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.
Equally surprisingly I almost always pick Chaotic Neutral.
One of the big problems in the test is that you have to subscribe to a Dualism though; where most arguments can be defeated under certain circumstances.
For instance; Art is decided by the individual, and Michaelangleo is one of the great artists. I can still think Michaelangelo is a rubbish artist and still believe that Art is decided by the majority - or any of the other three remaining answers without being in conflict.
It's only natural that the writers would have put their own philosophical stamp on it though. They are practically the philosopher's equivalent to the Escapist after all...
I think dualisms the only way to go to test people in this format, though it places a lot of (and evidently too much) faith on the quiz taker understanding the issues and understanding what the question is really about. It would take an actual discussion to determine someone's actual philosophical tension quota and that would also rely on the person hosting the discussion to be truly objective...
There's a reason all those Greek philosopher's were bald in their favoured head scratching parts of their skulls.
It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-
You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God
Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.
There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.
Sorry to be pedantic, but if atheists aren't sure of the lack of God, doesn't that make them agnostics instead? I think Atheists are pretty firm on the whole non-existence deal.
People will always disagree. But I think it's quite valid. Either you believe or you do not. So if you say I do not know you are an atheist (At least in my own opinion) since you do not completely believe.
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.
All of them are yes and no's, when most of it should be maybe's.
What do I put for God if I'm agnostic?
OT: I think some of these are rather bullshit.
Contradicted about the truth one when I said the Holocaust did happen but I also said there were no truths.
I prefer to think of the genocide of all the Jews in the 1940s by the Nazis as the Holocaust. It has been proven that it did happen, so I think that is a little bit of the quiz trying to get you.
I'll give them the protecting the environment one.
I accidentally chose that euthenasia should be illegal when I meant to say legal, so that was a slip up on the bodies one.
The brain damage one and life after death was one of those things where the quiz didn't have enough information. Yes, people can lose all conscious self... in there bodies, but their spirits can still live on. Can't tell you why I believe that, but whatever. I do.
The "how do we judge art?" one was definitely a mix up on the quiz's part.
Yes, art can be subjective. And yes, I believe Michelangelo was one of the top artists of all time (quite frankly because I don't care about art).
How does that contradict itself? I think that art relies on personal taste, and my personal taste happens to involve Michaelangelo?
I agree, claiming that there is no God without presenting evidence to prove so is ridiculous. You won't find many atheists who don't deny the possibility. See my above post for further clarity.
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
I realise that it is also the absence of belief, but, from my experience, most people see it and use it as the belief that there is no deity. In a way, it's similar to the many different kinds of all religions that you will find spread throughout the world, there is no one true form of it.
Tubez said:
"to assume that there is no God without strong evidence is equally ridiculous as assuming there is one."
Imo that is quite flawed statement since I could say that a invisible hippo(that only I can see) just ate my computer and made a invisible fire in the middle of the room, you wouldn't believe me but you have actually no proof that almight hippo doesnt exist. I would call myself an atheist but since we do not know everything and if "god" suddenly teleported himself into my room and proved he/she/it do exist I would perhaps change my "stance" if he/she/it proved worthy to be followed, so In my opinion if you say that X exist you should be the one to provide real proof that he/she/it does exist and is worthy being followed.
In a very loose sense, that is a similar case. However, I fear you've taken me out of context a little too much for me to have a fair argument. By equally as ridiculous I don't mean that it is ridiculous, I mean that it isn't ridiculous to claim that there is a creator. Much in the same way that it isn't ridiculous to claim that there is or isn't an invisible hippo next to you.
It's equally ridiculous to assume that there is or isn't a God and that there is or isn't an invisible hippo. Neither claim has evidence to back it up, so why should one be more ridiculous than the other? I could compare this to an ex murderer who has been released from prison being accused of murdering another person. However, this time there is no evidence to support either claim. Why would one assume that he has murdered again with no evidence that it was or wasn't him? His past history would be the only thing to go on, much like your upbringing and the way you think are the only things to go on in the case of God and the invisible hippo.
I kept asking questions. "The second world war was a just war...." for whom? It does matter.
#8: If it exists in the mind, does it not exist somewhere, at least in idea? The question is a fallacy on it's own.
#28: Which history books? I've read many that were horrible, both on their factual accuracy, and their opinions. Some don't think that the holocaust existed... should completely contradictory opinions be included?
I have a 47% but it puts BS problems that I've already come to grips with as being a "tension." Like the existence of Evil... I'm sorry, haven't you read any philosophy younger than 400AD? Evil exists because it is damaged, or corrupted good. Augustine wrote extensively on this, and this is way behind.
My driving. I'm sorry, biking isn't an acceptable mode of transport for my job. Sure, I guess anyone can ride a bike to go cross country towing a trailer, instead of using a truck... I guess...
Euthanasia can hurt other people too. Sorry, I doubt many people would be able to easily pull a plug and not be effected by it. That's just idiocy written down on a paper because they've never had to do it. I euthanized my dog, and it wasn't something I could walk away from unscarred. If they say they can, they're liars.
Just too much bullshit thrown together by people with a few philosophy lessons, because they really haven't looked into the matters they're grading.
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)
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.
I havent taken the test yet, but I dont understand how the first statement contradicts the second. That means they think me and my kids watching him inject himself with heroin is hurting me. That just sounds self centered, he should be allowed to do what he damn well pleases whether or not I am there. The world doesnt revolve around me, can someone explain to me the problem?
Edit: I got 0% tension quotient. But a lot of the questions were really obvious and I didnt see the point of all of them.
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.
I said no to decriminalization of drugs, and that's in conflict with me believing people can do whatever they want to do as long as they don't harm others?
News flash: I don't think it takes a scientist to explain how someone stoned off their ass could injure others.
I'd be fine with decriminalizing drugs if there was no way for them to harm others.
It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-
You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God
Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.
There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.
Sorry to be pedantic, but if atheists aren't sure of the lack of God, doesn't that make them agnostics instead? I think Atheists are pretty firm on the whole non-existence deal.
People will always disagree. But I think it's quite valid. Either you believe or you do not. So if you say I do not know you are an atheist (At least in my own opinion) since you do not completely believe.
We risk drowning in semantics as the other thread did, but...IMO it really does come down to definitions, and the argument that 'atheist' is a catch-all term for anyone who doesn't explicitly believe in God. I think there needs to be some shades of grey. What if you're a practising Theist, who has occasional doubts?
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.
*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.
"You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible
These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not."
They basically answered their own "problem":
"Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate."
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.
