Two people can want to do the right thing and still disagree about what deserves attention first. One notices avoidable harm, another an unfair rule, another a promise to a group or an unnecessary restriction. This free Moral Priorities Test explores six kinds of concern so you can examine the reasons behind your choices with more precision.
Moral Priorities Test includes 48 original statements covering care and protection, fairness and reciprocity, loyalty and shared commitment, authority and responsibility, sanctity and meaningful boundaries, liberty and personal choice. Allow roughly ten to fifteen minutes, with time to pause if you want to consider an example.
The questionnaire and basic information are free. Basic information is a brief qualitative response summary. Optional paid detailed analysis adds the separate numerical scores, longer interpretations, exercises, a complete answer review and the companion e-book Thinking Through Everyday Moral Choices. You choose whether to unlock those additions.
What this test explores
Care and protection
The weight you give avoiding suffering and responding to vulnerability. Take one ordinary decision. Identify who benefits, who carries a cost, and whose view is missing. Write one question that would help you understand a real need before proposing a solution.
Fairness and reciprocity
The weight you give consistent treatment, honest exchange, and shared responsibility. Write down a disputed allocation and two different standards that could be used. Explain who each standard helps and what it overlooks. Look for a transparent reason for choosing or combining the standards.
Loyalty and shared commitment
The weight you give reliable membership and responsibility to a group. Describe one group commitment in specific terms. Separate what you actually agreed to from what someone assumes you owe. Identify a respectful way to keep, clarify, or renegotiate that commitment.
Authority and responsibility
The weight you give legitimate roles, rules, and accountable coordination. Map one rule or role that affects you. Write its intended purpose, its legitimate limits, and how concerns can be raised. Compare following it with improving it through an accountable process.
Sanctity and meaningful boundaries
The weight you give deeply held values, meaningful practices, and what deserves particular respect. Choose one meaningful boundary. Describe what it protects and what respectful conduct would look like. Then identify how to explain it without assuming another person must hold the same belief.
Liberty and personal choice
The weight you give voluntary choice and protection from unnecessary coercion. Examine one request or restriction. Identify the realistic options, the consequences of saying no, and any effect on others. Describe one way to protect choice while addressing a specific legitimate concern.
One situation, several different influences
Imagine a community group deciding how to allocate a limited shared space. Care may draw attention to someone who would otherwise be left out. Fairness may raise questions about equal access and relevant need. Loyalty may emphasise commitments to regular members, while authority may focus on an agreed procedure. Sanctity may concern the meaning of a space people treat as special, and liberty may question restrictions on peaceful use. These concerns can overlap without producing one automatic answer.
Before deciding what a result means, keep one ordinary example in view. Write what actually happened, what you expected, and one detail that could change your interpretation. An exception can be as informative as the example that first came to mind. A questionnaire is most useful when it helps you ask a clearer question about that experience.
How to answer the 48 statements
Think about ordinary choices and disagreements over the past six months. For each statement, choose how much you agree with the value it describes. Answer about what tends to matter to you, allowing for context and competing concerns. There are no right answers and no ideal profile. The statements describe priorities, not a test of factual knowledge.
The response options run from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Some statements are phrased in the opposite direction and are reverse scored. Read each one separately rather than repeating a response without considering its wording. There is no speed target and no benefit in trying to produce a particular profile.
Use a comparable ordinary situation when a particular example is unfamiliar. Consider more than one setting where possible. A recent event can strongly influence what you remember, so allow room for an occasion that went differently. Keep a brief note of the period and circumstances you considered if you want to reflect on changes later.
Understanding your result
Higher scores mean stronger reported emphasis on a named priority in the included situations. They do not mean that you are a better person, that another priority is absent, or that a political or religious label follows. The six scores are independent and do not add to a total of 100. Several priorities can be important at once.
In the optional report, a score of 75/100 means three quarters of the available points were recorded for that area after reverse scoring. It does not mean 75 percent of people are below you or that an outcome has a 75 percent probability. The report keeps the areas separate and explains the descriptive range attached to each one.
The free summary remains qualitative. It introduces the general response context without revealing the detailed numerical profile, answer review or longer interpretations. You can complete the questionnaire and read that summary without purchasing additional material.
Research background and original questions
Moral psychology research discusses multiple domains of moral concern. The first background paper addresses five domains; separate work provides context for concern about liberty. This original six-area reflection tool is not a validated Moral Foundations Questionnaire, and it does not infer ideology or religious identity from your answers.
This new questionnaire has not been independently validated or normed. Published research supports the background concepts; it does not validate a newly written item set, create population comparisons or establish the effectiveness of the reflection exercises. The descriptive score bands organise the responses without claiming an official cutoff.
Make the next step specific
Avoid using a profile to decide who is morally superior. A numerical difference does not settle a disagreement, establish someone else's motive or remove the need to check facts. Ask what each person is protecting, what would count as a reasonable exception and whose interests have not yet been heard. Understanding a concern does not require agreeing with every action taken in its name.
Choose one modest disagreement rather than the most emotionally charged issue available. Describe the competing concerns in terms each person could recognise. Check practical consequences and leave room to revise your first interpretation. A useful reflection may end with a clearer question rather than a final answer.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Moral Priorities Test free?
Yes. The 48 statements and basic qualitative information are free. Detailed numerical scores, expanded interpretations, the answer review and e-book are optional paid additions.
Does a high score mean I always follow that value?
No. The score summarises how you answered statements about importance. Actual behaviour also depends on information, competing obligations, opportunity and the specific situation. Use an example and an exception before making a broad claim about yourself.
Can my answers change?
Yes. Different experiences, reference periods or ways of reading a statement can change the response. A later score difference does not by itself prove an intervention worked or establish a lasting change. Compare the actual situations and conditions you considered.
Is there an ideal score?
The aim is to describe the included experiences and priorities accurately. The interpretation depends on the named area and context. Avoid using the numbers to rank yourself against other people, especially because there are no population norms for this new questionnaire.
