Analysis

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information below could influence how you complete the survey and make the result less interesting to you and less useful to us. So, if you haven't completed the survey please click here first.

Note: If you do not see a graph above, it is probably because your Javascript is turned off. Try enabling Javascript and then refreshing the page.

Notes on Interpreting Results

When developing the compass we posed the question: what is the purpose of a political or moral compass? We concluded that it should be able to answer the question: what is the cause of human progress? This, we believe, depends on the guiding principles behind human action, both individually and collectively, which of necessity includes our perception of what is right and what is wrong.

Axes explained

X- axis: The guiding principle for organising society.

The x-axis acknowledges the central role of cooperation. At one end is the idea that cooperation needs to be coerced, either by a tyrant, the state or the "invisible hand" of the market. Of necessity, this results in some benefiting more than others because the central belief is that some individuals have the right to pursue their self-interest, even at the expense of others. This right can bestowed upon them in a variety of ways: by divine direction (kings), direct power (state) or through the mechanism of the market (capitalism).

At the other end is the idea of free cooperation for the benefit of all, rather than the few, as epitomised in the volunteer. A modern day example is the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source movement which has resulted in the development of some of the best software being freely available.

Y-axis: The guiding principle for organising personal life.

Putting it all together we get the key to the compass:

The Quadrants Explained

Important Note :

The idea of the moral is very important to humans and there is no greater insult then to be labelled immoral. One of the inherent risks of our survey is that we will offend some people because they may end up in a Quadrant that suggests selfishness or self-centredness. If you find yourself objecting then, more than likely, we've got it wrong (limitations of just 24 questions). To test this situation, we've provided a feedback link (see below) where you can enter the Quadrant that you feel best characterises your worldview. Of course, you are welcome to redo the survey.

Rationalists (Quadrant 1): When making decisions involving people close to them, Rationalists tend to act selflesssly, using the needs of those people as a point of reference. With others, they tend act self-interestedly, by using their own needs as a point of reference.

We've called this quadrant the Rationalists because it is based on the idea that progress is the result of individuals pursuing personal gain and, by competing with others doing the same, benefit all of society through the invisible hand of the market (the essence of economic rationalism). However, while it is ok to pursue self-interest economically, it is not ok to pursue self-interest in the personal life. This can result in trying to live by two opposing moral philosophies.

New Progressives (Quadrant 2): When making decisions involving people close to them and with all others, New Progressives tend to act self-interestedly, by using their own needs as a point of reference.

We've called this quadrant the New Progressives because it is the logical extension of economic rationalism removing the need to lead a double life - i.e. its ok to pursue self-interest economically, plus it is ok to pursue self-interest personally. In other words, the point of reference for our morality should be our needs first. This moral philosophy is articulated in Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness. Although Rand's work is often controversial and can be polarizing it, nevertheless, raises some very important issues in a daring and thought-provoking way. Many people agree with her and maybe she was one of the first to notice an evolution in our notion of morality.

New Libertarians (Quadrant 3): When making decisions involving people close to them, New Libertarians tend to act self-interestedly, using their own needs as a point of reference. With others, they tend to act selflessly, using the needs of others as a point of reference.

We've called this quadrant the New Libertarians because it advocates maximum freedom economically and socially. While in terms of individual freedom this may seem the most attractive option, it is difficult, however, to see how a society composed of self-interested individuals could exist without some sort of external coercion. This can also result in trying to live by two opposing moral philosophies.

Traditional Progressives (Quadrant 4):When making decisions involving people close to them and all others, Traditional Progressives tend to act selflessly, using the needs of others as a point of reference.

We've called this quadrant the Traditional Progressives because it reestablishes the historical and common sense belief that all progress is the result of individuals cooperating freely for the benefit of all, guided by a morality based on selflessness and humility. It reaffirms that the traditional moral point of reference as the needs of others always. It is diametrically opposed to the New Progressives.

Note 1

Until the emergence of the market-centered capitalism, Q4 (Traditional Progressives) was always seen as the goal and measure of society. In other words, the health of society could be measured by the number of selfless individuals willing to work and contribute for the common good, rather than personal gain. A society that fostered and created more of these types than their opposites was the goal.

With the the coming of market-centered capitalism this was all reversed, and this reversal is best expressed in the in the attitude to selfishness. In the former type of society, selfishness was reviled and actively discouraged because it undermines trust and cooperation and destroys society. In the latter, selfishness is promoted to being a good and actively encouraged as the pursuit of rational self-interest. Of course, some people may object that selfishness is not the same as rational self-interest, but we will have to agree to disagree.

The process by which this historically unprecedented reversal was achieved would make a magician proud and is described in a sub-chapter in the book under the heading. Market Morality by Stealth (see Excerpt)

However, while there is ample evidence that traditional morals are decaying and historically we know that this has the potential to tear society apart, but this is based on a traditional view of what holds a society together. We need to also consider the possibility that society has evolved to a level of complexity that requires a rethink of what we consider moral or immoral in terms of cooperative society. Have we developed technology to a point where we can use the levers of economics, instead of our sense of what is traditionally considered moral, to keep society together and create peace and prosperity for all? It is easy to point to the failures of market-centered economics, but are these the first faltering steps to a more refined system? (from FAQ)

Note 2

In some versions of the political compass, Capitalism and Communism end up on opposing ends. However, on our moral compass, Capitalism and Communism (at least the Soviet version) end up in the same quadrant as having essentially the same moral philosophy because both rely on coercion to maintain cooperation.

This confirms Winston Churchill's observation on the difference between Communism and Capitalism: "In Communism, man oppresses man. In Capitalism, it's the other way around."