Global Morality Index 2009

13 11 2009

In our inaugural attempt to gauge the level of ethics, propriety, honesty, honour and moral standing of the world’s nationalities, we rank 67 countries based on the reach of morality and such guidance in influencing daily lives, culture, custom, traditions, “do’s and don’t” s and legal proceedings in the stated nations.

Methodology:

Over 70 sources were scoured for information on the attitudes of the public and legal standing against morally reprehensible actions viewed negatively by all civilized and honourable beings. Interviews were conducted through various media and adjustments made to reflect differing viewpoints on immorality in these regions.

Consequently, the most respectably agreeable concomitant solution was devised to address the imbalances created through the variation in intercultural, interreligious, interregional, international and interethnic moral compasses.

Plans have been made to include more countries and regions in future editions of the GMI to portray a precise picture of the state of decline or ascent of the moral probity of societies in the comity of nations.

What do the scores mean?

A higher score indicates a higher level of mesaurable observance in morality in the concerned country and vice versa with a lower score. National GMIs are awarded  out of a maximum possible score of 10, with 0 (zero) being the lowest possible score.

Take a closer look at this year’s inaugural Global Morality Index – 2009 for interesting revelations.

Global Morality Index – 2009

  1. Saudi Arabia 9.03
  2. Iran 9.01
  3. Oman 8.99
  4. Mauritania 8.98
  5. Bahrain 8.81
  6. Qatar 8.80
  7. Brunei 8.75
  8. Afghanistan 8. 75
  9. Togo 8.70
  10. Somalia 8.57
  11. Guinea 8.43
  12. Iraq 8.36
  13. Sudan 8.23
  14. Palestine 8.19
  15. Bangladesh 8.15
  16. United Arab Emirates 7.67
  17. Kyrgyz Republic 7.43
  18. Cameroon 7.25
  19. Lebanon 7.11
  20. Malaysia 7.03
  21. Algeria 7.00
  22. Maldives 6.98
  23. Mauritania 6.91
  24. Niger 6.84
  25. Venezuela 6.73
  26. Indonesia 6.45
  27. Cuba 6.22
  28. Egypt 6.22
  29. Comoros 6.19
  30. Chad 6.07
  31. Pakistan 5.92
  32. Kazakhstan 5.79
  33. Japan 5.56
  34. Switzerland 5.55
  35. Sweden 5.52
  36. Mexico 5.49
  37. Italy 5.47
  38. Mongolia 5.01
  39. Cambodia 5.00
  40. Ukraine 4.82
  41. Poland 4.25
  42. Czech Republic 4.01
  43. Slovakia 3.94
  44. Romania 3.82
  45. Slovenia 3.73
  46. Spain 3.61
  47. Norway 3.50
  48. Germany 3.42
  49. France 3.39
  50. Hungary 3.21
  51. Portugal 3.16
  52. Luxembourg 3.13
  53. Belgium 2.84
  54. Brazil 2.52
  55. Argentina 2.45
  56. Chile 2.36
  57. India 2.01
  58. Korea 1.94
  59. Philippines 1.82
  60. Russia 1.75
  61. Singapore 1.52
  62. Thailand 1.36
  63. United Kingdom 1.24
  64. United States 1.06
  65. Israel 0.32
  66. Netherlands 0.15
  67. Denmark 0.14

We plan to extend the Index to a greater number of countries in the next edition. Any positive advice, suggestions and comments on how to improve this rating exercise are welcome.


Actions

Information

22 responses

13 11 2009
Skipp

The definition of morality in different cultures varies, so this study doesn’t really make sense on such a large scale but it may have been better if the researchers tested what areas had similar cultural values and tested morality appropriate for different regions, instead of comparing global morality perhaps.

14 11 2009
tawhid1982

You have a valid point Mr/Ms Skipp.

The best efforts have been made to take into account the enormous differences between the various parts of the world in religious, cultural, linguistic and other matters.

I am quoting from the original post:

“Consequently, the most respectably agreeable concomitant solution was devised to address the imbalances created through the variation in intercultural, interreligious, interregional, international and interethnic moral compasses.”

In certain cultures or countries, pervasiveness of base instincts, lax morality, hedonism has led to a severe erosion of values. Netherlands and Denmark exemplify such societies, where animals are chosen for “mating” as part of recreation in bordellos.

15 11 2009
Ahnaf

How did you arrive at these figures?

15 11 2009
tawhid1982

A thorough appraisal of various countries’ observation and stand on moral issues using data from more than 69 sources helped in the preparation of the Index.

16 11 2009
Ahnaf

Could you be specific and post up the technique/sources?

18 11 2009
tawhid1982

I can be more specific, yes.

Data on view of perversions like those prevalent in the Netherlands and Denmark, for instance, were gathered from public media and through surveys conducted through online and other media.

Such is the level of depravity in some debased societies that the mere mention of the dishonourable acts that are commonplace make a reasonably honourable person feel disgusted.

Information on the propagation of morally disgusting material in regimes were also gathered leading to the process that helped make these rankings possible.

18 11 2009
Skipp

The use of surveys is a sensible way to collect data on something so subjective, however I’m worried about the use of public media in the index. I’m assuming by this you primarily used news media, which varies from country to country what is considered news worthy, but it is indisputably biased. As an example of this I have looked through news articles on the island where I live in the English news…there haven’t been many in the past year, but every single one puts the island in a negative light…because that is the only time such a small place is interesting enough to be entertaining to the average news viewer. The island itself however is completely different from its news image and is one of the safest places in the world…there is very little crime at all, and serious crime is very, very rare. The news articles all had one thing in common..all were very skewed, and most presented speculation as fact…one particular incident was actually cleared up and turned out to be a mistake…but the news got bored at this point and did not report this. In other countries drama in the news is not so important…and in some negative incidents are actually covered up and not reported…or are so common they are not reported, yes news can highlight certain incidents which may be useful for your survey…but should be taken with a pinch of salt and properly analysed, which some people do not do…how did you use the public media in your survey and how was it analysed, does it form part of a survey, or was it analysed by researchers?

21 11 2009
tawhid1982

Which island do you live in, if you don’t mind me asking?

Your point is very interesting, thank you for the detailed explanation regarding ways in which media can be biased.

While it is true only “newsworthy” items are reported in mass media, meaning the use of such information as the basis for any index may skew the outcome in favour of countries/institutions controlling the largest media organizations, it is assumed that media outlets did not intentionally distort data on the legalization of various drugs, and behaviour considered uncivilized and immoral in all religions (for example, the flourishing of bordellos in Denmark, netherlands and such are seen as barbaric the world over despite religious, linguistic and cultural diversity in this world).

I hope to hear your interesting views for you sure do make interesting points.

Thank you.

19 11 2009
Ahnaf

Which surveys were they? Can you just paste your whole methodology up?

21 11 2009
Ahnaf

Without your sources and methods, this list doesn’t actually mean anything.

I was extremely sceptical of such an attempt to categorise morality into a number. Without preconceived ideas of morality, such a list would be impossible to populate, and with preconceived ideas of morality, the list is a mere tautology.

23 11 2009
tawhid1982

It’s hard to call any index a tautology when the outcome isn’t pre-determined by any individual nor can the outcome by predicted with exact precision before the publication of this index.

Unless emoluments are secured for a painstaking work aimed at delineating a true picture of the state of morality of nations of the world, the entire methodology can not be revealed.

For the inaugural edition of the GMI-2009, the outcome is revealed free of cost to all individuals with ability to access the internet.

It has to be understood that, especially in the debased western world but also in much of the nonwestern world influenced by such characteristic of the western world, measurement of all efforts, services and even friendship in monetary terms is routine. For members in such societies to expect free-of-cost methodological breakdown of a painstaking effort in calculating the state of the globe in moral propriety would be unrealistic.

The plan for the inaugural edition does not originally include the provision for any conversion into monetary form for the hard work done.

23 11 2009
Ahnaf

If you can’t include any methodology, there’s no way of knowing how you got your results, therefore it doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s just a list of countries with numbers next to them. I highly doubt anyone is going to plagiarise your work – if it was really worth plagiarising it would be publish somewhere other than a wordpress blog. Freedomhouse and other research websites are completely free too, yet they publish their methodologies happily.

Unless you want people to just dismiss your blog, you need to adopt a more scientific and critical approach to your research, by allowing people to debate its merits. It’s fine simply giving yourself a big pat on the back for your wonderful ‘index’, but you’ve actually demonstrated very little understand of how research takes place and how it gets assessed critically.

Until you tell us (or ideally show us) how you got your results, there is no point in this index.

29 11 2009
tawhid1982

Just because you can’t fathom how the index was calculated doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. Where this work should have been published is also of no relevance, as long as the content of the work is noteworthy.

“Freedomhouse” and other institutions that publish their results for free are funded by governments in the wholly debauched and demented western world. They are no more than mouthpieces of their governments, to call them research institutions would be a grave error tantamount to calling western immoral drunkard societies the torchbearers for morality.

The element of objectivity is completely lost in such lists provided by Freedomhouse and such institutions. Even so, the methodology listed by Freedomhouse and the GMI-2009 are no different in their transparency while GMI – 2009 use objective, measurable and verifiable criteria to assess the score as opposed to Freedom House which assigns arbitrary values to self-posed questions on the political status in countries around the world.

I hope your doubts were cleared.

29 12 2009
Ahnaf

“Just because you can’t fathom how the index was calculated doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. Where this work should have been published is also of no relevance, as long as the content of the work is noteworthy.”

But as I’ve said previously, it isn’t, because there is no methodology provided. This is a basic, fundamental part of research. Please, provide your methodology. If it is sound, why would you not post it?

“Even so, the methodology listed by Freedomhouse and the GMI-2009 are no different in their transparency while GMI – 2009 use objective, measurable and verifiable criteria to assess the score as opposed to Freedom House which assigns arbitrary values to self-posed questions on the political status in countries around the world.”

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2005

This is the methodology section of the freedomhouse report. I don’t put much stock in freedomhouse, but to suggest that the methodologies employed in their index and yours are similar is simply untrue.

Again, this is fundamentally important to any kind of research – showing how your findings were achieved.

1 01 2010
Ahnaf

“Just because you can’t fathom how the index was calculated doesn’t mean it’s meaningless. Where this work should have been published is also of no relevance, as long as the content of the work is noteworthy.”

But as I’ve said previously, it isn’t, because there is no methodology provided. This is a basic, fundamental part of research. Please, provide your methodology. If it is sound, why would you not post it?

“Even so, the methodology listed by Freedomhouse and the GMI-2009 are no different in their transparency while GMI – 2009 use objective, measurable and verifiable criteria to assess the score as opposed to Freedom House which assigns arbitrary values to self-posed questions on the political status in countries around the world.”

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2005

This is the methodology section of the freedomhouse report. I don’t put much stock in freedomhouse, but to suggest that the methodologies employed in their index and yours are similar is simply untrue.

Again, this is fundamentally important to any kind of research – showing how your findings were achieved.

7 02 2010
tawhid1982

If you ACTUALLY looked at freedomhouse methodology for their reports, you would have realized the fallacious claims you have been making.

Freedomhouse essentially asks questions regarding every country they rank, to which they themselves answer according to their opinion and attribute certain points for each and every country based on those opinions. The sum of those points (which is the sum of arbitrary points assigned by the “researchers” to questions posed by themselves against any country they like to rank) is then used to rank countries by Freedomhouse.

Sorry for the belated reply. I do not use this blog very often.

8 02 2010
Ahnaf

Perhaps you are correct. Still, that doesn’t answer my question – how were you results obtained, and what do they mean? Unless these questions are answered, then what can we infer from your results? Nothing.

If you don’t demonstrate how your findings were achieved, there is no way to know whether or nor what your index represents is what the reality is.

10 02 2010
tawhid1982

I hope you have the time and ability to browse all the comments on this topic. Hopefully, your doubts will be cleared.

If you are able to find out how exactly “Freedomhouse” (funded by a western gov’t) and which answers its own questions based on its own opinion to adjudge the status of countries in a Global Ranking exercise is more transparent and objective than GMI – 2009, or why you may doubt the validity of GMI – 2009, I’m eager to read your case.

From Freedomhouse’s own website, the following

“Freedom House’s diverse Board of Trustees is united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the causes of human rights and democracy.”

only tells us how objective their rankings can be.

They openly admit to being biased against Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia as well.

10 02 2010
Ahnaf

This really is irrelevant. Even if freedomhouses methods are completely and utterly inaccurate and have no merits whatsoever, they make available their whole methodology in order that the studies can be made better, and more accurate. This study has nothing of the sort.

As I have said several times – a complete methodology is a fundamental part of research. If you wish to continually dodge the request for transparency in your research, this researched can be criticised for it’s failure to demonstrate anything it sets out to.

For example;

1) Saudi Arabia 9.03
67) Denmark 0.14

What does the 9.03 score mean? What does it mean in relation to a 0.14 score? How are each of of the indicators of morality weighted, and where was this data obtained from? If you can’t answer these questions, how are we to know a) what you are measuring and b) whether or not you’ve completely made it up.

15 02 2010
tawhid1982

This “irrelevant” point about “freedomhouse” was brought to the argument by none other than yourself, let’s remind ourselves of that.

If you do not put much stock in “freedomhouse” reports (whose ratings are done by opinionated “researchers” arbitrarily, answering questions posed by themselves), maybe you should not have discussed that point.

There’s no shame in making mistakes or admitting them, perhaps it’d be better if you could go back and pore over the arguments so far under this column.

15 02 2010
Ahnaf

“This “irrelevant” point about “freedomhouse” was brought to the argument by none other than yourself, let’s remind ourselves of that.

If you do not put much stock in “freedomhouse” reports (whose ratings are done by opinionated “researchers” arbitrarily, answering questions posed by themselves), maybe you should not have discussed that point.”

This is not about the quality of freedomhouse or their reports. You made the argument earlier that “the methodology listed by Freedomhouse and the GMI-2009 are no different in their transparency” – which I have shown you to be false. Freedomhouse shows how states get a higher and lower score by weighting their variables, all of which is shown on their methodology page. Whether or not it is an accurate portrayal of reality is debateable – the results can be analysed and assessed for validity and reliablility.

My point was that freedomhouse makes their methodologies available. If they removed them from their studies, the research would be considered utterly invalidated because the findings could not be corroborated. This is extremely basic and fundamental to any research study – presumably because you have conducted a research study, you would already know this.

Your continued attempts to dodge the requests for transparency in your study is rather damning.

15 02 2010
tawhid1982

Did you read the earlier replies regarding methodology?

That you keep beating the dead horse should be an indictment of your inability to change your opinions in tune with established facts.

You have never shown that “freedomhouse” (funded by a western gov’t, which admits to being biased towards a western country and against various nonwestern countries like Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia; which answers self-posed questions based on opinions of its members to assess countries’ “freedom”) has any transparency whatsoever in its methodology.

It may be that you are unable to understand the methodology described, the discussion underneath the actual GMI-2009 or that your stubborness to accept facts arises from an inability to change long-held perceptions owing to cultural or other biases.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: