Also I want to add my observations about the Moral Parsimony quiz. It claims to measure the simplicity with which you approach situations and moral judgments. In the three categories we (me, Biscuit, and Weatherlight) scored 100%, it does exactly that. But there is so much gray area in the fourth category that a score of 100% is actually rather complicated. The questions presented in the quiz avoided these gray areas as much as possible, but as I tried to describe above, realistic situations are not the same as hypothetical quiz questions. In question 18, which is the one that keeps sticking in my head for some reason, what if reporting the imminent danger would result in the whistle blower getting fired for some reason?
[FONT=Courier New](this was the question: You become aware that a piece of machinery in your workplace is faulty and that if it is not repaired then there will soon be an accident which will result in someone losing the use of their legs. Despite knowing that nobody else is aware of the fault, you take no action. Shortly afterwards, the accident occurs, and someone does lose the use of their legs. Are you morally responsible for their injury?)[/FONT]
My score of 35% was not zero. There are certain instances in which I believe inaction is morally wrong. But they have to be so unambiguous and obvious without any room for doubt that these situations are very limited in scope. In most real-world situations, I reserve judgment and try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Now with the wisdom of years, I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts