Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

17 (33.3%)

Green

8 (15.7%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (3.9%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (21.6%)

Libertarian

8 (15.7%)

Republican

2 (3.9%)

Constitution

2 (3.9%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[Avis-Mergulus]

Help me God, I'm a fucken chipmunk.

[Graknorke]

Gave me an ant.
Wrong at its core, and so in everything based off that.

Come on they could at least cold read right.

[Cheeetar]

I'm a Zebra!

[Eagle_eye]

Here's an interesting one: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/Default.aspx

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The PHC has identified 0 tensions in your beliefs.  The Philosophical Health Check is designed to identify tensions or contradictions (a Tension Quotient) between various beliefs that you hold. The PHC does not aim to identify which of your beliefs are true or false, but where the beliefs you hold might not be compatible with each other.

The test identifies a pair of beliefs as being in tension, where (a) there is a direct contradiction between them, or (b) some sophisticated reasoning is required to allow both beliefs to be held consistently. If two of your beliefs are in tension, we advise that either giving one of them up, or developing some rationally coherent way of reconciling them (assuming you have not already done so).

It may help to think of the idea of 'tension' in terms of an intellectual balancing act. Where there is little or no tension between two beliefs, no particular intellectual effort is required to balance them. But where there is a lot of tension, either one has to "jump off the highwire" by abandoning one belief; keep one's balance by intellectual effort and dexterity; or else "fall off the highwire" by failing to deal with the tension.

You should note this test only detects tensions between pre-selected pairs of beliefs - it does not detect all the possible tensions between all permutations of beliefs. So there may well be additional tensions between beliefs you hold which are not detected by this test.

The chart above shows your "tension quotient" score and also the average tension quotient score across all the people who have completed this test (where lower is better). The next page of analysis will detail the particular tensions in your beliefs identified by the PHC.

[Remuthra]

Zero for me as well.

[Graknorke]

I got 2.
Both of them were easily justified as not being tensions by the fact that I gave my opinion, which is the best I can. I didn't realise I was being tested as the fountain of all objective truths.

[Remuthra]

Well, it's assumed you hold confidence in your beliefs reflecting objective fact. Otherwise, why would you believe them?

[Criptfeind]

Wow. I got five tensions. That said, a lot of this test is worded poorly. And I think a lot of the questions fail to differentiate between whether you are talking about your opinion or a fact or a fact made of opinions (I'm going to guess before I check that one of the tensions was that I said that art is subjective, and that that one guy is objectively a great artist. Which is a example where I don't see tension, art is subjective and personal, but someone so widely thought of as making subjectively good art is objectively a good artist.)

Spoiler: Here are my tensions and my response (click to show/hide)

Statements 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

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

I don't find this a contradiction. I think a society could exist where genocide is not considered evil. And, indeed it probably has (arguably most societies are sorta like this.) but on a individual basis, for someone whos not part of it, and can actually understand it. I don't think you could find someone who thinks a genocide is not evil.


Statements 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?

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 think this one was just poorly worded. Just because someone CAN take the train or walk or cycle doesn't mean it's the best thing in that situation.


Statements 4 and 11: Is killing always wrong?

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

This one might be my fault. But really, it's sorta not. WW2 was too complex to just boil down to a yes or no on "was it just". So I answered yes, but I just as easily could have answer no. So meh.

Statements 20 and 13: Is positive discrimination justified?

You agreed that:
In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past
And disagreed that:
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits

I don't think these are contradictory. If someones been judged not their merits before they could very well be in a spot to not be able to be judged on their merits. Giving them a chance to actually show their merits does not disagree with thinking people should be judged on their merits.


Statements 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists

Called it.

All in all, I think poor wording, a lack of differentiation between the individual and society, and overly complex questions make this test fairly poor in my regard.

[Eagle_eye]

With the genocide question, I think that the contradiction is that you think that there's no such thing as objective morality, but that you also think there's such a thing as evil, since the question refers to evil, not behaviors believed to be evil by a large number of people.

[Criptfeind]

Even if I only believe in subjective morality I still got subjective evil.

[Eagle_eye]

Well, ok, but now you're using words in ways that most other people don't. For the vast majority of people, "I don't like that" and "That is evil" are not synonymous.

[Remuthra]

Well, ok, but now you're using words in ways that most other people don't. For the vast majority of people, "I don't like that" and "That is evil" are not synonymous.

Au contraire.

[BadLemonsXI]

Libra+Pig=Marmot, apparently. At least I'm not hoary.
What's that, website, you know me?

shy away from confrontation whenever possible.

...

Same here I got the Marmot too.

[Criptfeind]

Well, ok, but now you're using words in ways that most other people don't. For the vast majority of people, "I don't like that" and "That is evil" are not synonymous.

True. But I'm just saying that when a vast majority of people say something is evil, that thing is evil.

Edit: When talking about subjective morality and so long as their logic is sound. Obviously when most people say something is evil they mean that what it causes or what causes it is evil. If they are wrong about what it causes or what causes it, then I would say they are wrong about it being evil.

[alexandertnt]

I got the genocide one too.

I interperated "mans ability to do evil" as "man's ability to be real dicks" though, diddn't really think that it meant anything objective. I suppose genocide could technically be justified and non-evil (in some hypothetical extreme situation, like saving the entire human race or something) but all to often it's just some powerful asshole/assholes acting on their personal preduces.