Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just because you didn't grow up a certain way doesn't mean you can't believe that people ought to live a certain way.Enigmers said:
Also, if you believe financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives, then everyone should (to the point of demanding it yourself) donate as much as they can without endangering their own lives, and the government is a great way to accomplish this money-collection task. There should also be universal heath care to cover any and all life-threatening ailments one might contract... There are a lot of implications that go along with that first sentence in that set. They mostly hinge around "any effort" and "financial considerations are irrelevant."
You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, but I answered no because in my version of agnosticism, if a god like the Christian one exists, then he's a fucking asshole because of all the innocent/good people who are going to hell because they just happened not to hear about Jesus.spiffleh said:
Can someone explain to me how
You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war
Is a conflict?
Because I agreed that WWII was a war. I was not saying war is ever justified or good. I was stating that one war, in my opinion, was not 'more horrific' than another war simply /because/ I think taking lives is always wrong. Thus taking 1 life is just as bad as taking several. (Well I guess I'd say no one has the right to make that call. I don't know if wrong is the best word choice.)
You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war
Is a conflict?
Because I agreed that WWII was a war. I was not saying war is ever justified or good. I was stating that one war, in my opinion, was not 'more horrific' than another war simply /because/ I think taking lives is always wrong. Thus taking 1 life is just as bad as taking several. (Well I guess I'd say no one has the right to make that call. I don't know if wrong is the best word choice.)
I got a 7 percent, saying that there are no real objective truths, but I said the holocaust happened... I understand what this machine is getting at, saying "God Exists" or "God Doesn't Exist" are statements that cannot be proven by facts, therefore they cannot be proven to be objectively true. But saying the holocaust didn't happened because there are no objective truths is absolutely ridiculous. That's like if you were eating an orange and a guy walks up to you and says you are not eating an orange because objective truths do not exist. If eating an orange or any other factual occurrence is listed under "Objective Truths," you would have to be blind, deaf and dumb to say that there are no "Objective Truths." Sorry computer, but the love of knowledge must still be grounded within reasonable realms of thought, and philosophy cannot be completely abstract from the reality and sub realities of the world around you. To say there is no objective truth by your definition seems to mean that nothing exists.
40%
This is because many of the postulated questions are matters I have never considered, never need to consider, consider irrelevant, or consider on a basis of the here and now as opposed to the fundaments of the standard human brain from first present consciousness to present on a level plane.
For example, it generalizes "Unnatural as wrong" and generates a tension in my evaluation because Sanitation & Medicine are Unnatural, but so is Homosexuality. Which is more pertinent and necessary, as opposed to being "wrong", I ask you. Honestly. Homosexuality and Necessary environments for human health are not the same thing.
This is because many of the postulated questions are matters I have never considered, never need to consider, consider irrelevant, or consider on a basis of the here and now as opposed to the fundaments of the standard human brain from first present consciousness to present on a level plane.
For example, it generalizes "Unnatural as wrong" and generates a tension in my evaluation because Sanitation & Medicine are Unnatural, but so is Homosexuality. Which is more pertinent and necessary, as opposed to being "wrong", I ask you. Honestly. Homosexuality and Necessary environments for human health are not the same thing.
There really should be a "I can't decide option" but the website will find a way to see that as a huge problem in youAnarchemitis said:
Edit: I sometimes couldn't decide so I picked whatever sounded like the type of answer society would smile on. Apparently that was a bad idea.
I got 13%, but I'm going to count it as 0% because the two conflicts are easily "reconcilable".
For example, I got the "So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends" versus the "The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised" conflict, however that only occured because the first philosophy was incomplete. I believe that "So long as they do not harm themselves or others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends".
Besides, it would be very easy to make the case that drugs hurt others. Drugs and crime are quite tangled up in each other, not necessarily because they're criminalized (though it doesn't help), but because heroin and meth don't exactly lead to steady jobs and productive members of society.
For example, I got the "So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends" versus the "The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised" conflict, however that only occured because the first philosophy was incomplete. I believe that "So long as they do not harm themselves or others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends".
Besides, it would be very easy to make the case that drugs hurt others. Drugs and crime are quite tangled up in each other, not necessarily because they're criminalized (though it doesn't help), but because heroin and meth don't exactly lead to steady jobs and productive members of society.
Needs a 1-5 or a 1-9 scale.
Some of the conflicts came up because I didn't fully agree or disagree with the statements.
Some of the conflicts came up because I didn't fully agree or disagree with the statements.
13%
The environment one got me. I stand by my genocide claim. If the "them" is being targeted, it might not become an issue, but if it's the "us", then it certainly will be. Therefore, genocide will be evil, even if only when it's used against "us". Accounting for double standards counts right?
The environment one got me. I stand by my genocide claim. If the "them" is being targeted, it might not become an issue, but if it's the "us", then it certainly will be. Therefore, genocide will be evil, even if only when it's used against "us". Accounting for double standards counts right?
I'm sure it's been said, but this is making me really think about myself. Granted some of these questions are only partly of what I believe but it doesn't change the fact that I'm more of a hypocrite than I realized. At 40% I may have to really reconsider some of my beliefs.
I think some of the questions could be worded better; there were quite a lot of moral absolutes that I felt a simple "Agree/Disagree" answer incorrectly described my view on the particular subject.
You make a good solid point there. I completely agree with that answer although that doesn't alter the fact that 'in my opinion and that of my culture: evil genocide blah blah...'rutger5000 said:
When i aswered the question I didn't mean that genocide will always be percieved as evil, I just referring to my personal opinion.
I think when answering I wasn't quite looking at the bigger picture. I don't think, when answering, that I understood what it was talking about. I thought it was asking for my opinion on genocide not the general opinion of genocide through the ages.
I hope I'm making sense!
20%.
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.
It's not unnecessary- I need to be somewhere. Necessity also comes in when you want to save time, or money, or you don't want to sit next to a hobo who hasn't showered since 1976. So I disagree with the unnecessarily damaging the etc, etc. I know it explains itself, but it's still making judgements.
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.
It's not unnecessary- I need to be somewhere. Necessity also comes in when you want to save time, or money, or you don't want to sit next to a hobo who hasn't showered since 1976. So I disagree with the unnecessarily damaging the etc, etc. I know it explains itself, but it's still making judgements.
The problem with that quiz is that there are too many questions that require an answer that acknowledges some grey area. Most of the issues it addresses are far too complex for a simple yes or no answer. The notion that this thing is of any merit as a genuine psychological study is frankly laughable. well, unless you are the kind of person who does see everything in terms of black or white, yes or no, etc. See, even the question of "Is this a valid psychological test" is not a simple matter of yes or no. But by that rationale, the evidence suggests that it is deeply flawed, which brings us back to the "it's fine if you see everything in terms of black and white" clause. See, even that simple question is waaaay too complex for yes or no answers.
Tension Quotient = 7%
Questions 5 and 29: Can you put a price on a human life?
42751 of the 176560 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
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
If the right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant when it comes to making decisions about saving human lives, then that must mean that we should always spend as much money as possible to save lives. If it costs £4 million to save a cancer patient's life, that money should be spent, period. But if this is true, then surely the West should spend as much money as possible saving lives in the developing world. You may already give $100 dollars a month to save lives in the developing world. But if financial considerations are irrelevant when it comes to saving lives, why not $200, or $1000, or just as much as you can afford? If you do not do so, you are implicitly endorsing the principle that individuals and governments are not obliged to save lives at all financial cost - that one can spend 'enough' on saving lives even though spending more, which one could afford to do, would save more lives. This suggests that financial considerations are relevant when it comes to making decisions about saving lives - there is a limit to how much one should spend to save a life.
Questions 5 and 29: Can you put a price on a human life?
42751 of the 176560 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
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
If the right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant when it comes to making decisions about saving human lives, then that must mean that we should always spend as much money as possible to save lives. If it costs £4 million to save a cancer patient's life, that money should be spent, period. But if this is true, then surely the West should spend as much money as possible saving lives in the developing world. You may already give $100 dollars a month to save lives in the developing world. But if financial considerations are irrelevant when it comes to saving lives, why not $200, or $1000, or just as much as you can afford? If you do not do so, you are implicitly endorsing the principle that individuals and governments are not obliged to save lives at all financial cost - that one can spend 'enough' on saving lives even though spending more, which one could afford to do, would save more lives. This suggests that financial considerations are relevant when it comes to making decisions about saving lives - there is a limit to how much one should spend to save a life.
I don't think I can justify this very well. I guess I can say I do disagree with the initial statement in that I don't believe in a fundamental right to life, but right to a certain quality of life. Or something. I don't honestly know.
Most interesting one:
RE: Genocide. Not a testament to man's ability to do great evil, but rather a testament to man's great ability to justify/rationalize acts of evil. I don't consider genocide any more inherently evil than that culling of Irish horses I just read about. I do think it's evil, but then those are my values. It's not objectively evil.
I got 33%, lowish medium but I am happy I didn't mess up the spiritual and environmental questions. Mainly art and drugs were my problem.