Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No. What you, and many other people, don't understand is the difference between atheism and antitheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in any of the thousands of gods in all the religions (and simply put, every religious person is an atheist too, except for a single god/set of gods which then becomes their focus), but anthitheism is the one which is 'there is almost certainly not a god, to the point where it's fucking stupid to believe in one, and religion does more harm than good to society so it should be gone'.Glademaster said:
One is a lack of stance, one is a strong negative stance.
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.Raven said:
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 and actions that at first seem to harm nobody but the person doing them can have a large overall effect. At the level of society we have to start to think what is an acceptable loss of personal freedom for the greater gain of society as a whole.
Take seat belts as an example. It is almost inevitably one of those laws people turn to when complaining about laws protecting people only from themselves. Which makes it the perfect example. I don't know if you have ever ridden in a vehicle that moves moderately fast that does not have some form of restraint, but I have, and I can tell you it can be mildly difficult to keep proper control of the vehicle when thinks start to get just a bit bumpy. You start bouncing on the seat, never a good thing. Add in people being thrown from vehicles during a crash, which can lead to other accidents. True none of these events happen often, or would happen often even without restraints, but it's an acceptable level of encroachment on personal freedoms for the greater gain of society to me. You are after confined to that seat anyway when operating the vehicle bucking a strap over you during that time is hardly a great inconvenience.
As an individual I can accept that the guy shooting up heroin isn't causing me any harm, but saying that supporting a law against him doing so is a contradiction in my basic beliefs is a bit much for me to swallow.
That's my whole problem with ideas and tests like this, very little that we do has absolutely no effect on others. Most of the contradictions I have seen posted here I can see people agreeing to on some level without it being a true contradiction of their beliefs. Problem seems to be they give absolutes you have to answer only true or false to.
Excellent test. I only had 20%, but their points of why are quite ingenuous and true.
I really, really should stretch my views more openly and put more mind to my beliefs. Thanks a lot!
I really, really should stretch my views more openly and put more mind to my beliefs. Thanks a lot!
20% Tension, Its good in theory, and the analysis of conflicting pairs is quite interesting, but it stops allowing for grey areas, everything is a bit too black and white, whereas sometimes I might agree with something, and sometimes I might be willing to make the sacrifice for something.
The one thing that annoyed me though was:
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
Was because as much as I do feel bad and would want to help the people in third world companies, the government sharply increasing taxes would be bad for alot of people, quite possibly putting them into debt and poverty. While it would be all well and good for my money to go and help Jojo in Kenya, I will be sitting in squalor, granted not as bad as them, but in the grand scheme of things, much higher taxes for charity, or me living a comfortable life, I'm going to have to choose me, because a sharp tax increase would be detrimental to mine and a lot of other peoples lives, I know that sounds selfish, but while I'm all for helping charity, I don't want my life to go down the shitter at the same time.
See I assumed that the first question wasn't on about charity and stuff, but rather individual situation, not a collective 3rd world.
Ultimately the questions are too complex to be simply answered yes or no.
The one thing that annoyed me though was:
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
Was because as much as I do feel bad and would want to help the people in third world companies, the government sharply increasing taxes would be bad for alot of people, quite possibly putting them into debt and poverty. While it would be all well and good for my money to go and help Jojo in Kenya, I will be sitting in squalor, granted not as bad as them, but in the grand scheme of things, much higher taxes for charity, or me living a comfortable life, I'm going to have to choose me, because a sharp tax increase would be detrimental to mine and a lot of other peoples lives, I know that sounds selfish, but while I'm all for helping charity, I don't want my life to go down the shitter at the same time.
See I assumed that the first question wasn't on about charity and stuff, but rather individual situation, not a collective 3rd world.
Ultimately the questions are too complex to be simply answered yes or no.
Having ethical tension isn't by nature good or bad. Yes, tension could suggest a contradiction in your ethical standards, but it could also mean that you have a line of reasoning more sophisticated than the test can assess with a simple "agree or disagree" to these various far and apart ideas. It could also just mean that you have a lot of emotion, which isn't at all a bad thing to have in my opinion.lacktheknack said:
In any case, 13%.
I agree with you that this test doesn't allow for gray areas or more sophisticated lines of reasoning, but I think you're wrong about your example.elvor0 said:
That's clearly a logical contradiction and a source of ethical tension. You're saying that financial matters shouldn't matter if you're saving lives, and then you say that you don't want to help out third-world countries if it makes people poor. This cannot stand. It may feel like the right thing to say, but it's not logically sound.
Got 40%, though I really hate these types of things. They create a false dilemma (Which is a Critical Thinking fallacy) and present a binary world. My opinion cannot be fully expressed by Agree or Disagree.
13%. I probably shouldn't have agreed to the one about not all truths being objective. If the holocaust happened, then it fucking happened. The idea that a historical event could be real to me, but not to someone else is ridiculous, that would simply be denial on the part of the person for whom it isn't 'real'.
Good thread though, this is quite different from all the ones I've seen before.
Good thread though, this is quite different from all the ones I've seen before.
Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.TiefBlau said:
Assumptions and False Dilemma.
Wait a minute.
Okay, so I agreed that 'there are no morals, except the ones created by certain cultures', because I don't believe that the universe has a pre-defined moral system. Then it asked me to agree or disagree if genocide was evil. I agreed, and WHOOPS, you just said there are no morals except the ones we make ourselves, so how can something be evil?
Okay, that was my fault, I thought I was meant to answer subjectively. Moving on.
I agreed that 'all art is subjective', because I think art is all about how people view it from their own perspective. Then it asks me if Michealangelo was one of the finest artists of all time.
I... What?
I just said that art is subjective. I'm meant to be answering this sheet objectively. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION!
If I agree, then that's tension because art is subjective, so whether Michealangelo is a fine artist or not is down to me, and therefore I'm not answering objectively. But hang on - If I say he isn't a fine artist, I'm still being subjective! You cannot agree OR disagree because I JUST SAID ART WAS SUBJECTIVE!
ARRRRRRGGH.
Okay, so I agreed that 'there are no morals, except the ones created by certain cultures', because I don't believe that the universe has a pre-defined moral system. Then it asked me to agree or disagree if genocide was evil. I agreed, and WHOOPS, you just said there are no morals except the ones we make ourselves, so how can something be evil?
Okay, that was my fault, I thought I was meant to answer subjectively. Moving on.
I agreed that 'all art is subjective', because I think art is all about how people view it from their own perspective. Then it asks me if Michealangelo was one of the finest artists of all time.
I... What?
I just said that art is subjective. I'm meant to be answering this sheet objectively. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION!
If I agree, then that's tension because art is subjective, so whether Michealangelo is a fine artist or not is down to me, and therefore I'm not answering objectively. But hang on - If I say he isn't a fine artist, I'm still being subjective! You cannot agree OR disagree because I JUST SAID ART WAS SUBJECTIVE!
ARRRRRRGGH.
Yes. Because that applies exactly to what I was saying. Uh, huh. For reals yo, ain't no sarcasm here playa!Father Time said:
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).
Got 13%, but only because the test assumed some views contradicted each other, when it was quite possible to work out a continuity between them.
As a philosophy major, the setup for this test and especially the wording of many of the questions was a joke, but I can appreciate their intentions, I suppose.
As a philosophy major, the setup for this test and especially the wording of many of the questions was a joke, but I can appreciate their intentions, I suppose.
17%
"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"
It is evil in my opinion. And no moral judgement is superior.
"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"
The Government shouldn't force the decision upon other people who dont feel the same as me. The majority should rule themselves, it should not be government decision as the government is now unrepresentative.
"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"
It is evil in my opinion. And no moral judgement is superior.
"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"
The Government shouldn't force the decision upon other people who dont feel the same as me. The majority should rule themselves, it should not be government decision as the government is now unrepresentative.
I initially got 23%, but re-evaluated some of my opinions after reading the analysis at the end. Second time I got 13%, and that's the one I'm going to stick with. The two that were 'incompatible' I don't think are, and I am content that I can hold both opinions given without there being a conflict
So overall, I am fairly confident in my views
So overall, I am fairly confident in my views
