My project was a test developed to measure (as objectively as possible) with statistical concepts of morality. Was it a success? I personally do not agree with its outcome, but I constructed it with much effort. This was a psychological diagnosis, if anything. (Which is why it is scientific, and not philosophical. It can be argued to hold a philosophical stature, though.)
Real Introduction
Aim of the study
As previously stated, the aim was to investigate the foundation behind intent/purpose and the underlying morals that fall under the action(s).
Literature Review (analysis of relevant background studies and theories)
Is it morally malevolent to steal from a friend? Numerous psychologists have been pondering similar subjects such as these. A different usage of syntax resulting in a logical equivalent may cause an individual to brawl against moral behavior. I will be simplifying morality for the sake of this review into elementary terminology. Right and Wrong. Right includes aspects and behaviors which augment the well-being of conscious sentient creatures; whereas wrong includes the factors, and behaviors which diminish the well-being of sentient creature. Well-being, can be measured by the quantity of bio-psycho-social fulfillment which a particular sentient creature experiences.
The replication of the trolley dilemma tests which I did, revealed individuals’ intent and the underlying morality that followed their decision. Usually, the alternative questions with the opposing answers cannot be explicitly explained. As mentioned above, even though the responses are equivalent in reality, the reply will differ if the action take is indirect, or subtle. The point I wish to bring up as simply as I will derive my conclusion is that, planet beings are more likely to indirectly, and if possible, circumvent physical contact to another being if the behavior decreases the well-being of sentient creature. (This does not apply to sadists, and I even though I have a lack of evidence to support the psychological condition of the participants, I will dangerously presume that they are mentally normal.)
My next portion will touch moral reasoning, followed by emotional morality. Reasoning or inference is any systematic mental process that constructs or evaluates implications from premises of some sort. [sjdm.org] The line of thought involving reason pursue the actions taken by an individual and fall under a systematic action-reaction model. Individuals who prefer to think rationally revolve themselves behind the legitimacy of morality, which are not based on etiquette or customary proceedings. There exists no standard to implicate from a scheme alone if moral issues are able to be determined as wrong or right.
Conscious beings have emotions that are formed by cognitive introductions to the environment and atmosphere where one develops. Emotions act as a heuristic over an algorithm which can be substituted with reason in this assessment. Emotional actions are more so impulsive than reasoning, but due to the tendency of individuals using emotions to sympathize with a situation, the theory behind morality is disproportionate to analytical morality. [A mental state which involves incontrollable and involuntary verdicts associate with the intentional morality of my experiment.] (Instinctive) Upon speculation, (and it is unpleasant for me to state), but males tend to lean towards impulsive, instinctive, and impetuous conduct whereas females showed a superior demonstration of a logical approach.
Both cases above were mentioned under the circumstances of moral consistency. Running down my review, the declaration of undefined moral schemas deliver an inconceivable theory in regards to emotion vs. rational cases that projects an exceptional apparatus for moral tendencies. Basically, my evaluation of analysis versus mental thought (morals) could merely constitute casual logic and emotions that are threaded with moral occurrences instead of possessing an independent tail of theories.
Operationalized experimental hypothesis
-Presumably the alternate hypothesis. -
The result will not fall under the assumed hypothesis.
Operationalized null hypothesis
The result of my hypothesis equals the average replies of morals over intention.
Identification Process
Topic – The concept of intentional action and morality.
Aim – Investigate the foundation behind intent/purpose and the underlying morals that fall under the action(s).
Independent Variable – The situational courses that will be read to the subject. The subject will also be independent of another.
Dependent Variable – The respondent. Dependent upon each individuals intellect and instinctive (action).
Research Hypothesis – Subjects may have a tendency to answer in favor of ethical values due to 
bias [studied], that may lead to positive answers, or what is socially acceptable and expected of them.
Discussion
The limitations of student research are not falling off the extremity chart when we executed this experiment. Although the stories and incidents were fictitious, there’s no doubt that these incidents could been cruder than the ones we presented. Time was definitely of essence, and a larger sample size may have been more ideal for the precision of this experiment. Time was not only limited in the developer’s end, but participants often wanted the experiment to go as rapidly as possible. One suggestion would be to have a pre-replicated design with all the unnecessary data that are irrelevant to psychology prepared. This will save time, at least an hour to two hours for identification, and this time could better be put in use for testing, revising, concluding, and analyzing. An older age group including adults from age 30-40 would be recommended. The findings and studies reviewed before I started the actual experiment did not deviate too far from the actual results. However, I believe the whole point behind a replicated assessment is to have a replication of the results that are compatible with previous works. Since the pool of our population was miniscule and often participants were unwilling individuals, it hindered the amount of productivity that may have taken place. Although there is no way to, nor should there be motivation for a survey to be taken, it is logical that a larger population would allow more effective. In conclusion, this psychological experiment presumably gave us, a different experience than sitting in a lecture hall.
Method
The method was a text based survey that had the participants read and give a reply of their choice as an attempt to understand the foundation of ethical values. The independent variables were the incidences that we had typed out. (Manipulated for a dependent variable) The dependent variable were the participants who were humanely treated with customary etiquette. “Thanks, please, you did good”, the whole set of those. Consent was given by both student and instructor.
Design
Our tests were developed and replicated in the form of the Trolley Dilemma.
1. A runaway trolley is about to run over and kill five people, but a bystander can throw a switch that will turn the trolley onto a side track, where it will kill only one person. Is it permissible to throw the switch?
2. A runaway trolley is about to run over and kill five people, but a bystander who is standing on a footbridge can shove a man in front of the train, saving the five people but killing the man. Is it permissible to shove the man?
However, our incident were not so brutal as the trolley dilemma.
Participants
19 Males
11 Females
Randomly selected from a population of two classes from Business Statistics.
Materials
Table.
Paper that had incidents printed.
Paper with a table to record our responses in.
Pen.
Computer.
Microsoft Word.
Patience.
Procedures
1.) Do research on your replicated project.
2.) Make a signed permission form for an instructor to sign + date. (Do not forget the room number)
3.) Have ready the data tables and calculations you may need. In our specific study, we used only the materials that we stated.
4.) Go to a preferred class.
5.) Get the instructor to sign a permission form and have student consent form.
6.) Brief, debrief, and instruct the student behind the nature of your experiment.
7.) Start the experiment.
8.) Record the data as you get replies.
9.) Compliment the participant and inform them once again, to keep everything confidential.
[Table]
No Yes 5,1,6
No No 4,3,1
No No 7,1,5
No Yes 7,5,6
No No 8,8,2
No No 6,6,8
Yes Yes 7,3,1
No No 9,4,5
Yes No 9,6,5
No No 8,7,1
No No 10,7,10
Yes Yes 8,5,3
Yes No 7,9,9
No Yes 8,1,4
No Yes 10,4,10
No No 8,3,7
Yes No 9,6,3
Yes Yes 6,5,3
No Yes 8,6,5
No No 8,1,1
Yes Yes 7,8,8
No No 7,1,3
No Yes 8,6,6
No Yes 7,2,4
No Yes 6,3,5
Yes Yes 5,1,8
Yes No 7,4,8
No No 1,9,6
Yes Yes 5,3,8
Yes No 9,9,1
Permission Form (Click to View)
I give, Grin, permission to perform the psychological experiment regarding the aim of discovering the concept behind intent and morality. In the duration of the experiment, I will be reading several occurrences to the subject. Note: This experiment revolves around a strict replication of another study based on perception/problem solving. These anecdotes require the subject to make a decision at the end (which will target the instinctive and moral tendency of the individual). There will be no preferred response, and the partaker is at liberty to answer anyway he/she pleases. The students are willing participants, differentiating them from research subjects. These tests offer no stress, and there will be no physical contact with the student. In no way is this project attempting to deceive the subject, and everything tested in this environment is kept confidential.
The number of contributors necessary will fall around 30 distributed evenly from two periods. (15 students from each class.) To rule out gender favoritism from my experiment, it is ideal for both genders to be involved in this experiment. [In equal figures.]
The following signature will allow the aforementioned pupil, in the circumstances described, to conduct the trial in the specified classroom with willing contributors.
X ________________
Works Cited (Click to View)
sjdm.org
hackforums.net