Good points, all, and with that you have negated the objective premise of this test.
I would like to point out, though, that it works subjectively as an indicator of tension within norms of philosophy originating from grekoroman ideals. Though the wording does not currently support such a wide base, it could be applicable to most of Western society.
A lot of people didn't read the text above the test... It says it still may be compatible for two of the views in tension to be compatible but they need complex reasoning. I got 20%.
You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised
But my reasoning for this is that drug addicts harm others. For example, in a family with drug addict parents the children would suffer.
You agreed that:
In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past
And disagreed that:
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits
My reasoning for this was that if someone underwent hardship in the past, their achievements may not be an accurate measure of their potential.
You agreed that:
Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise
And also that:
The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny
My reasoning is that it isn't possible to predict what decision someone will make, so effectively, the statement that someone may have chosen the other choice can still be compatible with determinism.
You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised
This has already been covered, but I'm gonna defend myself anyway; that second statement would require that all drugs be decriminalised, and I'll be damned if anyone's gonna tell me that nobody ever hurt anyone else because of all the drugs they were taking.
Also, I accidentally misread question 11; I thought it said 'The Second World War was just a war' instead of 'was a just war'. But I would have answered yes to both, so no biggy.
And finally, the occasional Tim Minchin fan I saw in this forum pleased me. For heaven's sake, people, if it's been tested by a legitimate authority, it is by definition NOT alternative medicine!
40% but I have a reason for believing both these things in all of them: Michalangelo is one of history's finest artists in my opinion. I don't believe that there is or that there isn't a god because there's no proof either way and for anyone else who got this one, I never said that there aren't pink fairies flying around pluto, and I know I can't proove it either way. it is destiny what's going to happen, but the person who chooses this chooses what is still destiny and if they were going to chooses the other thing then thats what destiny will be. If less people went by car then that would help the environment but that doesn't mean that everyone should stop altogether. And lastly for the one about the developing world, there's an easier way to do it then raising taxes, if we don't have to pay money to get medical research in the first place. The questions are too vague and more than two answers would work better, also the descriptions feel insulting and accuse me of thinking in a way which I just don't, so if this sounds like i'm being argumentative then thats why.
Anyway the test was fun despite all this
Easy, any number of past religions that practiced human sacrifice. I can think of one off the top of my head that had cannibalism, slavery and human sacrifice. While the process of getting rid of people who think that's a good idea is painful, the destination is good, no?
I can say I am fairly glad not to have members of that religion next door. Freedom of religion or not.
I read the questions, and answers, and didn't bother taking the test. Why? It's so flawed it's pointless. There are no absolutes in the real world, every question is dependent on undefined parameters (using question no8 as a perfect example: "It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence"-define suitable evidence for a start) and, basically, the test is pointless. Is this supposed to be an Atheists tool for proving that religious people are stupid, and don't think straight? Because it's a fucking joke if it is.
Oh, and OP: Atheism is a belief, like Agnosticism, Theism and suchlike. Is it a faith? Atheists commit themselves to a belief based on texts, other peoples teachings, and a conviction. To me, that sounds like a religion. For people who don't care or know, I think the term "apathetic" is more relevant.
"The PHC report below lists pairs of beliefs which are identified as being 'in tension'. What this means is either that: (1) There is a contradiction between the two beliefs or (2) Some sophisticated reasoning is required to enable both beliefs to be held consistently. In terms of action, this means in each case you should either (1) Give up one of the two beliefs or (2) Find some rationally coherent way of reconciling them."
The test is not about truth, the test is about if YOUR BELIEVES contradict each other.
There is no right or wrong, as you said, there is no absolutes in the real world.
They are NOT required to be.
And the question 8 you took as an example, is just conflicting when you previously agreed to something contradicting it. NOT if the statement is right or wrong, this is what YOU have decided previously to the test with YOUR reasoning.
So just say what YOU made up your mind about.
But if evil is relative, which I said it was, I would also say that I thought genocide was evil. Option A says "Morality is objective because genocides can happen" while Option C says "Genocide is evil." The question should state "everyone thinks genocide is wrong." No, obviously not everyone thinks genocide is wrong, otherwise it wouldn't happen.
Okay, most trains here in germany run on electricity.
The moral question is NOT about genocides...
You said morality is subjective, so why make a moraly objective statement afterwards?
I read the questions, and answers, and didn't bother taking the test. Why? It's so flawed it's pointless. There are no absolutes in the real world, every question is dependent on undefined parameters (using question no8 as a perfect example: "It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence"-define suitable evidence for a start) and, basically, the test is pointless. Is this supposed to be an Atheists tool for proving that religious people are stupid, and don't think straight? Because it's a fucking joke if it is.
No it's not trying to prove religious people are stupid. In not a single response of this 8 page thread, has someone even whispered such a suggestion... If you took the test you'd understand what it is about.
Oh, and OP: Atheism is a belief, like Agnosticism, Theism and suchlike. Is it a faith? Atheists commit themselves to a belief based on texts, other peoples teachings, and a conviction. To me, that sounds like a religion. For people who don't care or know, I think the term "apathetic" is more relevant.
Nope Atheism isn't always a belief. If a person grew up without the idea of God forced upon them, chances are they would not hold such a belief or claim to believe that there was no God/s. Agnosticism is a statement about the potential of acquiring knowledge so not a belief either. Apathetic must be your relevant term here seeing as you clearly don't know anything about atheism or agnosticism.
I got a 27% tension. Which ended up with me having instances of where my beliefs didn't seem to match up.
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil
The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?
Okay, they got me here. Those two agreements do contradict each other somewhat. Although I that I would better agree that acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to ruthlessly destroy. So I would return my agreement with the second statement.
You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report
If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.
This tension seems to arise because of a bit of an odd view I have. While I don't believe it to be currently possible to prove any objective truth, I'm forced to live with acting as though there are. The Holocaust is one of these things that I accept as true, despite the fact that I can't absolutly prove it.
You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead
As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.
The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'. Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival. But you might want to argue that much of your use of cars or aeroplanes is necessary, not for survival, but for a certain quality of life. The difficulty is that the consequence of this response is that it then becomes hard to be critical of others, for it seems that 'necessary' simply means what one judges to be important for oneself. A single plane journey may add more pollutants to the atmosphere than a year's use of a high-emission vehicle. Who is guilty of causing unnecessary environmental harm here?
The problem with this one is the use of the word "unnecessarily". That term is pretty relative to the situation. I don't believe that it's unnecessary for the earth to be mined for valuable minerals or for people to drive in cars. So ultimately the "tension" is really just due to the limit of these questions.
You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine
But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.
Once again these questions are somewhat limited in how they can be taken. While alternative and complementary medicine may not have been tested as much, that doesn't mean I agree that they should. I must admit though I missinterpreted the first statement a bit though, thinking only of drugs (in the main sense of the world, not just commonly thought) being sold as "medicine" rather than thinking of free "alternative" cures.
While this test can make you think about your beliefs somewhat, it's somewhat limited in how it can interpret your choices. As I pointed out in several, my logic doesn't contridict itself as often as it believes due to the fact that I only had two black-and-white choices (agree/disagree) which really doesn't work well with my belief in the relativity of many things.
Couple of the questions were too broad - ie the drugs one - what drugs is that limited to? Medical - restricted or unrestricted? Illegal? Legal? All categories? It's like he's setting you up to go 'ah hah! I'm going to make you as 'tensioned' for that pairing, even though there are plenty of arguments to be made that allow both attitudes to peacefully co-exist and enough wiggle-room in the interpretation of the question to render it invalid anyway!'
So yeah, interesting idea, scored 27% but several of those were mitigated by the 'explanation' given beneath anyway. Eh.
0% on the first try... I went back and changed some stuff to make sure the "you're all clear" message wasn't an error. The only one that almost got me was the art question. I knew the way they phrased it made them contradictory, but it also felt wrong to agree that all art is subjective and then tell it, perhaps untruthfully, that I didn't believe Michaelangelo is one of the greatest artists in history. I had to consider that it wasn't asking me what I thought, but rather for an objective fact about the world.
Areas of contention were:
"Is morality relative?"
Yes I believe it is, I do not believe in god and therefore I do not see any objective form of morality. However I believe genocide is, from my moral perspective, evil. These points are not contradictory unless you take "morality is relative" to also mean "evil does not exist". This is bollocks.
"How much must we protect the environment?"
Yes we don't want to unnecessarily damage the environment... I simply disagree over what is "unnecessary". Technically I could swim to france, but I think I'll just take ANY OTHER form of transport. This is the point it makes in it and I agree that what is "necessary" is just a personal view.
"Can we please ourselves?"
Yes we are in charge of our bodies but by allowing drugs to be legalised allows many other issues of addiction and crime. Overall I think it is just better and easier to avoid this type of drug use. I think Cannabis could be made legal because it is probably less damaging than alcohol and I want to avoid that hypocrisy but heroin? You've got to kidding.
"Is killing always wrong?"
Yes it is. It is just a question of picking the lesser of two evils. For example the self-defense argument suggests that killing isn't wrong if you are threatened. I say it is because ultimately I don't think the death penalty is right but of course the killing of a man who has done absolutely nothing wrong is worse. Therefore self-defense is fine.
"How do we judge art?"
Well this one is just bollocks. Michelangelo is generally regarded as a great artist, therefore he is regardless of any one individual's subjective view. We judge art by consensus above all else.
This site argues semantics, which I like, but I think that does mean it finds more issues than there are. I'm comfortable in what I know and do not often suffer hypocrisy. My views are constantly changing and adapting though and I prefer to view morality from individual scenario situations rather than a set of absolute rules.
Easy, any number of past religions that practiced human sacrifice. I can think of one off the top of my head that had cannibalism, slavery and human sacrifice. While the process of getting rid of people who think that's a good idea is painful, the destination is good, no?
I can say I am fairly glad not to have members of that religion next door. Freedom of religion or not.
This is seriously something like the 5th time that someone has made this point or a point similar to it after I've posted a second time in this thread saying oh yes, I don't know anyone because it's a societal norm from where I am (United States) to not like genocide.
Hitler was brought up, he was acknowledged, etc.
If anything, bringing up the fact that people can think genocide is a good idea at all if given the right reasoning behind it (even if a premise is faulty; hooray for the commonfolk) proves that morals are relative.
I consider depriving an entire race or group of people of whatever chances they might have the closest thing to "evil" in relative terms. And without some serious propaganda, I'd imagine a large chunk of the world would consider wiping out a large amount of people like that to be pretty fucked up.
That doesn't mean there aren't some people who would find genocide OK, it's just commonly accepted for one reason or another that killing people is wrong.
7%. Because the evilness of genocide is subjective. Which is not really fooling anyone. Obviously it is subjective, but it still stands as an act of unspeakable cruelty to which I would never assent as acceptable regardless of the circumstances surrounding it as invariably those innocent of perceived infractions against the genociders will be caught up in said acts.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
and accuse me of thinking in a way which I just don't, so if this sounds like i'm being argumentative then thats why.
