0% on the first try... I went back and changed some stuff to make sure the "you're all clear" message wasn't an error. The only one that almost got me was the art question. I knew the way they phrased it made them contradictory, but it also felt wrong to agree that all art is subjective and then tell it, perhaps untruthfully, that I didn't believe Michaelangelo is one of the greatest artists in history. I had to consider that it wasn't asking me what I thought, but rather for an objective fact about the world.
Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I got 33%
Areas of contention were:
"Is morality relative?"
Yes I believe it is, I do not believe in god and therefore I do not see any objective form of morality. However I believe genocide is, from my moral perspective, evil. These points are not contradictory unless you take "morality is relative" to also mean "evil does not exist". This is bollocks.
"How much must we protect the environment?"
Yes we don't want to unnecessarily damage the environment... I simply disagree over what is "unnecessary". Technically I could swim to france, but I think I'll just take ANY OTHER form of transport. This is the point it makes in it and I agree that what is "necessary" is just a personal view.
"Can we please ourselves?"
Yes we are in charge of our bodies but by allowing drugs to be legalised allows many other issues of addiction and crime. Overall I think it is just better and easier to avoid this type of drug use. I think Cannabis could be made legal because it is probably less damaging than alcohol and I want to avoid that hypocrisy but heroin? You've got to kidding.
"Is killing always wrong?"
Yes it is. It is just a question of picking the lesser of two evils. For example the self-defense argument suggests that killing isn't wrong if you are threatened. I say it is because ultimately I don't think the death penalty is right but of course the killing of a man who has done absolutely nothing wrong is worse. Therefore self-defense is fine.
"How do we judge art?"
Well this one is just bollocks. Michelangelo is generally regarded as a great artist, therefore he is regardless of any one individual's subjective view. We judge art by consensus above all else.
This site argues semantics, which I like, but I think that does mean it finds more issues than there are. I'm comfortable in what I know and do not often suffer hypocrisy. My views are constantly changing and adapting though and I prefer to view morality from individual scenario situations rather than a set of absolute rules.
Areas of contention were:
"Is morality relative?"
Yes I believe it is, I do not believe in god and therefore I do not see any objective form of morality. However I believe genocide is, from my moral perspective, evil. These points are not contradictory unless you take "morality is relative" to also mean "evil does not exist". This is bollocks.
"How much must we protect the environment?"
Yes we don't want to unnecessarily damage the environment... I simply disagree over what is "unnecessary". Technically I could swim to france, but I think I'll just take ANY OTHER form of transport. This is the point it makes in it and I agree that what is "necessary" is just a personal view.
"Can we please ourselves?"
Yes we are in charge of our bodies but by allowing drugs to be legalised allows many other issues of addiction and crime. Overall I think it is just better and easier to avoid this type of drug use. I think Cannabis could be made legal because it is probably less damaging than alcohol and I want to avoid that hypocrisy but heroin? You've got to kidding.
"Is killing always wrong?"
Yes it is. It is just a question of picking the lesser of two evils. For example the self-defense argument suggests that killing isn't wrong if you are threatened. I say it is because ultimately I don't think the death penalty is right but of course the killing of a man who has done absolutely nothing wrong is worse. Therefore self-defense is fine.
"How do we judge art?"
Well this one is just bollocks. Michelangelo is generally regarded as a great artist, therefore he is regardless of any one individual's subjective view. We judge art by consensus above all else.
This site argues semantics, which I like, but I think that does mean it finds more issues than there are. I'm comfortable in what I know and do not often suffer hypocrisy. My views are constantly changing and adapting though and I prefer to view morality from individual scenario situations rather than a set of absolute rules.
This is seriously something like the 5th time that someone has made this point or a point similar to it after I've posted a second time in this thread saying oh yes, I don't know anyone because it's a societal norm from where I am (United States) to not like genocide.mavkiel said:
Hitler was brought up, he was acknowledged, etc.
If anything, bringing up the fact that people can think genocide is a good idea at all if given the right reasoning behind it (even if a premise is faulty; hooray for the commonfolk) proves that morals are relative.
I consider depriving an entire race or group of people of whatever chances they might have the closest thing to "evil" in relative terms. And without some serious propaganda, I'd imagine a large chunk of the world would consider wiping out a large amount of people like that to be pretty fucked up.
That doesn't mean there aren't some people who would find genocide OK, it's just commonly accepted for one reason or another that killing people is wrong.
I think I may have missed my original point.
Whatever. TOO MANY SENTENCES TO THROW AWAY
7%. Because the evilness of genocide is subjective. Which is not really fooling anyone. Obviously it is subjective, but it still stands as an act of unspeakable cruelty to which I would never assent as acceptable regardless of the circumstances surrounding it as invariably those innocent of perceived infractions against the genociders will be caught up in said acts.
So yeah, fuck that test.
So yeah, fuck that test.
Sounds like you took this too personally. This is a quiz; not a matter of life and death. All quizzes are flawed because they are usually put together by one person or a few like-minded individuals. Once you realize this, and that they have no actual bearing on you as an individual, you can take the test and have a good laugh over the results.Verlander said:
http://ed3e.r.google.com/click?q=religion&lnk=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FReligion&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F%23sclient%3Dpsy%26hl%3Den%26q%3Dreligion%26aq%3D0%26aqi%3Dg5%26aql%3D%26oq%3D%26pbx%3D1%26bav%3Don.2%2Cor.r_gc.r_pw.%26fp%3Da50d8bbb4089c98aVerlander said:
Please read the definition of 'Religion' before you insult your brother and sister Atheists any further.
On topic: I got 0%
Very interesting. I saw myself contradicting my ideas almost immediately. I mean, I think there's an explanation for all of my reasons in each case, but it's still interesting to see how complicated a simple thing like opinions can be.
ah I don't find any tension in my beliefs it called me out on. Yes I think the right to life is something that should be preserved no matter what the cost. But I also feel the government's responsibilities are to it's own people not developing worlds.
It's an interesting test that would be a real i opener for someone not deeply existential but to me it's a resounding meh.
It's an interesting test that would be a real i opener for someone not deeply existential but to me it's a resounding meh.
My number of philosophical conflicts is low. It pleases me that, by far, most folks in the Escapist forums are also in this category.
The simpler of the two conflicts I encountered was the one about the Objectivity of Art. I think that Michaelangelo was one of the greatest artists ever, but still believe that the appreciation of art has to do with taste. Firstly, Michaelangelo's work appeals popularly, and showed a strong level of skill. I would hypothesize that art that is popular and demonstrates skill is probably good.
The other one concerned my belief that There are no objective moral standards and that Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil, the second one is only in conflict with the first if I was presuming the latter statement was an objective standard. I would only say it is a standard in my culture, and in most cultures. I would even go as far to say that in our best standard of morality to date (that being the Geneva Conventions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions]), the genocide-is-bad morality applies well when considering all of humankind and how we deal with each other.
But our efforts, for example, to eradicate malaria-carrying mosquitoes could just-as-easily qualify as genocide, if we gave mosquitoes even a modicum of citizenship. Since we don't, we commit genocide, and it is actually regarded as a good thing, since it saves (human) lives, even at risk to populations that might depend on these mosquitos (say, birds that prey on them).
I am left to wonder about the ranking High - I'm the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I am moderate in the US, yet left of center, but notably to the left of our progressive Democrats (liberal positions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era]? Something else?[/footnote], more so than the norm, but less so than people who choose Chaotic Neutral as their alignment in AD&D.
238U
The simpler of the two conflicts I encountered was the one about the Objectivity of Art. I think that Michaelangelo was one of the greatest artists ever, but still believe that the appreciation of art has to do with taste. Firstly, Michaelangelo's work appeals popularly, and showed a strong level of skill. I would hypothesize that art that is popular and demonstrates skill is probably good.
The other one concerned my belief that There are no objective moral standards and that Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil, the second one is only in conflict with the first if I was presuming the latter statement was an objective standard. I would only say it is a standard in my culture, and in most cultures. I would even go as far to say that in our best standard of morality to date (that being the Geneva Conventions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions]), the genocide-is-bad morality applies well when considering all of humankind and how we deal with each other.
But our efforts, for example, to eradicate malaria-carrying mosquitoes could just-as-easily qualify as genocide, if we gave mosquitoes even a modicum of citizenship. Since we don't, we commit genocide, and it is actually regarded as a good thing, since it saves (human) lives, even at risk to populations that might depend on these mosquitos (say, birds that prey on them).
I am left to wonder about the ranking High - I'm the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I am moderate in the US, yet left of center, but notably to the left of our progressive Democrats (liberal positions [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era]? Something else?[/footnote], more so than the norm, but less so than people who choose Chaotic Neutral as their alignment in AD&D.
238U
So you disagree that there are no objective moral standards, thus implying that moral judgements are the result of cultural upbringings.Anoni Mus said:
You've been brought up to think that murder and torture is wrong, therefore your culture has influenced your morality. If you think that not all moral standards are objective then you would agree with the statement.
I got 40%, somewhat high it seems, at least among my fellow Escapists here. A lot of it seemed to be that the questions are far too general to be answered with a simple agree/disagree. That aside I still understand all of the contradictions that it told me I have, but I've come to terms with all of them already. I already knew my views were complicated, I think that's why I tend to confuse, annoy, anger, and just generally distress door to door missionaries.
I think the test's purpose is to open people up to the idea of investigating philosophy a bit further. Have a look around the site, there are some other more complex articles and 'games' you may enjoy including one that assess's ones morality in much greater detail.SaneAmongInsane said:
Uriel-238 said:
The Liberal Dems quip relates to the UK party's leader Nick Clegg who has been somewhat hypocritical as of late.
Sorry yanks, that one was for us Brits.
I got 33% because im aparently stupid and the way these questions are worded is confusing.
confusing me doesnt prove hypocritical thinking
confusing me doesnt prove hypocritical thinking
27%, but most of the conflicts were caused by my interpretations of the statements being different to theirs. Also, it seems to have missed a connection that would contradict a contradiction.
It says that my claims that morality is cultural conflict with my claims that genocide is a testament to great evil. It didn't take into consideration that I said people are free to pursue their own ends as long as they don't harm others.
Thus, with all three, I would consider morality to be cultural, but intentional harm to others/genocide to be evil. Consider it freedom of culture working both ways; one culture would be free to treat itself under its own doctrine, but cannot kill others in spite of their's. It's a dependency, not a contradiction.
A shame it didn't really make me think too deeply, but a good share nonetheless.
It says that my claims that morality is cultural conflict with my claims that genocide is a testament to great evil. It didn't take into consideration that I said people are free to pursue their own ends as long as they don't harm others.
Thus, with all three, I would consider morality to be cultural, but intentional harm to others/genocide to be evil. Consider it freedom of culture working both ways; one culture would be free to treat itself under its own doctrine, but cannot kill others in spite of their's. It's a dependency, not a contradiction.
A shame it didn't really make me think too deeply, but a good share nonetheless.
Cool, don't worry, the test isn't judging your beliefs, it's testing that your beliefs are consistent with each other...Anoni Mus said:
7%. I got nailed by "the possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised" versus "so long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends". I'm comfortable with that contradiction because I've seen meth head parents.
If you gauge your philosophical ideals from on online test(with yes or no answers, no less), you are doing it wrong.