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

[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.

 

[NathLines]

Got 7% because of a misunderstanding. So 0%. I'm really happy about it. Hypocrisy is the worst thing I know of.

I'm sure everyone does something that contradicts themselves sometimes though.

 

[Lexodus]

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.

No. What you, and many other people, don't understand is the difference between atheism and antitheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in any of the thousands of gods in all the religions (and simply put, every religious person is an atheist too, except for a single god/set of gods which then becomes their focus), but anthitheism is the one which is 'there is almost certainly not a god, to the point where it's fucking stupid to believe in one, and religion does more harm than good to society so it should be gone'.

One is a lack of stance, one is a strong negative stance.

 

[BENZOOKA]

"You need to be able to account for all possible meanings of a phrase as well as taking it as literally as possible"

This test contradicts itself then, as well.

 

[manaman]

Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up and get your free philosophical health check...


Ever wondered if your ideas about the world are actually consistent with each other?

Ever feel like you might be a raging hypocritical moron? Ever thought someone else was?


Truth is, most of us spend our lives attached to little ideas we have about the way life should be but it turns out few of us actually agree with the principles we think we do. A lot of the time, our ideas come into conflict with each other which is why working out the morality of things can be tricky...

For example;

Do you believe that people should be free to make their own decisions and live out their lives doing what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else?

Do you believe a person should be arrested if they sat next to you on a park bench and injected themselves with heroin in front of you and your kids?

Well, you can't actually have one without the other.

I found this great website a little while back and there is a bunch of tests on it that evaluate your ideas, ethics and morals, just to let you know that you probably spend most nights arguing with yourself and why...

Take a look! http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.php

(no I'm not advertising btw, just sharing something cool)


Aaaand for the discussion, Share your findings with us and lets find out who can walk the walk, talk the talk and erm... Think.... the think.... There is bound to be some surprises in store for everyone. Certainly made me think twice.

I find your example to be poor.

Just because you can't quantify how an action hurts one other person doesn't mean the collective actions of all the individuals that peruse that action does not negatively impact the rest of society.

Rampant drug use leads to all manner of other crime both directly and indirectly. Sure some might not fall into the cycle, but enough do. I have lived in some bad neighbourhoods and seen the effects for myself.

It was deliberately ambiguous. And I personally agree with you regarding the specifics of the question but the real point of the question was this...

Should people live freely so long as they do not harm others?

Should something be made illegal if it can harm oneself?

If we believe the first statement we should also accept the potential consequences of the second. There is at least some conflict in one's attitudes toward personal freedom if both statements are agreed with in this case.

Phrased that way I have no conflict. I agree that people should be free to live their lives provided they do not cause undue physical, mental, or financial harm. I specifically used mental in place of emotional, as hurting someone's feelings is temporary and someone should not need protection from harsh words, but subjecting someone constantly to torment and abuse is harm someone should be protected from.

I don't agree that people should need protection from themselves. The only problem with that is as a society we cannot strictly think of people as individuals and actions that at first seem to harm nobody but the person doing them can have a large overall effect. At the level of society we have to start to think what is an acceptable loss of personal freedom for the greater gain of society as a whole.

Take seat belts as an example. It is almost inevitably one of those laws people turn to when complaining about laws protecting people only from themselves. Which makes it the perfect example. I don't know if you have ever ridden in a vehicle that moves moderately fast that does not have some form of restraint, but I have, and I can tell you it can be mildly difficult to keep proper control of the vehicle when thinks start to get just a bit bumpy. You start bouncing on the seat, never a good thing. Add in people being thrown from vehicles during a crash, which can lead to other accidents. True none of these events happen often, or would happen often even without restraints, but it's an acceptable level of encroachment on personal freedoms for the greater gain of society to me. You are after confined to that seat anyway when operating the vehicle bucking a strap over you during that time is hardly a great inconvenience.

As an individual I can accept that the guy shooting up heroin isn't causing me any harm, but saying that supporting a law against him doing so is a contradiction in my basic beliefs is a bit much for me to swallow.

That's my whole problem with ideas and tests like this, very little that we do has absolutely no effect on others. Most of the contradictions I have seen posted here I can see people agreeing to on some level without it being a true contradiction of their beliefs. Problem seems to be they give absolutes you have to answer only true or false to.

 

[katsabas]

Maybe if it was in greek, I wouldn't have had 53%.

Like I need a Internet survey to tell me who I am...

 

[iLikeHippos]

Excellent test. I only had 20%, but their points of why are quite ingenuous and true.
I really, really should stretch my views more openly and put more mind to my beliefs. Thanks a lot!

 

[elvor0]

20% Tension, Its good in theory, and the analysis of conflicting pairs is quite interesting, but it stops allowing for grey areas, everything is a bit too black and white, whereas sometimes I might agree with something, and sometimes I might be willing to make the sacrifice for something.

The one thing that annoyed me though was:

You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world

Was because as much as I do feel bad and would want to help the people in third world companies, the government sharply increasing taxes would be bad for alot of people, quite possibly putting them into debt and poverty. While it would be all well and good for my money to go and help Jojo in Kenya, I will be sitting in squalor, granted not as bad as them, but in the grand scheme of things, much higher taxes for charity, or me living a comfortable life, I'm going to have to choose me, because a sharp tax increase would be detrimental to mine and a lot of other peoples lives, I know that sounds selfish, but while I'm all for helping charity, I don't want my life to go down the shitter at the same time.

See I assumed that the first question wasn't on about charity and stuff, but rather individual situation, not a collective 3rd world.

Ultimately the questions are too complex to be simply answered yes or no.

 

[TiefBlau]

0%...

Is that good?

That's fantastic. It means all your philosophies work harmoniously.

Having ethical tension isn't by nature good or bad. Yes, tension could suggest a contradiction in your ethical standards, but it could also mean that you have a line of reasoning more sophisticated than the test can assess with a simple "agree or disagree" to these various far and apart ideas. It could also just mean that you have a lot of emotion, which isn't at all a bad thing to have in my opinion.

In any case, 13%.

20% Tension, Its good in theory, and the analysis of conflicting pairs is quite interesting, but it stops allowing for grey areas, everything is a bit too black and white, whereas sometimes I might agree with something, and sometimes I might be willing to make the sacrifice for something.

The one thing that annoyed me though was:

You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world

Was because as much as I do feel bad and would want to help the people in third world companies, the government sharply increasing taxes would be bad for alot of people, quite possibly putting them into debt and poverty. While it would be all well and good for my money to go and help Jojo in Kenya, I will be sitting in squalor, granted not as bad as them, but in the grand scheme of things, much higher taxes for charity, or me living a comfortable life, I'm going to have to choose me, because a sharp tax increase would be detrimental to mine and a lot of other peoples lives, I know that sounds selfish, but while I'm all for helping charity, I don't want my life to go down the shitter at the same time.

See I assumed that the first question wasn't on about charity and stuff, but rather individual situation, not a collective 3rd world.

Ultimately the questions are too complex to be simply answered yes or no.

I agree with you that this test doesn't allow for gray areas or more sophisticated lines of reasoning, but I think you're wrong about your example.

That's clearly a logical contradiction and a source of ethical tension. You're saying that financial matters shouldn't matter if you're saving lives, and then you say that you don't want to help out third-world countries if it makes people poor. This cannot stand. It may feel like the right thing to say, but it's not logically sound.

 

[DarthFennec]

Yay no tension here ^.^

 

[MorphingDragon]

Got 40%, though I really hate these types of things. They create a false dilemma (Which is a Critical Thinking fallacy) and present a binary world. My opinion cannot be fully expressed by Agree or Disagree.