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

[Random berk]

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.

 

[MorphingDragon]

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.

Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.

Assumptions and False Dilemma.

 

[freakyalex]

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.

 

[manaman]

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.

I find your example to be poor.

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.

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.

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

They ARE individuals though, so we should see them that way.

We punish them as individuals too. The judge doesn't go "well we need to figure out what would happen if 2 million other people did the same thing". They arrest them as individuals, they try them as individuals and they punish them as individuals.

Yes. Because that applies exactly to what I was saying. Uh, huh. For reals yo, ain't no sarcasm here playa!

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).

 

[TWRule]

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.

 

[TiefBlau]

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.

Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.

Assumptions and False Dilemma.

It says regardless of financial situation, doesn't it?

I think you're the one making assumptions here, bro.

 

[PhoenixOnly]

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.

 

[messy]

I have 27%, I think that this is kinda BS.

For example:

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 decriminalized

The effects of one persons drug use is rarely contained to just one person. What do they do when they run out of money for their drugs? or what they do when there high? Drugs don't just effect the user...

Same one that I got, its a bit simplified since it seems to think drug taking exists in a little bubble

 

[b3nn3tt]

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

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

7%

I take my time with questions like these. I suppose I'm a low scorer then, huh?

 

[thom_cat_]

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

Well yeah, it's just genocide is not part of a moral standard in any culture, and is a pretty fucking bad thing to do.

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

Can harm others. But I disagreed because without some restriction or monitoring it's not feasible. But yeah, I'm fine if it's worked right.

(13%)

 

[MorphingDragon]

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.

Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.

Assumptions and False Dilemma.

It says regardless of financial situation, doesn't it?

I think you're the one making assumptions here, bro.

5. The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives

29. Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world.

For "tension" to exist you assume that Governments can save lives only by financial means. I don't think a government should add extra burden to its already burdened populace through extra taxes when there a ways that governments can help that don't require extra money.

1se 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.

and this. In fact, even answering this question provides tension with 1.

1. There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures

This "Health Check" is trolling or seriously flawed and smacks of adventure game logic.

 

[Varya]

[quote="Raven's Nest" post="18.270885.10416078"

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.

[/quote]
Yes you can. For one, I believe in personal freedom above say, a life where you have to do the chore assigned since birth, so my opinions still leans towards personal freedom. But I'm still anti drugs, even if they step on the personal freedom.
Besides, in a world where you can only harm yourself, who would sell drugs? That clearly harms others so drugs would still be illegal.

Also, one could easily argue that doing drugs in front of someones kids is indeed very much harming others.

 

[BlackSaint09]

OUCH! They got me good. 33%! Im a raging hyppocrite aint i?

 

[GundamSentinel]

13%. And the ones that were in conflict have a very solid reason (to me at least). I must say, this is a very intriguing test.

 

[lord canti]

27 for me don't really know if that's good or bad.

 

[the clockmaker]

I do not trust this test, especially the parts where it claims that acknowledging that worldviews are subjective and then giving a subjective worldview are contradictions. I also do not like the assumptions it makes about the implications of its answers, yes, I support personal freedoms, but I also think that legalisation of drugs and euthanasia will lead to harm to others, through the implications of the trade and the likelyhood of potentially curable people loosing out whilst not fully able to comprehend the situation.

Overall, this test was heavily wieghted by the subjective worldview of its creator, which i find fairly funny as it claims many of its findings to be objective fact.

 

[Cypher10110]

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

54394 of the 174198 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.

----

I found this tension particularly interesting.
My other tensions were resolved upon reading the text describing the tensions. This one however I felt was not covered by the text.

----

If I had a profound effect on the people around me during my life, they would gain some of my ideals, idiosyncrasies, catchphrases, values, methods, etc. This would effect their lives after my death, and perhaps lead them to effect others, passing on information down ages, as ripples in the ocean.

For me "the soul" as viewed from the outside is just information. That information is, in a sense, immortal. I imagine sooner or later it will be forgotten completely, but it will always be used as a brick to build new information. Just as our bodies crumble to dust and the atoms are used elsewhere, our soul crumbles into memories and becomes a part of the lives of others.

"Non-physical" for me could also be interpreted as "imaginary" or "informational construct". I believe we all "live-on" in a sense, through the after-effects of our brief existence.

I don't expect to experience anything after I have died. But I do expect to "live on" in a non-physical form, the form of information. It is one reason why I spend alot of my time trying to impart what little wisdom I have on the few people in my life. I feel that if I help them learn, perhaps they can not only help themselves, but others too.

TLDR;
After death, we all "live on".
In the same way a pebble passing through the surface of a pool of water leaves lasting impressions, so too do human beings in their short lives.

In this metaphor it would be easy to imagine the pebble's continuing journey beneath the surface. I do not pretend to know what is beyond the surface of existence; what there is after death. I do not expect to ever find out.

 

[TiefBlau]

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.

Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.

Assumptions and False Dilemma.

It says regardless of financial situation, doesn't it?

I think you're the one making assumptions here, bro.

5. The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives

29. Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world.

For "tension" to exist you assume that Governments can save lives only by financial means.

No, you don't. What the fuck are you reading?

The existence of an alternative is irrelevant. If you agree that people should save lives regardless of financial situation, as 5 says, then you must agree that taxes, regardless of magnitude, are a small price to pay for saving such lives. This is a logical necessity, whether or not something else can be done.

I don't think a government should add extra burden to its already burdened populace through extra taxes when there a ways that governments can help that don't require extra money.

I don't care what you think about poor people.

No one was arguing ethics. This is logic. It's like saying 2+2 does not make 5. You can say that adding another one could make the difference between life and death, and I couldn't care less, because 2+2 still doesn't equal 5. Honestly.