http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/ Took from another forum. 1. Answer honestly. 2. Do not base the answer you choose by picking what you think that it thinks is correct or incorrect. 3.* Post the results here. 4. Did you score average or not? 5. Realize that this is an internet survey created by human beings and is suspect to errors. 6. Have fun. *This includes the percentage, how many tensions you have, and what those tensions are as well as the reasoning for those assessments Got a 7% Not @ average. I am not sure with this assessment.
13%. But I didn't disagree or agree with some of the questions - So with them I just picked a random one.
I just don't care enough about this test to post the results. It's just irrelevant to me; call it "falling off the highwire" if you like, but I don't like to bother myself with this kind of stuff.
33% Here's where I disagree with what they're saying. Yes, there are different cultural norms throughout every culture ever, but GENOCIDE is another thing entirely. Gender roles and such are one thing, genocide is at the complete end of the spectrum. No matter what the reasons may be, Genocide is NEVER okay, and is evil. EDIT: Just noticed Jesse posted the same thing.
I got the exact average. 4 tensions. I tried not to think too hard about what might be contradictory when answering and just went with my gut feelings. I had tension in Moral Realism vs Anti-Realism, putting a price on human life, the environment, and positive discrimination. Jesse, what about your assessment are you not sure about? The question did not ask about cultural norms, it asked about where morality comes from. When you clicked "agree" on the statement "there are no objective moral standards," that is an absolute statement. If you believe that genocide is something that is objectively immoral no matter where and what culture you were raised in, you believe in Moral Realism and your answer to that question should be "disagree." Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself.
The problem is that you're expected to respond in a binary way. For me, morality is subjective only to an extent. For instance, different cultures have different views on things like drinking and such, which isn't something that is terribly important to me. But, apparently like a lot of people, any time you try to justify mass slaughter, I'm a little less tolerant of your moral justifications. You have to respond with either "agree" or "disagree," though, so it doesn't leave any room for nuance. There was also that question about whether or not people with severe brain damage have consciousness. I feel like I'm not even well-informed enough to render an opinion on that one.
But by definition, if you believe in any sort of objective moral standard (if you believe morality is not 100% subjective), you are a Moral Realist so you have to choose "disagree." Even if you only believe in one objective rule, like "genocide is wrong," that still counts. You can be a Moral Realist and still believe that issues like homosexuality and women having an education are purely subjective and based on society. But you will have to account for that one exception. It's kinda like Batman's "one rule" in The Dark Knight.
I get that, but it's incredibly dissatisfying to have to answer it in that way. You even phrased the genocide question much better than they did. I had to agree or disagree with the idea that genocide is evil, which has this religious connotation that I don't like. Basically, I'm being really fucking nitpicky about an internet survey.
*This includes the percentage, how many tensions you have, and what those tensions are as well as the reasoning for those assessments Not hard to do. :|
I think this little quiz thing was wise to identify "tensions" rather than "contradictions" because, as it says, some sophistication in one's view can often reconcile views that only seem contradictory to others. On taking it, it identified two philosophical problems that arise from my own views which I was already aware of and actually devote a good deal of time to thinking about already, but I can see hwo this might be news to someone who hasn't studied philosophy as much as I have
1 tension: This is the flaw of the test IMO. Everything on it is black and white, but taking a car vs train/walk/bike is not black or white. Yes, I could cycle 6 miles (which Google estimates a 34 minute bike ride) to the nearest train station and then hop on a train for a 30 minute ride to work. There's no physical reason I can't. Or I can hop in my car and drive to work, which takes me 25 minutes if there's traffic. There's no physical reason I couldn't do the bike/train thing, but I don't feel that driving to work makes me a hypocrite. Just because something's possible, doesn't mean it's realistic. If I want to travel to Europe, I could take a sailboat across the Atlantic like they did 500 years ago and not damage the environment at all. But of course, that's not realistic when a plane takes 7 hours and is a lot safer. If that makes me a hypocrite, then so be it. I'm not saying I drive half a mile down the street, of course not, I'll walk that. But just because I can bike or walk doesn't mean I have to.
Their asking for balck and white answers to quesntions that aren't that simple. I know people have already said this above but it kind of renders the test invalid. Anyways, I got 5 tentions whatever that's worth.
So since I took the test, I've been stretching much more often. My muscles aren't so tense anymore, so I'm assuming I would only have like 2 tensions now, not the 6 I had earlier. This test taught us all a valuable lesson: it's important to stretch everyday!