-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Philosophical Health Check (fun quiz)
- Thread starter Trent Strong
- Start date
- Status
SteveWinwood
Member
It's all relative. The human race has performed a genocide... on smallpox. That's evil right? Oh you don't think so?
A lot of people aren't reading these as the absolutes they are and mentally inserting "probablys" and "most likelys" in there.
I can see why, if you believe good and evil is relative, then you can say genocide is relatively evil.
BuggyDClown
Member
Same one I misread as well. Which means I kinda have 2 contradictions. Two I can reconcile with and accept my mistake.
That one I thought was more about the importance of the war, not that war was a big deal and killing didn't matter. I didn't understand it at all lol
Doctoglethorpe
Member
My thought in terms of war and violence (I didn't contradict there according to the test) is that while violence is always wrong, that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes necessary. Sometimes evil and wrong are the only way to minimize another unfortunately, the last resort, that doesn't make it right in my mind. Similarly, the war may have been necessary, that doesn't mean it wasn't a huge avoidable tragedy and a lose-lose situation for every side, as is any war, thus there is no such thing as a justified war. Its all so needless, so wrong, on a fundamental level. I guess I consider justification of a conflict to require both sides being justified in starting it, not just one to "correct" the other. Something I'm not really sure exists.
Ah, semantics. Language is only good at solving problems after it creates them.
Ah, semantics. Language is only good at solving problems after it creates them.
I did too but I answered no. My impact on people in their hearts and mind is a physical force of nature!
Not really that good a survey if it provides general questions and claims you are in conflict when some of the questions imply possible consequences.
E.g. Drug possession. I have no qualms if it's pot in someone's pocket. If it's ice or heroin, they aren't entitled to it due to high probability of causing others harm.
These philosophers aren't qualified for their own jobs.
E.g. Drug possession. I have no qualms if it's pot in someone's pocket. If it's ice or heroin, they aren't entitled to it due to high probability of causing others harm.
These philosophers aren't qualified for their own jobs.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
That's weird because I agreed "People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead" and disagreed that "the environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends" and still got a 0.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
I don't think you understand what I said, but I don't quite understand what you said so I'm not sure. x_x
hydrophilic attack
Member
This was my result as well.
Prophet Steve
Member
That is not weird at all.
For one, you can have other reasons for not wanting people to drive cars. But disagreeing that the environment should not be damaged unnecessarily also doesn't mean we should do everything we can to damage it.
20%
Three "tensions" that I don't have problems reconciling:
- I agreed that "there are no absolute truths" and that "holocaust is real"; I thought the question was more about philosophical truths, something you cannot prove, and not something that one can check or measure;
- I agreed that "killing is always wrong" and that "WW2 was just a war"; I don't see a conflict here - I disagree with killing, but WW2 was just a war. An awful and huge one, but a war nonetheless.
- I agreed that "people should protect environment" and disagreed that "people should not journey by car"; well, that's a conflict indeed.
Wait, what? *checking the test* Well damn. That explains everything.
Three "tensions" that I don't have problems reconciling:
- I agreed that "there are no absolute truths" and that "holocaust is real"; I thought the question was more about philosophical truths, something you cannot prove, and not something that one can check or measure;
- I agreed that "killing is always wrong" and that "WW2 was just a war"; I don't see a conflict here - I disagree with killing, but WW2 was just a war. An awful and huge one, but a war nonetheless.
- I agreed that "people should protect environment" and disagreed that "people should not journey by car"; well, that's a conflict indeed.
I don't even have a car >_>
Wait, what? *checking the test* Well damn. That explains everything.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
When I read the one about people having the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others, I didn't think about it in terms of approving an action before it happens with outcomes that may involve people being harmed, but rather in a post-sense where an action was fine as long as nobody was harmed even if there was potential there. No harm no foul as they say. Or perhaps its better to think of it in a destiny form, where a future action that isn't going to cause harm (whether we know it or not) is an action people have the moral right to perform, but that actions (even the same action) that will harm another (whether or not we know it at the time) are not of a personal moral right to perform. I know I'm makign this a lot more complicated then I need to.
The question of should we be be prevented from doing things that could potentially harm others is a far trickier question and not the one I interpreted from that test.
Edit: added stuff in the middle
0 tensions, feels good. 
Wasn't the statement that genocide is always morally reprehensible? If you agree that morals are fluid than stating that something is always morally reprehensible is a clash because in that case you think of morals as not fluid but absolute.
finowns
Member
I got that one wrong too. The drug I was thinking about was MIRAKURU that has to be policed!
Doctoglethorpe
Member
0 tensions, feels good.
Wasn't the statement that genocide is always morally reprehensible? If you agree that morals are fluid than stating that something is always morally reprehensible is a clash because in that case you think of morals as not fluid but absolute.
I think the test should have been more specific on if it wanted factual answers or opinions. If I knew they wanted me to put down what I believed were absolute facts of reality instead of my personal opinion, most of my answers would have probably been different.
Actually most of my answers would just be "I don't know." Thats the biggest flaw of this test. In Philosophy "I don't know" is pretty much the correct answer to everything.
It isn't actually, but thanks for playing.
Moral Panic
Member
For me it was more "I don't have enough knowledge/facts to come to a solid conclusion". For example with illegal drugs or suicide.
Trent Strong
Banned
Seems to me if a person truly believes in moral relativism then they can't also be in favor of putting people in prison. In fact, if someone really believes in moral relativism, then I don't see how they can even believe in the existence of laws of any kind. If you're a true moral relativist, then you've got to be an anarchist.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
Philosophy is all about questioning reality, to admit you don't really know what "god" knows, and to try to figure out the best possible solutions to your own inadequate capability. We may come up with great ideas but we can never know for sure. Philosophy is never ending. As long as you believe there is potential you got even a small part of something wrong, you are admitting to yourself that you do not know for sure.
Edit: removed use of the word Faith, realized that was improper usage as I read it back.
two conflicts.
I dont really agree that these are tensions though. Sure it is uncomfortable to say that one view of evil is not strictly superior to another, but comfort has no say in the matter.
as for drugs, I would agree that people have the right to pursue their own interests as long as they do not harm themselves or others, but that's not an option. still, agree is closer to my view than disagree is, so I'm somewhat forced into the contradiction. and yeah, I'd be happy to argue that Krokodil is more harmful than tobacco.
I dont really agree that these are tensions though. Sure it is uncomfortable to say that one view of evil is not strictly superior to another, but comfort has no say in the matter.
as for drugs, I would agree that people have the right to pursue their own interests as long as they do not harm themselves or others, but that's not an option. still, agree is closer to my view than disagree is, so I'm somewhat forced into the contradiction. and yeah, I'd be happy to argue that Krokodil is more harmful than tobacco.
Patently Right
Member
I hit the wrong answer with the WW2 question and got 13% tension (the other being drugs). Some questions were too vague to pick :/
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
0 tensions, feels good.
Wasn't the statement that genocide is always morally reprehensible? If you agree that morals are fluid than stating that something is always morally reprehensible is a clash because in that case you think of morals as not fluid but absolute.
From my point of view, it is always reprehensible because those are the values I have had instilled in me. Other cultures or whatever may not think so and I understand and appreciate that, hence why I don't think it's a philosophical clash.
Like, have you seen 'The Act of Killing'?
I don't think moral relativism implies that. I think the only requirement of moral relativism is that all moral views are equally valid.
Just because a set of views (moral or otherwise) are valid doesn't mean you can't make laws based on some set of morals. It's just that you can't logically argue that those laws are the only correct set of laws.
Not to imply that all laws are set to enforce a certain moral standard. Some laws are just there to ensure smooth operations (which side of the street to drive on.)
By the time I got to question 3, I realized that this one will be about checking out how contradictionary my beliefs are. Ended up with 13%. Half of the average, thanksies.
I do not mind holding contradictory views, I am aware of the very points that make me like a moon stuck between to closely orbiting planets - I cant decide which one is "da truth", so I will gravitate from one to the other, repeatedly
I do not mind holding contradictory views, I am aware of the very points that make me like a moon stuck between to closely orbiting planets - I cant decide which one is "da truth", so I will gravitate from one to the other, repeatedly
Prophet Steve
Member
That means that you disagree to do whatever they want, as you do not want them to harm themselves, there is no contradiction.
I am not sure what comfort has to do with your first tension.
Just did the trolley problem where it returned a 40% tension.
I thought it was unacceptable for the surgeon to kill the backpacker to save 5 lives, even though it's acceptable to send the trolley around the loop to kill the fat man to stop the 5 from been killed.
And the reasoning is simple; If we accept as a rule of thumb that it is acceptable to kill healthy people that enter a hospital to harvest their organs for more needy patients...
Then who the flying fuck would go to the hospital?? If you invalidate the hospital system, you end up with far more harm then the lives of 5 saved.
*If* the doctor could completely hide her actions without anyone ever finding out, then sure ok, in that case, 5 people saved is better than 1 lost. But that's not a reasonable assumption - especially if she makes it a pattern of behaviour.
In the case of the track - the deaths are unavoidable - your only choice is to pick to throw the switch and allow less to die, or not throw the switch and allow more to die.
I thought it was unacceptable for the surgeon to kill the backpacker to save 5 lives, even though it's acceptable to send the trolley around the loop to kill the fat man to stop the 5 from been killed.
And the reasoning is simple; If we accept as a rule of thumb that it is acceptable to kill healthy people that enter a hospital to harvest their organs for more needy patients...
Then who the flying fuck would go to the hospital?? If you invalidate the hospital system, you end up with far more harm then the lives of 5 saved.
*If* the doctor could completely hide her actions without anyone ever finding out, then sure ok, in that case, 5 people saved is better than 1 lost. But that's not a reasonable assumption - especially if she makes it a pattern of behaviour.
In the case of the track - the deaths are unavoidable - your only choice is to pick to throw the switch and allow less to die, or not throw the switch and allow more to die.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Exactly. Laws at their best are an "agreed" standard to help people get along safely, rather than being universal absolutes that devalue anyone else's. Just because someone believes in Moral Relativism doesn't mean that person doesn't have morals, it's just being aware of their arbitrary nature.
As you've probably already figured out, the Philosophical Health Test has identified no tensions in your beliefs. 4% of the people who have completed this activity to date similarly have no tensions in their beliefs.
There are a number of possible explanations for your excellent performance:
1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You've done this test before;
3. You got lucky.
There are a number of possible explanations for your excellent performance:
1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You've done this test before;
3. You got lucky.
Chainsawkitten
Member
What I'm saying is that the conflict you're positing does not exist. You said 'how can your opinion be the objective truth if others exist?' which isn't a problem at all. Either my opinion is wrong or theirs is (or both are wrong). Simple.
The reason I believe in moral relativism is because I believe morality is simply a human constructed system of rules that optimize social behaviour for a condition that you set.
Not all societies will set utility (most happiness, least harm) as that condition (e.g. theological societies), and as a result, what is right or wrong in their moral system will not accord with another system that sets another condition.
That allows me to set utility as the condition for which my system of morality is directed towards; and assess the impact and efficacy of one rule or behaviour over another.
Trent Strong
Banned
But if you didn't believe that the laws you set up were the only correct set of laws, then you wouldn't set them up in the first place, because you'd realize that any other set of laws would be equally valid. If you believe in moral relativism, then you can't say that murder is wrong or bad, not really. And so how can you put someone in prison if what they did wasn't wrong? I mean, I think that whether or not a particular song or movie is "good" is subjective, and so I would never want to pass laws that would make it illegal to like a song I didn't like.
To say you don't know as the correct answer to all philosophical questions strike me as... very simple minded.
If that is the correct answer, then why is there any need or desire to drive towards ascertaining anything?
We can always be more right - but some answers are better than others.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I think the last one is only one where I didn't read the part about "as valuable as mainstream medicine"
The other answers cause no conflicts or tensions within my mind.
I got 7, the holocaust one caught me out.
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
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
Chainsawkitten
Member
Bubble Metropolis
Member
The universe is a big place.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
I got one tension.
"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"
I felt that by and large most currently illegal drugs should remain illegal but that we should focus on rehabilitation rather than prosecution. I also feel that drugs destroy lives other than those of the individuals taking them. It's bad enough how many children suffer at the hands of alcoholic parents or breathe in cigarette smoke every day so we shouldn't make it easier for people who have the lives of others in their hands to become addicted to substances that take away their self-control and ability to act responsibly.
Is my answer good enough or am I a hypocrite?
"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"
I felt that by and large most currently illegal drugs should remain illegal but that we should focus on rehabilitation rather than prosecution. I also feel that drugs destroy lives other than those of the individuals taking them. It's bad enough how many children suffer at the hands of alcoholic parents or breathe in cigarette smoke every day so we shouldn't make it easier for people who have the lives of others in their hands to become addicted to substances that take away their self-control and ability to act responsibly.
Is my answer good enough or am I a hypocrite?
Professor Lich
Member
47 with 7 conflicts.
Looks like I'm a goner.
Looks like I'm a goner.
Trent Strong
Banned
Yes, morality is human constructed. It's not something inherent in nature, and it's not God's will (since God doesn't exist). But I'd wager that deep down you don't want to let theological societies be. You want to change those theological societies into utility societies,...because you think that utility societies are better. If you really believed that the initial condition that a society constructed it's system around was subjective, then you wouldn't want to change those theological society's initial conditions...but you do.
I think that in your answer, what you are against is the individual hurting others in the process, while in question one, the "so long as they do not harm others" is clearly stated.
Which means that if you believe in the first, you would decriminalise drug use, while maintaining punishment for hurting others. Hurting others while under a drug's influence is clearly violating the "as long as no harm is done to others". Also, it does not state directly or indirectly.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Being aware and believing in the arbitrary nature of morals and understanding that such systems have no universal or absolute basis does not mean that you can't have morals yourself. Laws are an arbitrarily "agreed" system required to settle disputes and keep members of a community safe. They may not be in line with other community's but that's okay.
Murder is a funny one because there are conditions under which it is considered acceptable in some societies (Capital Punishment, War etc.). These conditions obviously change over time as do all moral systems lending credence to the idea that morals are not absolute. Anyway, as I understand it not all murders are committed because of moral considerations either. Most murders, at least in UK/US society, are apparently termed 'Crimes of Passions' committed by people who on any other day would believe that murder is wrong.
I believe that anyone has the right to be able to do whatever they want (even if I don't agree with it), so long as their actions don't infringe on another person or their right to do so too. That is the morality that my environment has let me come to and that I have chosen to follow. I simply believe that it is no better or worse than anyone else's.
The landscape of moral relativist is one of many hills and valleys, we cannot know whether any one hill is the tallest one, but we can compare it's relative height to another hill, we can also see that certain sets of morality put one on the side of a hill, or in a valley. It is not inconceivable that a hill exists where killing people indiscriminately is beneficial, but we can say that we have yet to identify one.
Well, utilitarian societies are definetly better at achieving utiltarian ends. And I'd argue that a valid moral system should set utility as its goal, because if it's not, what's the point of your moral system other than as a fufillment of something other than utility...
But it's a bit tautological you know? I've kinda accepted - this is the fundamental arbitrary point that we need to accept; that we want to devise a system of rules and behaviours for society that's oriented around maximizing happiness and minimizing harm.
If you don't accept that premise... then your ideas of what is right and wrong are so alien to me that, I don't really know how to respond other than to shrug my shoulders and say - ok, as long as you know what you're doing.
Also, I don't really believe in good or evil. It suggests that we have more choice over our actions then we do - and it belies the complexity of harmful beliefs and behaviours - the same understanding that we need to disentangle behaviour and consequence to allow us to optimize utility.
- Status