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

[thom_cat_]

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

Well yeah, it's just genocide is not part of a moral standard in any culture, and is a pretty fucking bad thing to do.

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

Can harm others. But I disagreed because without some restriction or monitoring it's not feasible. But yeah, I'm fine if it's worked right.

(13%)

 

[MorphingDragon]

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.

Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.

Assumptions and False Dilemma.

It says regardless of financial situation, doesn't it?

I think you're the one making assumptions here, bro.

5. The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives

29. Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world.

For "tension" to exist you assume that Governments can save lives only by financial means. I don't think a government should add extra burden to its already burdened populace through extra taxes when there a ways that governments can help that don't require extra money.

1se taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world"

The Government shouldn't force the decision upon other people who dont feel the same as me. The majority should rule themselves, it should not be government decision as the government is now unrepresentative.

and this. In fact, even answering this question provides tension with 1.

1. There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures

This "Health Check" is trolling or seriously flawed and smacks of adventure game logic.

 

[Varya]

[quote="Raven's Nest" post="18.270885.10416078"

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.

[/quote]
Yes you can. For one, I believe in personal freedom above say, a life where you have to do the chore assigned since birth, so my opinions still leans towards personal freedom. But I'm still anti drugs, even if they step on the personal freedom.
Besides, in a world where you can only harm yourself, who would sell drugs? That clearly harms others so drugs would still be illegal.

Also, one could easily argue that doing drugs in front of someones kids is indeed very much harming others.

 

[BlackSaint09]

OUCH! They got me good. 33%! Im a raging hyppocrite aint i?

 

[GundamSentinel]

13%. And the ones that were in conflict have a very solid reason (to me at least). I must say, this is a very intriguing test.

 

[lord canti]

27 for me don't really know if that's good or bad.

 

[the clockmaker]

I do not trust this test, especially the parts where it claims that acknowledging that worldviews are subjective and then giving a subjective worldview are contradictions. I also do not like the assumptions it makes about the implications of its answers, yes, I support personal freedoms, but I also think that legalisation of drugs and euthanasia will lead to harm to others, through the implications of the trade and the likelyhood of potentially curable people loosing out whilst not fully able to comprehend the situation.

Overall, this test was heavily wieghted by the subjective worldview of its creator, which i find fairly funny as it claims many of its findings to be objective fact.

 

[Cypher10110]

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

54394 of the 174198 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.

----

I found this tension particularly interesting.
My other tensions were resolved upon reading the text describing the tensions. This one however I felt was not covered by the text.

----

If I had a profound effect on the people around me during my life, they would gain some of my ideals, idiosyncrasies, catchphrases, values, methods, etc. This would effect their lives after my death, and perhaps lead them to effect others, passing on information down ages, as ripples in the ocean.

For me "the soul" as viewed from the outside is just information. That information is, in a sense, immortal. I imagine sooner or later it will be forgotten completely, but it will always be used as a brick to build new information. Just as our bodies crumble to dust and the atoms are used elsewhere, our soul crumbles into memories and becomes a part of the lives of others.

"Non-physical" for me could also be interpreted as "imaginary" or "informational construct". I believe we all "live-on" in a sense, through the after-effects of our brief existence.

I don't expect to experience anything after I have died. But I do expect to "live on" in a non-physical form, the form of information. It is one reason why I spend alot of my time trying to impart what little wisdom I have on the few people in my life. I feel that if I help them learn, perhaps they can not only help themselves, but others too.

TLDR;
After death, we all "live on".
In the same way a pebble passing through the surface of a pool of water leaves lasting impressions, so too do human beings in their short lives.

In this metaphor it would be easy to imagine the pebble's continuing journey beneath the surface. I do not pretend to know what is beyond the surface of existence; what there is after death. I do not expect to ever find out.

 

[TiefBlau]

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.

Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.

Assumptions and False Dilemma.

It says regardless of financial situation, doesn't it?

I think you're the one making assumptions here, bro.

5. The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives

29. Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world.

For "tension" to exist you assume that Governments can save lives only by financial means.

No, you don't. What the fuck are you reading?

The existence of an alternative is irrelevant. If you agree that people should save lives regardless of financial situation, as 5 says, then you must agree that taxes, regardless of magnitude, are a small price to pay for saving such lives. This is a logical necessity, whether or not something else can be done.

I don't think a government should add extra burden to its already burdened populace through extra taxes when there a ways that governments can help that don't require extra money.

I don't care what you think about poor people.

No one was arguing ethics. This is logic. It's like saying 2+2 does not make 5. You can say that adding another one could make the difference between life and death, and I couldn't care less, because 2+2 still doesn't equal 5. Honestly.

 

[Unia]

13%, I got called out on relativity of moral and mainstream medicine vs. alternative medicine.

The latter was a bit of a brain-fart on my part, I thought it was illegal to sell non-tested chemical compounds for medicinal use regardless of origin. Maybe there's a difference in legislation, maybe I'm just silly.

As for relativity of moral, the term moral includes both things like "other people have the right to live" and "showing a certain body part in public is inherently evil". I agree with first sentence and disagree with second.
I thought the question of genocide was asking for my opinion from my moral standpoint. What, I got morals like everybody else.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

A whopping 33%, but I'd never claim to have myself completely straightened out mentally. I'm constantly re-thinking things and in a state of philosophical flux.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.

I got that too. I knew it would come and bite me in the ass.

A better statement would be not to say genocide is "Evil", but that it can have negative effects on a society. That is slightly more morally consistent from a utilitarian point of view (the method I generally use to value acts).

Of course my answers on a test and my actions in life rarely match up. Though I try to make them match whenever I can.

 

[u4527646]

I got 20% because I had 3 points of tension. But I only really showed actually tension in one point (in my opinion). For example:

"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 suppose that this problem is from me not believing that Atheism is a faith (especially for the reason given) but I felt I should agree anyway because I feel Atheism should be recognised as a religion that same why any other religion based on faith is... Not that I feel atheism is based on faith... Because I feel it's based on science instead... Anyways...

 

[Nazz3]

53 %. What does this test even measure?

 

[Klepa]

A whopping 33%, but I'd never claim to have myself completely straightened out mentally. I'm constantly re-thinking things and in a state of philosophical flux.

Same here, 33%.

The test did manage to call me out on the things I am unsure about, so kudos to that. Environmental issues are something that I've always had a mixed bag of feelings about.

I also scored some extra points about moral relativity, and the concept of "truth", and then agreeing that holocaust was bad.

 

[u4527646]

53 %. What does this test even measure?

It measures "tension" or if you have beliefs that conflict with each other, underneath your score there should be a list of the questions that you gave conflicting answers for and why they (the writers) think those two answers disagree.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Tension Quotient = 0%

Wow, I did not expect this. Still, I believe my beliefs are not that consistent (as the test said, it does not cover everything). Oh well, I always strive to improve myself

 

[biGBum333]

13%

pretty interesting stuff

 

[Mistermixmaster]

33%. I dunno if that's good or bad, but I got my own wierd way of looking at the world, and I'm happy with it.

Also, this one was a bit wierd
Questions 12 and 30: Is the future fixed?
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

They got the example of buying one of two coats, where they say it is already predetermined which coat you'll end up buying because of fate, but I don't think it works that way. I think it's more like you choose which coat you buy, and thus fate decides how your future will unfold onwards to the next decision you'll end up having to make. Y'know, sortof like in visual novels.

 

[Kyoufuu]

Mine was fairly high, but in all of the cases there were other matters to take into consideration. They were too complicated to be answered by a 'yes' or 'no.'

Spoiler: Example

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70506 of the 172162 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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

If alternative medicines are tested, I don't see a problem.

If they are tested, and work, they lose the 'alternative' title.