Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...

[DRobert]

13%, two statements contradicted, and both seem reasonable. Good link man.

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

I know that drug consumption creates a variety of social problems, but I'm not entirely comfortable with being the one to decriminalize it. Maybe I'm just a coward.

and

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

Sometimes redress can be valid but I didn't make the connection between remuneration and being paid for someone's nature.

Regarding the first of the contradictions; one could consider personal drug use harmful to others. For example, second hand smoke. Or possibly less direct harm to others. For example, drug use is addictive, which can ruin families over time.

Also, even disregarding the above, the two statements would only be contradictory if one takes the view that the law and morality must coincide. I could, for example, agree that people SHOULD be free to do what they want so long as it doesn't harm others, whilst also taking the view that personal drug use should nevertheless remain unlawful for pragmatic reasons.


With regards to the second 'contradiction', see my above comments regarding making social decisions based on social considerations rather than simply who is more deserving.

 

[UncertaintyPrinciple]

Sadly there is a fault in this test. One set of questions ask for an objective baseline, but then the other questions are direct at personal beliefs or ideas, or are at least worded so one would infer that it wants a personal, subjective response. An alteration in wording would fix this. However, I do concede that maybe it is just how I interpreted the questions and test.

 

[DforSpiD]

I was the same, but the only answer there was apparent tension about was one where I was unsure of the answer

 

[skeliton112]

I said people should always be judged on their merits and that positive discrimination can be good. I dont see how they contradict. I saw them as meaning that people should be judged on their merits and that people that have had tradgety befall them can sometimes be favoured to ease the pain, make them feel better or more confident ect.

 

[ronnom 666]

at conflictofinterests

Did you even read what I said regarding money is irrelevant in health care. you should never turn away people from a hospital because they are poor, that said hospitals and governments have only a set amount of money. It is wrong to spend millions to save one person if hey only have a very slim chance of making it. the question the site asks is fundamentally flawed, If you had even half a brain you would see that.
you can either agree that the statement is true or you can disagree which means you think it is ok to let people die because they do not have medical insurance.

so your choices are:
1)agree - which doesn't work, government's and hospitals have to work within budget constraints and medical research costs money in the real world.
2)disagree - Which means you think that is ok to refuse to treat people based on their finical health, refusing treatment to the poor and letting them die.

the question is flawed.

Sir that question is not flawed it only states that in order to do what is considered correct you need to sacrifice allot. Many nations (Canada for example) are indeed successful, but this system of allowance,leads to overpopulation and no natural selection while costing quite a pretty penny. In essence, the question asks should we all pitch in to help the weak?

 

[Vigormortis]

I can't list my rating because I haven't finished.

Why haven't I finished the test, you ask? Well, because many of these questions are too vague for me to answer accurately and others are too black and white for me to apply a "agree" or "disagree" response. By that I mean it's asking me, in some cases, to make a single defining judgment call on something that, from my perspective, should be taken on a case by case analysis.

I'll edit this post once (if) I finish the test.

 

[rubinigosa]

Sadly there is a fault in this test. One set of questions ask for an objective baseline, but then the other questions are direct at personal beliefs or ideas, or are at least worded so one would infer that it wants a personal, subjective response. An alteration in wording would fix this. However, I do concede that maybe it is just how I interpreted the questions and test.

I interpreted the test and the questions in the same way.

 

[Ipsen]

Myself, I scored 47%, and that's about where I'd hope to end up before test too. I see it as a grip on beliefs; not a vice on beliefs, and not loosey-woosey pawing on beliefs (maybe like holding a golf club?).

Interesting find, OT.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

I got 27% on mine. I take it this means my beliefs are sound and non-contradictory, for the most part.

 

[Durananrananrananran]

This test is wrong. Yes, I know it's a bit of fun, but if the point is to get you to think about philosophy then how about examining the test itself?

I can think of these flaws with the test:

There is no 'tension' in many if not all of these pairings. It is perfectly possible and reasonable to accept moral relativism as a concept (that moral choices are social constructs and particular to different cultures) and yet still hold firm moral beliefs, as a member of a particular culture.

Similarly it is possible to not believe in that all truth is objective, and yet still believe in the occurrence of historical events.(Perhaps because you were there. Surviving the holocaust is certainly going to affect your beliefs)


Further, the language used, and the simple binary scale used (agree / disagree), does not allow you the subtlety of communication required to state any belief you have in such a way as to allow any reasonable conclusions to be drawn from it. In other words, "When I ticked 'agree' to that question, that's not what I meant!"

 

[GodofCider]

7% Low.

The only tension it detected was about art.

 

[DanielDeFig]

On the first try i got 20%, with three sets of questions that were in conflict. Two of the answer's i had given, i had been on the fence about anyway, so whether it's considered to be choices made "in retrospect/ more thought through", or simply "an alternative version", i went back to check how i would do if i changed those questions i had been unsure about.


I got 7 %, and the only two questions that were in conflict were these:

Tension Quotient = 7%

Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?

50051 of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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

In order not to be in contradiction here, you must be able to make a convincing case that the personal use of drugs harms people other than the drug user. More than this - you must also show that prohibited drug use harms others more than other legal activities such as smoking, drinking and driving cars, unless you want to argue that these should also be made criminal offences. As alcohol, tobacco and car accidents are among the leading killers in western society, this case may be hard to make. You also have to make the case for each drug you think should not be decriminalised. The set of drugs which are currently illegal is not a natural one, so there is no reason to treat all currently illegal drugs the same.

But i have an answer for this, and it's weird because the question was there. Question 26 asks if individuals have sole rights over their bodies, and on the same basis as believing that euthanasia should remain illegal, i had to disagree. This is the same question as the OP asks: "How can you say that people are free to do what they please, as long as they don't harm others, if you say they can't do drugs?"
I would like to rephrase this definition of "freedom" with respect to what i have said above. "People should have the right to do as they pleas, as long as they do not do not harm themselves or others" (a better definition would also include living life as long as you do not do it at the expense of others).

Look, on the same basis as we don't just sit back and watch a teenage girl cut herself, or refuse to intervene when a man is about to jump off a building, we don't let people harm themselves in other ways either. Why? Because they are not in the right state of mind to make those decisions, and even if they were we can't just sit by and watch people hurt themselves. Yeah, this would include drinking excessive amounts of alcohol (or home-brewn/ dangerously high alcohol levels) and tobacco smoking, since we know that's harmful too.

I don't know enough about illegal drugs to be able to say that ALL illegal drugs are dangerous, some might be safe in small doses, like alcohol. But i do know that many (if not most) are as dangerous long-term as tobacco smoking (if not more so). I believe proper research should be made so we will be able to make informed decisions about what recreational drugs to legalize, and which to keep illegal. Unfortunately, tobacco smoking remains legal while other drugs are illegal, so most of the world's laws already have "philosophical tensions".

 

[nuba km]

see the problem with your two questions is that it could be argued that it could psychologically damage the kids or that it would influence the kids, also I would anwser the first question with 'to a certain degree' while answering the second question with 'well not placed in prison but fined and properly tried to be weaned of the drug that would kill him'

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I never said that Atheism was any more reasonable than other kinds of faith, I just said that it was one.

Subjectivity does not a good philosophical test make.

Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.

There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.

But Atheism is belief there is no God if they are ambiguous about it and are unsure then they are agnostics. To be atheist you must be against theism ie belief in no God/s or Goddess/es.

 

[Vandborg]

I got 40%, but to be honest a lot of those "tensions" doesn't really make any sense to me how they came to that conclusion:

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

Yes, art is solely based on ones personal taste and opinion. In this case my opinion is that Michaelangelo is great, and I agree in that that is my opinion and I can understand why others don't share it. Where is the tension exactly?

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 one is just stupid. Using drus shouldn't be decriminalised because it DO harm others. The farmers who grow and harvest the plants for the drugs are locked in their life, being unfairly and harshly treated by the drug sellers and owners.

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

Just a matter of opinion when it comes to environment. My idea is cutting down rainforests just so everybody can print their assignments out in 10 copies is wrong in my opinion. But cars releasing some greenhouse gasses in my opinion doesn't impact the enviroment greatly, so you should be free to drive around.

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

I just didn't know that some alternative medicine in USA was untested or proven to perhaps be harmful. We don't do a lot of medicine in Denmark, not more than is needed/ordered by the doctor and tested vitamines.

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

What?

 

[tzimize]

Low.

Also, great topic title op. I enjoyed both the topic and the test. :>

 

[GeorgW]

I got 20 percent. I knew I was contradicting myself but I was just being true to myself.

 

[Lexodus]

Lol, I got a 7%, with only one answer in conflict, and in that case it was a case of misunderstanding the implication of the wording of one of the statements, so yeah.

I'm calling that a 0% tension quotient.

-m

Likewise. Live long and prosper.

 

[erto101]

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

Not a contradiction :/

"Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil" is my moral judgment and hence a result of the "values of(my) particular culture". I never said that all genocides are considered bad by everyone... This test made my head hurt -.-
anyway got 20%

 

[tharglet]

Found some of the questions a bit difficult to say a strict "agree" and "disagree" on. One of the main examples is that of should illegal drugs be legalised for personal use - drugs (legal and illegal) vary a lot in what they do to you, and how bad they affect the people around you, so it's not the same answer for each substance out there.