The PHC has identified 5 tensions in your beliefs.
Statements 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
48% of the 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
Notionally, the "testament of man's ability to do great evil" is fundamentally subjective to me - that is to say, I believe that acts of genocide are evil. This does not extrapolate necessarily to the values of particular cultures. As noted, it can be seen in other cultures as not evil, for instance, in the case where such a culture accepts as postulate that said ethnic group is of significant concern, euphemistically speaking, or that it is necessary to remove by force said ethnic group from a region to ensure greater peace for the majority (i.e., a strict utilitarian standpoint). That said, such acts are not things that I can condone.
Statements 5 and 29: Can you put a price on a human life?
29% of the 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
It is stated that *financial* considerations are irrelevant; other considerations must still remain present. The reason why governments in the *developed* world shouldn't increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world is actually rather simple - it creates a serious dependency issue. There are serious debates about the merits of how modern charity and NGO operations in Africa are handled. Corruption issues abound, and there have been entire economic collapses due to the sheer amount of free aid that has flooded certain countries (e.g., free food tends to undermine local farmers who require pay; free shirts and clothes undermine local cottage industry and prevent economic development of textile industries). The direct intervention of First World nations in such a general and undirected manner smacks of neo-imperialistic tendencies (and before you ask, no, imperialism wasn't especially cost-effective, either; that's why it ended), and should be avoided. Aid must be carefully managed and focused on very specific needs; a general increase in taxes to notionally save lives in an undirected manner, in and of itself, is not acceptable due to this.
It is probably amusing, however, to note that if the question had been more general - "is it permissible to increase taxes to save lives" - I would have agreed without question.
Statements 17 and 28: Are there any absolute truths?
37% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report
Fact and truth are not the same thing. Truth is a metaphysical concept; the Holocaust is the realm of facts - that is to say, it was an objectively-observed phenomenon. There is a difference between disagreeing on a truth behind a matter, and disagreeing on the existence of that matter itself.
Statements 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?
54% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
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
Fundamentally, I disagree with their conception of "necessary" - that is to say, they adopt a very strict definition of "necessary" by which almost everything is unnecessary. Especially here, while one "can" adopt alternate means of transportation, these are frequently time-inefficient, especially across the distances required. As a practical matter, it thus becomes necessary to take a car.
Also amusingly, I actually have taken similar definitional stances on the concept of "choice," albeit more often to generate humour out of the extreme view. Specifically, you always have the choice between actions - for instance, you can eat or starve. It's all a matter of accepting the consequences for whichever choice you make, some of which may be considered by most to be generally...ah, unpalatable.
Statements 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?
29% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
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
Drug abuse is an external argument, but suffice it to say, I strongly disagree with their implied assertion that drug use harms no one except the user. This is especially true as a consequence of my social political views, particularly in regard to the establishment and maintenance of basic living standards. So long as the state foots part of the medical and social bills for its inhabitants, which is a condition which I support, the use of particular recreational drugs and the health and lifestyle consequences do have knock-on effects on other people.
Amusing, but ultimately rather strongly biased to their particular viewpoints. For a people so notionally proud of encompassing a wide range of philosophical viewpoints, they seem to take a very narrow-minded approach to many things, neglecting many nuances in the process.
Poll
16 (32%)
Author
Topic: Shit, let's be Off-Compass Meme Poll Meme (Read 467742 times)