Do your views contradict?

[warri0r45]

I think a simple "agree" and "disagree" option isn't enough to really understand your thoughts and so make an assumption of a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeah, i agree. So im not a crazy hypocrite ey? (60%) :lol:

[One Too Far]

11% altough if i understoud english better (im dutch) i would have a bit less and the contradicting awnser of me that i:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1: find that truth is just subjective of divertent country's believe's or somthing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and that i say that i think that genocide is a example of the capability of man to do great evil aint contradicting but the test said it was and it was not cause the most country's believe's are that it is evil and with that said i aint contradicting if i say that I THINK that its a example of great evil being capable by men

[fakeitormakeit]

it says my believes contradict each other 33%, not bad, not good. Its more then milk, lets then a shake.

[dusqi]

Flagged up a few contradictions for me. I read down the list and disagreed with them all for various reasons. However, I respect the quiz as a way of trying to give you personal morality questions.

[Gin_and_Tonic]

33% :|

[Echofish]

53% :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have a clue on what this means but I tried to answer the questions as truthfully as I can.

[Faux]

53% :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have a clue on what this means but I tried to answer the questions as truthfully as I can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It just means that you don't have any definite general view of most things. You're moderate rather than an extremist.

[Foooman]

Tension Quotient = 0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No tensions!

 

 

 

7488 of the 108468 people who have completed this activity also have no tensions in their belief system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. You have very few beliefs - and consequently answered none or only a few of the questions!

[Nadril]

I got 27%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ones I had tension on:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48859 of the 108475 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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't get that one. I said that there is no moral standards, but I said that genocide is evil. Obviously, in my eyes, its evil -- i'm answering the question!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions 5 and 29: Can you put a price on a human life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25585 of the 108475 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 ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã4 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This was a little complex, I couldn't deal with just an agree/disagree answer. I don't think that the goverment should sharply tax people for those of tomorrow [because we need to worry about today as well!] but I do belive that taking someones life purly over money is foolish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36918 of the 108475 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another stupid one. In my deffense though I didn't really get it at first. [about the absolute truths].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50777 of the 108475 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You agreed that:

 

 

 

Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste

 

 

 

And also that:

 

 

 

Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, it is in my taste that Michaelangelo was one of the finest artists to live. I'm not saying that as a pure objective statement, its opinion.

[warri0r45]

Again, it is in my taste that Michaelangelo was one of the finest artists to live. I'm not saying that as a pure objective statement, its opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i had the same for that one aswell. Its not really accurate in the slightest, and i have reasons for all of my tensions. Over it now but, its just one of thousands of innacurate internet tests.

[Make7upu101]

I think it's one of the better tests out there. Some of the "political affiliation" tests I've seen have just awful confusing questions. For the Michaelangelo one, just subtract 7%. I don't count it as a question.

[____]

0% - no suprise there really.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nadril: That is a contradiction, you said there are no moral standards, but later followed up with defining genocide as evil - which is a declaration of moralality. If there were no moral standards, evil - and all other "definitions of behaviours" - would not exist.

[warri0r45]

Nadril: That is a contradiction, you said there are no moral standards, but later followed up with defining genocide as evil - which is a declaration of moralality. If there were no moral standards, evil - and all other "definitions of behaviours" - would not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its not a contradiction, actually. It sais that there are no objective moral standards. That dosent mean that he cannot have his own, subjective moral standards (i.e. believe that genocide = evil [or whatever it was])

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its similar for the michalangelo one - it says that 'good art' is a matter of opinion, then it sais if you agree with this, its in contradiction with the statement 'michelangelo was a great artist' (i think thats it) which I, and many other people by the looks of it, took as a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now i got 60% for this, which kind of annoyed me (not that i'd lose any sleep over it), because i am steady in my beliefs and am not unintelligent.

[Nadril]

 

Nadril: That is a contradiction, you said there are no moral standards, but later followed up with defining genocide as evil - which is a declaration of moralality. If there were no moral standards, evil - and all other "definitions of behaviours" - would not exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its not a contradiction, actually. It sais that there are no objective moral standards. That dosent mean that he cannot have his own, subjective moral standards (i.e. believe that genocide = evil [or whatever it was])

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. And even if the standard 'evil' wasn't there, I would still think of it as such, even if I didn't have a word to describe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I read the question right it's pretty much that there is not one single golden moral guidelines everyone has. Everyone has different morals.

[____]

Supose so, tricky like that innit. Damn website "logic" #-o

[warri0r45]

Supose so, tricky like that innit. Damn website "logic"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meh, its an ill thought out test, really.

[Militaris]

I agree with the others that same of the compassions/Reasons are not rock solid or are plan wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'. Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival. But you might want to argue that much of your use of cars or aeroplanes is necessary, not for survival, but for a certain quality of life. The difficulty is that the consequence of this response is that it then becomes hard to be critical of others, for it seems that 'necessary' simply means what one judges to be important for oneself. A single plane journey may add more pollutants to the atmosphere than a year's use of a high-emission vehicle. Who is guilty of causing unnecessary environmental harm here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where to start.... So many holes in their arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A train is not always more environmentally friendly then a car. Just because there is another means of transport does not mean that there is not a justifiable use for a car. I could choose to walk 200km to a town, or I could drive. Walking could be more environmentally friendly but it would take a week or more of my time and a huge waste of resources. If I have to carry something heavy, it would be even less efficient use of my time. Choosing to drive has many advantages over the other methods of transport. Just because something can be done, does not mean it is the smartest option.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ummm, no. If you meant ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅEssential to survival' that would have been included in the question. Just because something is not essential to survival does not make it necessary to do. I would consider in the context of the question asked, that unnecessarily refers to any 'damage' to the environment which is not advantageous (In anyway) to human ends. The question in no way suggested that it meant 'Essential to survival'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order not to be in contradiction here, you must be able to make a convincing case that the personal use of drugs harms people other than the drug user.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every week there is news reports of a P addict killing, mugging or robbing people. So they are doing harm to others....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More than this - you must also show that prohibited drug use harms others more than other legal activities such as smoking, drinking and driving cars, unless you want to argue that these should also be made criminal offences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, I must not also show that prohibited drug use harms more then other legal activities. But I would do it anyway. With the exception of smoking, if used in a legal manner the others listed do not harm others. With regards to smoking, I agree that it should be a criminal offense, and at least in my country it is a offense to smoke in most public places.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As alcohol, tobacco and car accidents are among the leading killers in western society, this case may be hard to make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope it was simple. Because causing death, or harm to others by the above is generally already illegal in western society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You also have to make the case for each drug you think should not be decriminalised. The set of drugs which are currently illegal is not a natural one, so there is no reason to treat all currently illegal drugs the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The questions reffered to all illegal drugs as a whole, not for each drug as a separate. So I do not have to make such a case and remain in the term of the question asked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could of expanded my arguments more, and did, but edited much of it out because it was taking to long and it is a waste of my time really.

[timmay929]

You agreed that:

 

 

 

Proper sanitation and medicines are generally good for a society

 

 

 

And also that:

 

 

 

Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does that have to do with each other?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You agreed that:

 

 

 

Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste

 

 

 

And also that:

 

 

 

Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's kind of a trick question. My taste is that he is one of the finest artists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, I got a 53%.

[FuBai]

 

You agreed that:

 

 

 

Proper sanitation and medicines are generally good for a society

 

 

 

And also that:

 

 

 

Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does that have to do with each other?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sanitation and medicines are equaly, if not more so, unnatural

[dude_of_war4]

20%..... :evil: ....damn it

[Militaris]

 

 

You agreed that:

 

 

 

Proper sanitation and medicines are generally good for a society

 

 

 

And also that:

 

 

 

Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does that have to do with each other?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sanitation and medicines are equaly, if not more so, unnatural

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name one animal which does not clean itself? Sanitation is entirely natural. Also, animals seek out certain foods which they do not normally eat. Hence, animals seek out food for their healing properties. A example would be a dog eating grass when it is feeling sick. So both medicines and sanitation are both natural.

[Kiriyama]

20%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You agreed that:

 

 

 

Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise

 

 

 

And also that:

 

 

 

The future is fixed, how one's life unfolds is a matter of destiny

[hiimben]

I got a 30 something % because I misread the WW2 thing, I thought it was "just a war" not "a just war" so I had to change it :lol: