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

[TheKwertyeweyoppe]

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.

Well Hitler didn't think it was a bad idea :/

yeah, i answered the genocide bit from my opinion but the test thought i meant the 'FACT thats TRUE to EVERYONE with NO EXCEPTIONS!!'

 

[Serenegoose]

7%, I said 'killing is always wrong' and 'the second world war was just'.

This is not incoherent, however. The killing done during the second world war was wrong - but it was the lesser wrong. To pretend there is always a right way out doesn't attend to reality.

 

[CactiComplex]

27%

I'm actually surprised I got such a low percentage, my beliefs contradict one another left, right, and centre and some things I'm completely unsure about.

Interesting...

 

[Lucifron]

20% tension, 3 conflicting pairs of questions, and I can explain all of them.

./booya

 

[Gigano]

7 %

So a largely coherent ethical system, with just a bit of imperfection to showcase one's humanity.

Spoiler: Though my misstep might be attributed to understanding judge only as condemn

Questions 20 and 13: Is positive discrimination justified?

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

Positive discrimination means that factors other than the actual abilities of a person are taken into account when deciding how to treat them. This means that, under positive discrimination measures, people are not judged solely on their merits. So in order to support positive discrimination, you have to accept that it is sometimes right not to judge individuals on their merits. Alternatively, if you want to maintain that individuals must always be judged on their merits, you must give up your belief in positive discrimination. More sophisticated responses to this tension might include the idea that people should be judged, not according to their actual merits, but according to the merits they would have if everyone had been given the same opportunities. One problem with this is that it is very difficult to judge what these merits would have been.

In that understanding, there should be no conflict, as it's harmful to condemn others for traits they lack, and AA can in rare instances be less harmful than the alternative of letting inequalities build up along racial lines, with the polarizing group mentality effects that tend to have.

 

[eytrvnbmgkhjiuty]

.

 

[Vetala]

53%

heh not bad, i always argue with my other self

 

[Bugerion]

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

Same here but I didn't read one thing correctly

 

[Raven's Nest]

I found the test rather lacking because it only allows two answers, and is clearly designed for an American audience, I fail to see why it couldn't be more international. There were many questions I wanted to answer differently but couldn't.

What makes you say it's designed for an American audience?

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

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 one as well, it leads me to think that this thing is trying too hard to be clever.

There isn't a culture on the planet that wouldn't agree with a huge majority that wiping out an entire race for your own ideals is wrong.

 

[Speakercone]

13%. the discrepancies it said I have are:

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

I'm gonna have to give this some careful thought. It's a big question. I'm erring to the side of saying that there might exist some objective moral standards.

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

This one I'm just flat wrong. People should indeed find the most emission-efficient method of transportation for their needs.

Interesting test. I quite like being demonstrably wrong from time to time

 

[silasbufu]

I got 33% :\

 

[Astoria]

I got 40% but with some of the questions I thought they were kinda porely worded and I wasn't sure whether to agree or disagree. Oh well, was a good waste of 5 minutes.

 

[funguy2121]

No.

 

[Exocet]

Some of these questions are...well,useless.
I mean,"On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form".Where is the "I don't know" answer.How the hell can anyone answer that?
Others take into account extreme circumstances that fuck up answers,such as:"The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives".Well yeah,if you're asking me if spending a hundred thousand dollars to save a man's life is ok,so I would tend to agree.But then,I think of the possibility: use billions of dollars to extend a man's life by a few hours,and that's not worth it in my opinion.Now I have to disagree because of that exemple.

Overall,a very flawed test,I believe.

 

[Cap'n Moe]

A very flawed test, the contradictions it attempted to call me out on, contradicted itself. It had no background on what I was basing said beliefs on, no idea what I was thinking, or attributing that situation to at all. No lifestyle information was taken, and it appeared if it found a contradiction, it assumed you had a Masters Degree, and bombarded the user with an uncontrolled grouping of words that MIGHT make sense, but is complete jibberish to the average person. The test is a lapse in overall knowledge, and can be based on no fact. The only way this test is ideal, is if every question had the ability to be answered at the same time, as human nature has the capability for people to change their minds minute to minute.

Nice try though, interesting no less.

 

[tibieryo]

I agreed that 'all art is subjective', because I think art is all about how people view it from their own perspective. Then it asks me if Michealangelo was one of the finest artists of all time.

I... What?

I just said that art is subjective. I'm meant to be answering this sheet objectively. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION!

If I agree, then that's tension because art is subjective, so whether Michealangelo is a fine artist or not is down to me, and therefore I'm not answering objectively. But hang on - If I say he isn't a fine artist, I'm still being subjective! You cannot agree OR disagree because I JUST SAID ART WAS SUBJECTIVE!

ARRRRRRGGH.

Yes, but see, it's not asking you what your opinion is. It's asking you what history's opinion is, and that involves taking everyone in the entire world who has ever seen the work of Michaelangelo, alive or dead, into account in your answer. And if you say he's one of history's finest artists, what the test says you're saying is that all of history would judge his art to be some of the finest.

The trap would be "Michaelangelo is one of your favourite artists." It's still a bit of a dick move, but there's the logic behind it if you were curious.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Does anyone know what the tension one was for the child suffering needlessly?

The one that contradicted that if that was what you were looking for was a Loving God.

 

[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.

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.

Use critical thinking skills and read my original argument (and the one I was responding too). I'm not arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. No one was arguing the logic of the presented world.

Other posters and I were pointing out that this exercise presents false dilemma (and a Binary world), ethics was just an example of why there is a false dilemma. This false dilemma means that any underlying logic is not representative of the real world.

For the record I'm reading this:
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Concise-Tracy-Bowell/dp/0415471834/ref=dp_ob_title_bk?ie=UTF8&qid=1300282203&sr=8-1

What are you reading?