Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
27%
The relative morality vs genocide one is not necessarily a contradiction - my definition of 'evil' is as subjective as any other's - from the point of genociders it probably isn't considered 'evil', but based on my value system, yeah, it is.
Protect the environment vs take cars if unnecessary - the problem here is I'm unwilling to make such a sweeping generalization. There are social reasons you'd drive someone instead of taking them on a subway, but under more general circumstances there's no reason to insist on personal transport if a public option is equally viable.
Personal freedom vs drug decriminalization is also not very contradictory as drug use can cause others to suffer quite easily.
Art is subjective vs Michaelangelo was great. I'm not familiar with him, but his contributions were undeniable, whether they're positive of negative, he was still influential and successful in his field, hence 'great'.
The relative morality vs genocide one is not necessarily a contradiction - my definition of 'evil' is as subjective as any other's - from the point of genociders it probably isn't considered 'evil', but based on my value system, yeah, it is.
Protect the environment vs take cars if unnecessary - the problem here is I'm unwilling to make such a sweeping generalization. There are social reasons you'd drive someone instead of taking them on a subway, but under more general circumstances there's no reason to insist on personal transport if a public option is equally viable.
Personal freedom vs drug decriminalization is also not very contradictory as drug use can cause others to suffer quite easily.
Art is subjective vs Michaelangelo was great. I'm not familiar with him, but his contributions were undeniable, whether they're positive of negative, he was still influential and successful in his field, hence 'great'.
Horben said:
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.
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 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.
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?RevRaptor said:
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.
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.
I got 27% on mine. I take it this means my beliefs are sound and non-contradictory, for the most part.
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!"
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!"
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".
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".
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'