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

[conflictofinterests]

Okay, most trains here in germany run on electricity.
The moral question is NOT about genocides...
You said morality is subjective, so why make a moraly objective statement afterwards?

No, the second statement is still morally subjective, even if it does use the word "testament." It is my opinion that genocide is evil. My education and life has taught me that and I believe it. If I wasn't taught that, I might not hold the conviction as strongly, say for example if I grew up in Serbia or Turkey or America (a couple hundred years ago). I can believe morality is subjective, while certain things are wrong. Otherwise I'd be a sociopath.

There's a difference between "I believe this to be evil" and "This is evil"

The author, though terrible at making this distinction, means it in the latter sense.

 

[Quaade]

40% not that I feel unhealthy or that something is wrong with me.

This questionaire is loaded to confirm a thesis based on philosophical absolutes, which by itself is flawed. Philosophy is by its very definition not absolute nor is it, in most cases, confirmable since you have to change the world in order to make it fit the postulate.

People shouldn't drive a car when there are other alternatives vs shouldn't damage the environment more than needed

Where's the more practical philosophical debate on what is needed?

At the moment I'm moving and have to buy pretty much everything for my new place or I'll just be living in what is essentially a big box. Moving by bike, walking or public is not an option since I'd be broken physically long before being done.
So using a car, optimal? no, necessary from my point of view? hell yes.

As for the whole genocide debate. I think you have blindsided yourself to the more philosophical POV in order to confirm your "health check." Evil is relative to the person watching.
Genocide will always be evil for the people it happens to and justified for the people doing it. If Hutus had been the victim of a Tutsi genocide, they would have considered it evil as well.

 

[SpaceCop]

I still see no real discrepancy between the belief that artistic judgements are subjective and holding the personal opinion that Michelangelo was one of history's finest artists.

Ditto the relative morality/genocide question. Insofar as I personally understand the concept of "evil", I would argue that genocide fits it. But I don't think that a purely objective morality exists--personal perspective is always a factor. Unless, as in the example provided by the test, the entire Rwandan army was completely aware that they were doing evil acts, but continued doing them regardless.

Anyway, my philosophical foibles aside, the test certainly did make me think about--well--how I think about things. Which is always a good thing (which is not a statement of objective morality, aghhh.)

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

0%

I'm not that surprised. Whenever the word "should" gets used, I know what my answer is going to be.

 

[ecyor0]

33% Eh, not too bad.

Mostly through disagreement over what counts as a contradiction - WWII being a 'just' war, not so much because one side was entirely justified, as it was a clear case of 'this side is attempting to take over the world' and 'this side is fighting for its very existence'. Sure, the killing that happened wasn't just, but the war was far from pointless.


And of course, ye olde "If god is real, why do children suffer" point that people love to trot out... can't really blame them for that though, it's a really convincing contradiction until you think about it long and hard...

 

[MikeOfThunder]

The question didn't say "In my opinion, Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists"...

A cheap shot perhaps, but the questions are designed to test the strength of your convictions.

Its an interesting quiz.

I recieved 13% tension. The first one i have a problem with though and don't believe i was wrong.

"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"

Like you said, it was a cheap shot. I was meaning:

"In my opinion and that of my culture: Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil".

After all i'm sure the people doing the killing didn't see it as an evil thing.

 

[master m99]

i got 7% for a clash between morality is subjective to your culture and geniside is evil, but what they dont seem to realise is that what im saying is that in MY culture geniside is evil i feel that question doesnt really work as we are human and as so bias due to our up bringging, im not explaining this very well sorry =S

 

[Ossian]

27% And no, just because God can do something to prevent a child from harm and doesn't doesn't mean he is morally in the wrong. Even if I said it was. Big picture, this test fails.

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

13%, one from a misunderstanding and this one:

Questions 12 and 30: Is the future fixed?

23111 of the 175681 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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

From a lack of thought on question 12

I would also argue, and am currently writing a paper on, the idea that objective and subjective morality do, in fact, both exist.

 

[C95J]

I got 7% tension in the end (Low), but to be honest, I have no idea what that means, and I wasn't prepared to read through the text, deciphering it as I went along to find out.

Seriously, the way they structured some of the questions made my brain hurt a bit...

 

[Grayjack]

33%

Uh, cool I guess?

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

As much as I REALLY like the concept, excution, and goal of this test (seriously, I applaud the creeators), it makes this flaw even more notiacble and severe:

Everything is yes or no.

With such a test on this subject, the lack of a "depends", or "depends, but generally no/yes" option is a severe flaw.

 

[rutger5000]

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?

Now that I think about it I can't say for certain whether this test was for Americans or not. I can say for certain whether this test wasn't designed for Dutch people. Most of these issues are pretty much dealt with in the Netherlands. Therefor the test didn't seem relevant to me. I've got quiet a few American friends, and I see that they often still struggle with these issues. Therefor I thought that was typically American, but it might just as well be a Dutch thing not to struggle with them.

 

[Continuity]

7%... stupid Michaelangelo question.

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

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless.

I'm calling bullshit on that. I assert that "Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste" yes, but then I make a personal judgement based on my own taste that Michaelangelo is one of the finest artists in history... No contradiction, no tension.

 

[rutger5000]

The question didn't say "In my opinion, Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists"...

A cheap shot perhaps, but the questions are designed to test the strength of your convictions.

Its an interesting quiz.

I recieved 13% tension. The first one i have a problem with though and don't believe i was wrong.

"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"

Like you said, it was a cheap shot. I was meaning:

"In my opinion and that of my culture: Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil".

After all i'm sure the people doing the killing didn't see it as an evil thing.

No I feel the test was right about that one. If no objective moral standards exist then no testament of great evil can exist. Because after a certain period of time the culture will have changed, and that great evil will not be considered as a great evil anymore. Ergo it wasn't a testament of evil, only an act that has been considered as evil for a while.

 

[PoliceBox63]

I misread the WW2 one as "The second world war was just a war" so I agreed.
Otherwise it would've been 0%

 

[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

They ARE individuals though, so we should see them that way.

We punish them as individuals too. The judge doesn't go "well we need to figure out what would happen if 2 million other people did the same thing". They arrest them as individuals, they try them as individuals and they punish them as individuals.

Yes. Because that applies exactly to what I was saying. Uh, huh. For reals yo, ain't no sarcasm here playa!

Look the crack head stealing your neighbours tools isn't bothering you, and even if nobody has ever stolen from you to feed their drug habit doesn't mean it's not hurting anyone. Just because a drunk driver never mower down your family doesn't make it alright to get behind the wheel. Those are obvious. Less obvious is the junkie that doesn't work and ties up thousands upon thousands of dollars in social aid and care doesn't mean it's not hurting anyone either, even if the total cost is less then pennies per person.

In a society you have to balance personal freedoms with the harm those actions cause overall to society. Not every druggie steals, not everyone that is at the legal limit has such a loss of motor control that they cannot remain in control of a vehicle. The majority do and when you are making laws for a society you have to draw a line somewhere. Your argument of treating everyone as individuals under law makes no sense either.

Unless of course you actually think lawmakers have each individual in the country, state, province, county, town, municipality, city or whatever they are applying the law to in mind overtime they draft up a law. Of course not. They are thinking about the community or society they are drafting the law for (corruption and personal politics aside).

That's it? Those are your examples. Some druggies rob places, drunk driving is dangerous and some druggies don't work? Well robbing places and driving drunk is all ready illegal, we don't need to ban alcohol just because someone might abuse it. Nor is it exactly fair to punish everyone because some people can't handle something.

I am just going to assume now that you are intentionally coming up in left field when my point was driven off far to the right. It really is like you are early skimming the post and replying on whatever happens to stick in your head.

Regardless, this was about a persons core beliefs and how agreeing with the two statements was supposedly contradictory. Right or wrong I believe I quite handedly explained how I can agree with both statements and it not be a conflict in my basic beliefs.

It's still a conflict. Either people are free to harm themselves or they are not. Carving out exceptions means you don't agree with it.

But fine a guy shooting heroin harms no one. All your examples of harm to society occur when he shoots heroin and then does something else.

And how exactly does treating people as individuals (which we all ready do) make no sense?

Laws apply to societies or communities. Do they not? Laws are made to protect communities as well as laws to protect individuals.

There is no conflict in my beliefs on this subject. The only conflict is the one you are trying so desperarly to create.

 

[rutger5000]

7%... stupid Michaelangelo question.

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

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless.

I'm calling bullshit on that. I assert that "Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste" yes, but then I make a personal judgement based on my own taste that Michaelangelo is one of the finest artists in history... No contradiction, no tension.

Yeah that was a stupid question. I Disagreed on the Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste, question. But tended to also disagree on the Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists question. (Surly Michaelangelo was an amazing artist, but there were/are so many great artist that it can't be said whether or not he was amongst the finest (personally I find that an extremely arrogant point, made from a western prespective)) I regocnized it as a pitfall though, and therefor I agreed. But yeah stupid question.

 

[Wolfram23]

27%... but their explanations are lacking in validity sometimes.

Example:
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

As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.

ME: Ok... except that not all cars damage the environment. Not only are many cars very efficient and their pollutants are almost strictly limited to water vapour and CO2 (as in, plant food), but we're also getting hybrid and electric cars. They also list trains, for example... ok... coal trains? Diesel trains? What about all the mining it takes to make the trains and the tracks? Sorry but the test has it's own logic fails.

I also had "tension" on the Michealangelo question, because I think art is a matter of taste, but the question didn't ask if I thought he was objectively the best, therefore, in my subjective "taste," I think he is.

 

[Firehound]

I disagree with the test. It uses some things that don't make sense as tension For example, a person who believes Michelangelo is one of history's finest artists will get tension unnecessarily from believing art is the viewer's opinion.


20% BTW.