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

Fleaman

New member
Nov 10, 2010
151
0
0
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

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?
I am happy to say that. The Hutu expressed their cultural opinions, against which I express mine in the form of condemnation. Objective morality does not exist because nothing can be good or bad for the universe; this does not mean that a morality does not exist to which cultural moralities are subordinate. Acts of genocide reduce humanity's genetic and intellectual diversity, impacting the species' probability of survival; this is why it is a crime against humanity. Thesis: Morality only exists as a convenient but occasionally faulty shorthand for practicality.
 

Foxbat Flyer

New member
Jul 9, 2009
538
0
0
Tension of 33%, however reading through the descriptitons of where i have tension, it is in an area where i feel both can be there without conflicting, like people are able to make their own choices, but drugs should be banned for personal use, because i feel that using drugs affects people around you not just yourself, but that report seems to think that i am being unfair for not letting people take drugs?
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
7% here too, I'd suggest that allowing people to take drugs can be fine, so long as the law steps in when they affect other people. I think that is what the question was getting at, after all, some people use drugs recreationally, and cause no harm to anyone.

However, the drunk guy who drives home and plows thru a bus queue and kills 3 people, that's a drug user affecting others, that's when the law steps in.
 

Enigmers

New member
Dec 14, 2008
1,745
0
0
13% - There are plenty of questions that are very, very deep in the gray area. The two they had a problem with are "You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead"
I do believe the environment is important; I just didn't really grow up having to take the bus or a train very often (I either walk or drive places).

and
"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"
I think donating money to save lives should be a personal choice, not something the government forces on us.
 

Tibike77

New member
Mar 20, 2008
299
0
0
Eico said:
Morals are subjective.
Evil is subjective.
I subjectively believe mass murder to be evil.
Okay? Okay. :D
Subjective morals, ok. That makes the second thing redundant, evil is defined by morals, so it has to be subjective.
Now, the kicker is this : it doesn't matter whether you consider mass murder evil or not... they didn't ask you what your opinion is, they asked you to verify whether factually//objectively speaking mass murder is evil...
...and you answered that yes, OBJECTIVELY speaking, mass murder is evil... after you just admitted evil is a subjective notion.

THAT is where the "tension" the test mentions comes from. You can't call something both subjective and objective at the same time.
 

conflictofinterests

New member
Apr 6, 2010
1,098
0
0
DanielDeFig said:
conflictofinterests said:
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?
Ah! Arguing against euthanasia. If you feel up to discussing this i will try to indulge you (must go to sleep now, but will be online again within 8-10 hours).

The argument goes as follows: A sane, psychologically stable human being, is incapable of actively choosing to end their own life. We have seen examples of people who "decide" to end their own lives, but these people's minds have all bee disturbed and warped by psychological factors (usually depression, but anything that disturbs your sane psychological state counts. Including alcohol and drugs). This means that euthanasia will always be wrong, on the basis that no doctor will never get "legal consent" to euthanize someone.(think rape and other instances where consent seems to have been given, but as other factors were involved to heavily affect the mind of the "consenting" person, it doesn't count legally)

A more basic argument is on the basis of ethics. Where the action of killing a person (including yourself) will never be ethical. But that's if you buy into Deontological Ethics, that define ethics based on the act rather than the end result (Utilitarianism. Blech!).
Hey, don't bag so much on utilitarianism :p Limited utilitarianism is what this country is founded on. (At least the democracy part. Though there are plenty of people who'd prefer a theocracy, I'm guessing you might be one of them)

Dentological ethics are a bit unwavering in my opinion, which is why I don't buy into it. It doesn't leave room for a mother stealing to feed her baby, a person killing in self-defense, or any extenuating circumstance whatsoever. That is neither here nor there, however.

Fair enough point on the first paragraph. Does your definition allow for coercion to play into the decision to end one's life? As in a case where a soldier throws himself over a bomb to protect his squad mates?

Also, given that a person cannot give legal consent to end his or her life, in the case of aware, consensual, passive euthanasia (Where the patient is awake and tells you that he or she would like to die and will manage this on their own if you just leave them be for long enough) and in the case that the person is simultaneously terminally ill, very debilitated and is in the process of degenerating, as they WILL NEVER thereafter be able to give legal consent, due to being psychologically unstable because of their circumstance, do they revert to the legal status of minors? What are the implications of that?
 

spiffleh

New member
Jul 12, 2010
167
0
0
10. There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God

I'm agnostic. I cannot answer this ;___; Oh well. *closes eyes and points*
 

conflictofinterests

New member
Apr 6, 2010
1,098
0
0
Enigmers said:
13% - There are plenty of questions that are very, very deep in the gray area. The two they had a problem with are "You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead"
I do believe the environment is important; I just didn't really grow up having to take the bus or a train very often (I either walk or drive places).

and
"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"
I think donating money to save lives should be a personal choice, not something the government forces on us.
Just because you didn't grow up a certain way doesn't mean you can't believe that people ought to live a certain way.

Also, if you believe financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives, then everyone should (to the point of demanding it yourself) donate as much as they can without endangering their own lives, and the government is a great way to accomplish this money-collection task. There should also be universal heath care to cover any and all life-threatening ailments one might contract... There are a lot of implications that go along with that first sentence in that set. They mostly hinge around "any effort" and "financial considerations are irrelevant."
 

conflictofinterests

New member
Apr 6, 2010
1,098
0
0
spiffleh said:
10. There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God

I'm agnostic. I cannot answer this ;___; Oh well. *closes eyes and points*
You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, but I answered no because in my version of agnosticism, if a god like the Christian one exists, then he's a fucking asshole because of all the innocent/good people who are going to hell because they just happened not to hear about Jesus.
 

spiffleh

New member
Jul 12, 2010
167
0
0
Can someone explain to me how

You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war

Is a conflict?

Because I agreed that WWII was a war. I was not saying war is ever justified or good. I was stating that one war, in my opinion, was not 'more horrific' than another war simply /because/ I think taking lives is always wrong. Thus taking 1 life is just as bad as taking several. (Well I guess I'd say no one has the right to make that call. I don't know if wrong is the best word choice.)
 

KalosCast

New member
Dec 11, 2010
470
0
0
Some of these are so vague and poorly worded that any results you get from them are going to be grossly inaccurate.

Didn't even bother to finish it.
 

Slimshad

New member
Sep 16, 2009
170
0
0
I got a 7 percent, saying that there are no real objective truths, but I said the holocaust happened... I understand what this machine is getting at, saying "God Exists" or "God Doesn't Exist" are statements that cannot be proven by facts, therefore they cannot be proven to be objectively true. But saying the holocaust didn't happened because there are no objective truths is absolutely ridiculous. That's like if you were eating an orange and a guy walks up to you and says you are not eating an orange because objective truths do not exist. If eating an orange or any other factual occurrence is listed under "Objective Truths," you would have to be blind, deaf and dumb to say that there are no "Objective Truths." Sorry computer, but the love of knowledge must still be grounded within reasonable realms of thought, and philosophy cannot be completely abstract from the reality and sub realities of the world around you. To say there is no objective truth by your definition seems to mean that nothing exists.
 

Anarchemitis

New member
Dec 23, 2007
9,102
0
0
40%

This is because many of the postulated questions are matters I have never considered, never need to consider, consider irrelevant, or consider on a basis of the here and now as opposed to the fundaments of the standard human brain from first present consciousness to present on a level plane.

For example, it generalizes "Unnatural as wrong" and generates a tension in my evaluation because Sanitation & Medicine are Unnatural, but so is Homosexuality. Which is more pertinent and necessary, as opposed to being "wrong", I ask you. Honestly. Homosexuality and Necessary environments for human health are not the same thing.
 

Littlee300

New member
Oct 26, 2009
1,742
0
0
Anarchemitis said:
40%

This is because many of the postulated questions are matters I have never considered, never need to consider, or consider irrelevant.
There really should be a "I can't decide option" but the website will find a way to see that as a huge problem in you :p
Edit: I sometimes couldn't decide so I picked whatever sounded like the type of answer society would smile on. Apparently that was a bad idea.
 

MasterChief892039

New member
Jun 28, 2010
631
0
0
I got 13%, but I'm going to count it as 0% because the two conflicts are easily "reconcilable".

For example, I got the "So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends" versus the "The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised" conflict, however that only occured because the first philosophy was incomplete. I believe that "So long as they do not harm themselves or others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends".

Besides, it would be very easy to make the case that drugs hurt others. Drugs and crime are quite tangled up in each other, not necessarily because they're criminalized (though it doesn't help), but because heroin and meth don't exactly lead to steady jobs and productive members of society.
 

jthwilliams

New member
Sep 10, 2009
423
0
0
Needs a 1-5 or a 1-9 scale.

Some of the conflicts came up because I didn't fully agree or disagree with the statements.
 

angry_flashlight

New member
Jul 20, 2010
258
0
0
13%

The environment one got me. I stand by my genocide claim. If the "them" is being targeted, it might not become an issue, but if it's the "us", then it certainly will be. Therefore, genocide will be evil, even if only when it's used against "us". Accounting for double standards counts right?