Relative Morality

Harvard University, bastion of conservative thought, produced this stupid "morality test". Basically you read eight scenarios and then decide how much of a fine the offending person should receive for their offense, that is if you think they did anything fine-worthy to begin with. I scored extremely low on this test. I guess the Einsteins at Harvard want me to think that I'm immoral or something.

It's really a test of your belief in either the concept of personal responsibility or the idea that when somebody gets hurt, it's always somebody elses fault...that there is no such thing as an accident. My morality score was at or below the 0.139th percentile. That means that according to Harvard, 99.861% of people who took the test are more morally conscious than me.
What it shows is that to kooky liberal academicians, morality is defined as the ability to empathize with a "victim", and the willingness to absolve that person of any personal responsibility for his/her own safety by assigning blame to somebody else.

Go here and take the short test. It takes only about 5 minutes and they tell you how you scored compared to everybody else. Of eight possibilities, I only fined 2 people for causing harm to somebody, and the fines were relatively low.

I think a bunch of slip-and-fall tort lawyers commissioned this study to guage people's willingness to extract damage awards from people who are not at fault, just because they feel sorry for the person who got hurt.