't treated "defenseless animal" as a yes/no question.

This quiz is even more useless than the "Political Compass." It does not account for differing concepts on what is fair, harmful, and pure, or what does and does not loyalty, or what forms of authority are legitimate and which are not.