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

[EchetusXe]

Tension of 13%.

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

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

 

[Baneat]

"High - I'm the leader of the Liberal Democrats"

Can you list some examples of contradictions the Lib Dems hold? just curious, haven't actually looked into modern political philosophies employed by parties yet.

I wonder how we could re-state the statements to be both more all-encompassing and more layman-friendly.

I wonder if there is a way to circumvent the words "objective" and "subjective" entirely...

Hm, "Matter of taste/opinion" and "Matter of fact"?

I see the issue here, the guy's reaching out to people with a layman's interest and blindsiding them with terminology that stretches into srs bsnss

Not contradictions, but hypocritcal behaviours. Nick Clegg assured potential voters that he would abolish the uni tuition fees if elected to power. He signed a declaration which was photographed by the press.

Few months later, Clegg is second in command and pulls a U-turn on the issue claiming he and his lib dem cabinet ministers never supported the idea in the first place... No Mr Clegg, of course you didn't.

Oh right, I was looking for stuff like they support X and Y but X's principle cannot co-exist with Y's

 

[4173]

I got 7%, but only because the dumbass test isn't as sematically precise as I am.

This. It uses the word "unnecessary" and then dings me in the end because unnecessary can be an ambiguous term.

And they didn't even pick up what I thought was the more likely contradiction in my test; people have an absolute right over their own body, and that killing can be justified. Or that government should approve treatment and that people have absolute right over their own body. (not that I think my positions are contradictory, I just expected the test would)

 

[conflictofinterests]

These two beliefs supposedly contradict one another (paraphrased):
"Judge people only by their merits".
"Positive discrimination is desirable in some circumstances".
But they don't contradict!!! Just because I think that a program to, for example, encourage women to participate in the workforce would be a good thing doesn't mean that I judge them as being more deserving than men. It just means that I take the view that, in the circumstances, the social benefit of the program outweighs the fact that it does not consider the merits of the individual.

It is not me saying that I judge this woman or that as being more deserving of the program; it means that I judge the social benefit as being worth ignoring such judgments.

It's basically saying that you judge the woman not only by her merits, but also by the fact that she was discriminated against in the past. It's not a bad thing to add things other than merit to the equation, it's just a different thing than judging solely based on merit.

I am not judging her on something other than her merits. I am, in fact, not judging her at all (or, if I am, I am not factoring that judgment into my decision making). I am making a decision regarding the institution of the program based not on who is worthy to receive its benefits but on the social utitlity of the program.

Continuing with this analogy, I could judge Jim next door as being a far better scholar than Jane but decide to award a scholarship to Jane because I feel that women have been typically disadvantaged in terms of access to education. That decision does not alter into my initial judgment of Jim or Jane.

I therefore am, both concurrently and legitimately, judging people solely on their merits, whilst viewing positive discrimination as desirable in the circumstances. There is no contradiction.

You are rewarding her, which involves judging how much she is deserving of a reward, not based on her merits, but based on the fact that women have been disadvantaged.

You are using loaded language to imply motives that I have explicitly denied. I have explicitly stated that I am not 'rewarding' her because she is deserving of the scholarship; I am giving her the scholarship because I take the view that this will result in a social gain. I am not looking to the past to determine whose past actions merit them the scholarship; I am looking to the future to determine what course of action will have the greatest outcome for society. In looking to the future, I have determined that giving Jane the scholarship will result in a more equitable tomorrow. I have taken the view that the social gain is more important than who deserves the scholarship. This decision does not alter my judgment of the people involved.

It's called utilitarianism; making a decision based not on who deserves what but on what decision will result in greater happiness.

:|

 

[conflictofinterests]

Ah, but there's the rub--if no one but you thought he was one of history's finest artists, would he still be one of history's finest artists?

Well, yes.
That's my point.
It's perspective.
One man's art is just shit on a canvas for someone else.

Then all art is subjective and Michelangelo cannot BE, without qualifiers, one of the world's finest artists, because "fine art" is not an objectively definable thing.

I think this is an impasse of language.
I'm not talking about it being objectively true.
What I'm saying is that if someone thinks X is pretty, then X is pretty to that person.
'Pretty', like 'art', cannot possibly be objective to begin with, since the very meanings of the words are inherently subjective.
They depend wholly on the viewer.

Besides, "Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists" is such a loaded statement anyway.
It could mean any number of things.
The immediately recognizable meaning is that he makes the prettiest pictures.
It could also mean he's the most skilled artist. (which is more quantifiable)
Or it could simply mean he dressed really nicely and was really polite.

I think I'm done with this thread.
Philosophy and semantics are tiresome.

On the first try i got 20%, with three sets of questions that were in conflict. Two of the answer's i had given, i had been on the fence about anyway, so whether it's considered to be choices made "in retrospect/ more thought through", or simply "an alternative version", i went back to check how i would do if i changed those questions i had been unsure about.


I got 7 %, and the only two questions that were in conflict were these:

Tension Quotient = 7%

Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?

50051 of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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

In order not to be in contradiction here, you must be able to make a convincing case that the personal use of drugs harms people other than the drug user. More than this - you must also show that prohibited drug use harms others more than other legal activities such as smoking, drinking and driving cars, unless you want to argue that these should also be made criminal offences. As alcohol, tobacco and car accidents are among the leading killers in western society, this case may be hard to make. You also have to make the case for each drug you think should not be decriminalised. The set of drugs which are currently illegal is not a natural one, so there is no reason to treat all currently illegal drugs the same.

But i have an answer for this, and it's weird because the question was there. Question 26 asks if individuals have sole rights over their bodies, and on the same basis as believing that euthanasia should remain illegal, i had to disagree. This is the same question as the OP asks: "How can you say that people are free to do what they please, as long as they don't harm others, if you say they can't do drugs?"
I would like to rephrase this definition of "freedom" with respect to what i have said above. "People should have the right to do as they pleas, as long as they do not do not harm themselves or others" (a better definition would also include living life as long as you do not do it at the expense of others).

Look, on the same basis as we don't just sit back and watch a teenage girl cut herself, or refuse to intervene when a man is about to jump off a building, we don't let people harm themselves in other ways either. Why? Because they are not in the right state of mind to make those decisions, and even if they were we can't just sit by and watch people hurt themselves. Yeah, this would include drinking excessive amounts of alcohol (or home-brewn/ dangerously high alcohol levels) and tobacco smoking, since we know that's harmful too.

I don't know enough about illegal drugs to be able to say that ALL illegal drugs are dangerous, some might be safe in small doses, like alcohol. But i do know that many (if not most) are as dangerous long-term as tobacco smoking (if not more so). I believe proper research should be made so we will be able to make informed decisions about what recreational drugs to legalize, and which to keep illegal. Unfortunately, tobacco smoking remains legal while other drugs are illegal, so most of the world's laws already have "philosophical tensions".

Fair enough, you're arguing the point that the quiz doesn't really consider. It should probably be adjusted for such. What was the point you were making about euthanasia, though?

 

[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.