.: ShaolinTiger - Kung-Fu Geekery :.

Long time since I've done one of these, quite interesting though.

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 61%

What does this mean?

Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.

How to interpret your score

The higher your percentage score the more parsimonious your moral framework. In other words, a high score is suggestive of a moral framework that comprises a minimal number of moral principles that apply across a range of circumstances and acts. What is a high score? As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework. However, perhaps a better way to think about this is to see how your score compares to other people's scores.
In fact, your score of 61% is not significantly different than the average score of 65%. This suggests that you have utilised an average number of moral principles in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have tended to judge similar aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant as other people.

Moral Parsimony - good or bad?

We make no judgement about whether moral parsimony is a good or bad thing. Some people will think that on balance it is a good thing and that we should strive to minimise the number of moral principles that form our moral frameworks. Others will suspect that moral parsimony is likely to render moral frameworks simplistic and that an overly parsimonious moral framework will leave us unable to deal with the complexity of real circumstances and acts. We'll leave it up to you to decide who is right.

How was your score calculated?

Your score was calculated by combining and averaging your scores in the four categories that appear below.

Geographical Distance

This category has to do with the impact of geographical distance on the application of moral principles. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied equally when dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in their geographical location in relation to the person making the judgement.

Your score of 51% is significantly lower than the average score of 73% in this category.

This suggests that geographical distance is a relevant factor in your moral thinking. Usually, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people located nearby than towards those who are far away. To incorporate geographical distance within your moral framework as a morally relevant factor is to decrease its parsimoniousness.

Family Relatedness

In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement.

Your score of 67% is a bit higher than the average score of 54% in this category.

But nevertheless, it is low enough to suggest that issues of family relatedness are still significant in your moral thinking. Probably, you think that you have a slightly greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. If you do think that, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

Acts and Omissions

This category has to do with whether there is a difference between the moral status of acting and omitting to act where the consequences are the same in both instances. Consider the following example. Let's assume that on the whole it is a bad thing if a person is poisoned whilst drinking a cola drink. One might then ask whether there is a moral difference between poisoning the coke, on the one hand (an act), and failing to prevent a person from drinking a coke someone else has poisoned, when in a position to do so, on the other (an omission). In this category then, the idea is to determine if moral principles are applied equally when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in whether the participants have acted or omitted to act.

Your score of 51% is a little lower than the average score of 60% in this category.

This suggests that the distinction between acting and omitting to act is sometimes a relevant factor in your moral thinking. Probably, you tend to believe that those who act have a greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. If this is what you believe, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

Scale

This category has to do with whether scale is a factor in making moral judgements. A simple example will make this clear. Consider a situation where it is possible to save ten lives by sacrificing one life. Is there a moral difference between this choice and one where the numbers of lives involved are different but proportional - for example, saving 100 lives by sacrificing ten? In this category then, the idea is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in their scale, as in the sense described above.

Your score of 76% is not significantly different to the average score of 73% in this category.

Nevertheless, you have scored highly in this category, which suggests that scale, as it is described above, is not a particularly important consideration in your moral worldview. To the extent that it is important, it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

You can take the Morality Quiz here.

If you went to the parking machine with your ticket to pay the parking fee (Which happens to be a fairly hefty RM12) and you find a ticket in the machine already paid.

Morality..

Do you?

a) Look around, take the paid ticket, ditch your unpaid ticket and exit the carpark?

b) Hang around for a while with the paid ticket to see if anyone comes back so you can give it back to them?

c) Hang onto the ticket whilst you pay for yours incase they come back then stick it on top of the machine or back in the slot and bugger off?

d) Pay your ticket and hand the 'lost' ticket into the management office so the poor bugger doesn't get fined?

e) Something else, please elaborate.

Which did I do, and more importantly, which would you do?

Now this is an interesting moral issue indeed, having previously discussed morality briefly, with the issue of Universal Morality (does it exist?) lets have a look at this.

Wired is reporting that a lot of medical research firms are using India's poor as a hot test bed.

From the article:

The sudden influx of drug companies to India resembles the gold rush frontier, according to Sean Philpott, managing editor of The American Journal of Bioethics.

'Not only are research costs low, but there is a skilled work force to conduct the trials,' he said. In the rush to reap profits, Philpott cautions that drug companies may not be sensitive to how poverty can undermine the spirit of informed consent. 'Individuals who participate in Indian clinical trials usually won't be educated. Offering $100 may be undue enticement; they may not even realize that they are being coerced,' he said.

By 2010, total spending on outsourcing clinical trials to India could top $2 billion, according to Ashish Singh, vice president of Bain & Co., a consulting firm that reports on the health-care industry.

Regardless of where clinical trials are performed, the FDA requires the same evidence showing that a drug is safe and effective before it will approve any drug, according to a written comment from Ken Johnson, senior vice president of The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation.

So is this legal, or ethical?

You can look at it from various perspectives..

Are the big companies exploiting the poor by moving to a country with a weaker economy and offering less incentive for testing?

Do these uneducated people really comprehend the risks they are taking during clinical trials?

I know in Europe it's quite common for students to do drug testing and it pays a lot, according to the risk and duration. I never considered it though, I mean just because it works as intended on a rat, who knows what it's going to do to me.

Nevertheless, even before the anti-generic rules were enacted, companies performing clinical trials in India saw their share of problems. In 2004, two India-based pharmaceutical companies, Shantha Biotech in Hyderabad and Biocon in Bangalore, came under scrutiny for conducting illegal clinical trials that led to eight deaths.

I would imagine the insurance costs for such trials in Europe are MUCH higher aswell, perhaps they don't even bother insuring the atendees in India as their lives are worth less?

"Third World lives are worth much less than the European lives. That is what colonialism was all about," said Srirupa Prasad, a visiting assistant professor of medical history and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

This seems to be a fact.

Or are they just saving costs to develop better, safer and cheaper pharmaceuticals for the rest of the world?

Would you conduct in a clinical trial?

Is $100USD fair for you?

Source of quotes: Wired.com

Discussion on Slashdot

I thought this one was pretty funny.

So first they took away our call centers... Then they took away our IT jobs... Now they're taking our priviledge to test dangerous drugs on the poor and destitute?

Damn you trained and abled Indian workforce!

It is a serious matter however..thoughts?