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.
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.
It's one of those cases where the word spread quicker than the definition I guess. Coupled with some misrepresentation and preconceptions.
The whole concept of philosophy and theology constantly evolves. As ideas are presented and spread, some people agree with them and some don't. Richard Dawkins is pretty much spearheading the Atheism thing right now and his concept of Weak vs Strong Atheism is widely accepted amongst those that study religion. Despite having a reputation for being a militant atheist or anti-theist, even he doesn't claim that God does not exist...
The ones that do claim this are often ridiculed amongst atheists. But that's also where the similarities end. There is a huge misconception that since Atheists don't believe in God, they either assume the opposite stance or treat the concept as a faith. This is simply not always true, and sometimes you'll find atheists who will believe in souls, unicorns and fairies, though uncommon, it just further shows that if their was a church of atheism, it'd be the most divided organisation on the planet.
I suppose so, but I still say that both are valid forms of interpreting atheism. You don't need to not believe in a deity to be an atheist, however you aren't wrong to assume so. Much in the same way that you don't need to be Catholic to be Christian, but you aren't wrong to assume someone is Catholic with no inclination as to which kind of Christian they are.
I love how they put up complex, multiple-point statements and then ask you to agree or disagree with the whole thing. Lovely questionnaire, I could only answer a few of 'em, so... no score.
You are supposed to read them as literally as possible, I know there's a lot to consider in each point, but it's really hard to come down in the middle if you examine the statements that way.
Alright, here's an example of one where I come down in the middle. First statement: "There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures"
In my opinion, there are objective moral standards (though they are few and far between). So I disagree with the first part... sort of. However, in my opinion, a vast majority of moral judgments are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures... so I agree with the second part... mostly.
Where does that leave me? No score draw.
If there are ANY objective moral standards, then that statement is false. It doesn't mean there are a lot of them. There could only be one. But if there is, it is not a true statement. And if there are no moral standards that are universal (or should be) across cultures, then that statement is true. There is no middle ground here.
If it were only the sentence before the semicolon, you would be correct. However, because of the clarification following it, the statement contradicts itself when judged against my values system... rendering the statement itself alien to my personal values.
No. The second half in no way contradicts any part of the first. It cites an example of a situation in which morality might be subjective, as opposed to objective. If morality changes from culture to culture, then it is not an objective truth.
Let me explain it this way. Newton's description of gravity, namely of the course an object takes as it is thrown, works up to a point. On the ground, it's pretty accurate. However, as soon as you leave the ground, it fails to explain gravity sufficiently anymore. In space objects that go up don't always come down. Objects can orbit or slingshot off other objects. So we got a different description of gravity, because Newton's wasn't right ALL of the time: It was subjective, and Laws of Physics MUST be objective.
If it doesn't work the same way EVERYWHERE, EVERY TIME, it's NOT objective.
*snicket
Your first question, the one about the second world war. It's meant to oppose the "life is intrinsically important" question, so if it was a just war for ANYONE it would disagree with that.
Your second question: History books which could be confirmed with investigation into the places and archives relevant to those occurrences today. There were and are plenty of anthropologists digging up mass graves from genocides, and as far as I know, those death camps still exist. And it is in opposition to the statement "There is no intrinsic truth, because what it true changes depending on the culture you live in (some countries or people insist the Holocaust didn't happen)
About the first question, I figured it was implying Just War Theory, considering that WW2 is frequently the biggest discussion point because of our vast knowledge of it. Just War Theory is also a huge portion of modern philosophy. Considering that, it's easy to see that the question could be easily thought of in a "Just War Theory" context.
And as for the second, I'm well aware of that, but it didn't say anything about the truth of the holocausts existence. It asked about the validity of history books. Truth and history books don't always like to agree, and that was the point I was making. I'm not a holocaust denier, I'm just against the idea of leaving questions so open ended.
This is kinda stupid, every question is just a trap they set up previously, without letting you explain why do you disagree or agree or choose a third option, and after that you get a questionable "criticsm".
I got 33%, but what ticked me off royally is that (I know, it sounds defensive) that based upon one thing, I got 3 statements wrong, and I'm see many people here who got lower then me for some reason...
Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
76164 of the 172183 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
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
The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?
Double Taking and pointless ranting, honestly, this is exactly the type of BS philosophy needs to grow out of. One cannot argue that human life being lost, without an offset is valid argument. I'm not fighting to live here, I have been kicked down, raped and killed in lamest terms, genocide without a clear contest of resolution of other populace is simply not acceptable. Especially when survival reasons are next to moot.
41740 of the 172183 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.
Too dry cut and short, there are too many variables. If Goverments Taxed the richer classes accordingly as well the poorer classes, then I would agree, but with unstable market workings every 30 years, lacking baseline progress on working class rights and wages, as well as the fact that countries like Switzerland as already putting up a LARGE portion of tax income to immigrants on non-working class, I can't afford to waste money based upon an 'ideal' notion of human right. I would like to, but can't, so argument is simply to straight cut for my tastes.
Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
70510 of the 172183 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
But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.
I thought it was pretty standard knowledge this part. Many research medications aren't done work under subside of the Government, and other that are done, still carry the labels of 'warning'. What even gets on my nerves is that the assumption is cutting around the corner, saying that we humans essentially don't have a 'understanding' of what we're getting. If we get medical treatments which has been 'standardized' and proven under Government regulations, its our choice, if I want to instead drink a new cocktail, which isn't tested and is 'high risk' that is my option, I'm pro 'Voluntary Euthanasia' since in many cases, when someone is suffering through something that cannot be fixed through standard means of human abilities.
As I said, I didn't like this Test. It was fun, and has some interesting arguments, but it seems like it's purposefully avoiding certain answers and only pairing specific ones, and the arguments it's making are too cut clear, and...standard, without way-room for other contest ideas or explanations of the matter.
To put it mildly: This Test is Black and White, no shades of Grey.
It isn't necessarily picking which arguments to make, from what it looks like they gave arguments for many different permutations, and they only choose one contradiction for each pair. They probably have the same ones paired up with others in case you held those two contradictory beliefs and so on. Although I don't like the wording of some of the questions, I think the arguments they make are fair. The point of what they are doing is that if they make you push for one of the beliefs enough, it will either make you choose one of the two beliefs, or you will decide to doublethink. (Oddly enough the second is far more common in my experience) Or there may be a strange case where someone thought about it a lot and has a more complicated argument for why they do not contradict. They also mentioned that, but said that its too much work to account for that or something...
This test is worded so that it can tell you where you contradict yourself.
"World War 2 was just a war." Agree or disagree. As opposed to what exactly? If I know what exactly it is other than a war I could agree, if I say agree and then the test comes up with political situations and human needs or w/e . Where is the not enough information answer.
Several have to do with God, the worship, the acceptance and the belief there is none. Where is the I'm not sure box? "There is an all loving God." Agree or disagree....
"There are no objective truths about matters of fact; "truth" is always relative to particular cultures and individuals" Wait what? There is no truth about facts? I can't wait to see what that clashes with.
"Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood" Like a coma?
"Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists" Agree or Disagree.You just asked me if "Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste". Thanks for dealing with absolutes so that no matter what I answer you can say I contradict myself. If I agree that all judgements about works of art are a matter of taste then agree or disagree in that michaelangelo is one of history's finest artist no matter what I say it goes against what I had already said.
After submitting my test it said I have no tensions 0%... This test is terrible, I'm sorry.
I got 0% tension, which is pretty cool, but I do have to take issue with the wording on a few of the statements here.
"The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report"
Like this one. Yes, there is most certainly a historical reality behind the holocaust, independent of what one's personal biases, but what if I'm simply not sure what that reality is? Why do I have to be so certain on the subject to not be in conflict with my belief that facts are objective?
"The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends"
I "disagreed" with this one, but only because I'm pretty sure that the question they're really asking here is whether or not the environment has some sort of "right" to remain undamaged, which is untrue. In reality, I would agree that it's bad to damage the environment unnecessarily, but only because the natural environment can be more useful to people in its undamaged state. The test appears to assume a persons specific reasons for answering the way they did a little too freely.
I got that too. But then, considering the point you make, everyone you know comes from the same or similar societies and backgrounds as you, right? By the point the website makes, and your own point, you're all likely to share that opinion about genocide, because of the society we belong to. I have to agree with the website's comment on this one.
Overall I got 20%, which is fairly low. I fell down on the 'Michaelangelo' and 'Is art subjective?' one, which is basically because I gave an objective opinion about Michaelangelo. I also 'failed' on the one about 'brain-damage causes consciousness/selfhood loss' and 'after you die you continue to exist in a non-physical form'. That's basically because I believe that everyone has a spirit as well as a mind, which are both seperate. When you're alive, they work together, and are only separated at death, when your spirit moves on while your brain and mind stay on earth and decay. Just my opinion, but one that I stick to nonetheless...
I suppose so, but I still say that both are valid forms of interpreting atheism. You don't need to not believe in a deity to be an atheist, however you aren't wrong to assume so. Much in the same way that you don't need to be Catholic to be Christian, but you aren't wrong to assume someone is Catholic with no inclination as to which kind of Christian they are.
Both are culturally accepted forms of interpreting atheism yes, but both aren't necessarily valid. Assumptions are a dangerous game generally... After all assume makes an ass of u and me.
I wouldn't personally presume that a Christian was a Catholic, but that comes from knowing there are different kinds of Christians. I should imagine a Catholic would take great offence at being called a Protestant (especially in Ireland). It's best for everyone to learn the distinctions.
I got 20% but I call bullshit on this: 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
Buying illegal drugs for personal use fuels the drug trade trade, this breeds many other criminal activities and gang wars consequently making the community as a whole more inhospitable. I'm not a narc or a stern conservative, this doesn't necessarily mean I think that pot should be illegal, but people should be apprehended for illegal drug use both for their own good and the benefit of the community.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
