Philosophical Health Check

[sunako]

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm

In-depth analysis into the inconsistencies in your beliefs at the end of the test.

Tension Quotient = 33% :huh:

[zhang_bob]

Tension Quotient = 20%
It said I have 3 inconsistencies in my beliefs but I disagree with them all.

[Lee]

Tension Quotient = 7%


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.This question is responsible for my 7%

Needless to say, I do not believe these two answers are in conflict, anybody who read my views in Doctor Haight's recent art thread can figure out why.

The question is misleading because my personal assessment is that Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists, this does not require that I believe everyone else should agree with me. There is no tension.

[dubbeltop]

Tension Quotient = 20%


edit :yeah well i wonder what the results would be under the auspiciens of a evil torture squad?

OFF TOPiC*******OFF TOPIC******

[libertarianjim]

40%, most of it centering on God and faith.

I also got hit on the Michelangelo question.

[TelecomClone]

Tension Quotient = 7%

Which is not surprising, because internal consistency is something that I value and I constantly apply logical rigor to my own philosophies. In fact, the quotient that it returned should really be 0% because the test is logically erroneous on the single contradiction that it pointed out:


Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

40038 of the 84624 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?Incorrect. Question 25 is, in my opinion, fundamentally one of taste - as directly follows from my answer to question 14. The question is however framed as a simple matter of Agree/Disagree: that I think the issue is purely one of taste does not preclude me from having taste and therefore agreeing or disagreeing with the statement. Thus, there is no logical conflict.




edit: after reading the other replies, I think it's clear that the "Michelangelo question" is loaded.

[Biff_Loman]

13%. Michelangelo as well, and "atheism as a faith."

[mancroft]

Tension Quotient = 100%

:rant: I'm happy with that.

[joft]

in my current mood:

Tension Quotient = 27%

The average player of this activity to date has a Tension Quotient of 29%.

Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
38730 of the 84634 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

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?
29547 of the 84634 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

Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?
24515 of the 84634 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

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
36685 of the 84634 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

[waxwing]

Tension Quotient = 7%



Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

38731 of the 84635 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

These two responses may not be in conflict. I got the impression that by agreeing with the first I was speaking of what I can know for certain (i.e. I can't know) and that with the second, I was stating an opinion. Yes, I believe genocide is a testament to man's ability to do great evil, but do I think there are objective moral standards? No. Some of my standards are not objective because I cannot see through all lenses at once. It would be stupid to think otherwise.

[Google Monster]

Tension Quotient = 7%

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

As for Michelangelo, Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste. if you agree with that statement then someone who doesn't like Michelangelo will conflict with your beliefs of him being one of the finest.

[attila_the_hunny]

7%


Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?

24517 of the 84641 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

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

[abathur]

TQ=7%

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

27324 of the 84642 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.

I knew that'd be cited as a contradiction when I agreed to it, but, as they said, it is not strictly so.

[Rhu]

I'm not seeing how stating one's individual judgement contradicts with a statement that the judgements of others may tend to disagree.

Edit: Okay. I'm not really seeing where it causes this "tension"--from what I'm seeing of my "tension" and those of others, there are no strict logical contradictions.

[attila_the_hunny]

Well, they have an either agree or disgree options. I neither agreed or disagreed with some of my answers, but found them possibly plausible.

[SensEye]

Tension Quotient = 20%



Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
38739 of the 84646 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
Yeah, I sensed the conflict when I answered it. I didn't really like the term evil in the latter statement, I would have preferred it read "genocide stands as a testament to man's ability to be very cruel".

I simply wanted to express a disagreement with genocide. Killing for no reason other than perceived difference. I see no real conflict in my belief.


Questions 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?
42453 of the 84646 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
I knew this one would trip me up too. Again it's a matter of degree. I don't think the environment should be totally disregarded, but exhaust pollution is not significant enough a problem for me to want it restricted. I'll admit some conflict here.

And the Michelangelo issue. My claim is that while true that art is subjective, I suspect if you were to take a survey of people's opinions of Michelangelo's works, they would be overwhelmingly positive. As such I feel this qualifies him as one of the finest. But I concede the point.

[Snowflake]

Tension Quotient = 40%


Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

38740 of the 84648 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'.Yeah. I answered evil out of spite. I was very close to answering the other way, and in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have lied. But still, it's relevant that I did.


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

20493 of the 84648 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.This one was also pretty obvious. But once again, I'm forced into a bind (i.e., more tension, heh.)


Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

29553 of the 84648 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'.Yupp. I lied again. But I never connected this argument to relative truth. Now I have, and I feel relieved already :)

And the list goes on.

[MasterMerk]

Zero.

No tensions!

5010 of the 84669 people who have completed this activity also have no tensions in their belief system.

There are a number of possible explanations for the fact that you have no tensions in your beliefs:

1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You have very few beliefs - and consequently answered none or only a few of the questions!
3. You've done this test before!

[tinribz]

Tension Quotient = 7%

You agreed that: Individuals have sole rights over their own bodies

And also that: Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal

I don't even remenber agreeing to that euthanasia one, damn.

[Trystorp]

Tension Quotient 13%

And I justified my answers for myself as I entered them. I don't think there is any tension there - I just might alter the wording of the questions.

[Wotton]

Well, they have an either agree or disgree options. I neither agreed or disagreed with some of my answers, but found them possibly plausible.
Me, too. I did the test both ways for the statements I didn't agree or disagree with, or couldn't say for sure. My score didn't change as a result of changing my answers, though.

[Architectonic]

The test still assumes more context than is stated in the questions - so the results can be questionable...

[EmmaPeel]

Tension Quote = 40 %

Questions 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

I don't think this idea is so problematic. God gave us free will. He never steps in whether it's good or bad. The analysis they give is ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

What's the problem? You can carry your groceries on your back and walk two ro three miles. I'm using a car.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This is the easiest case to make. Drug abuse harms the user and the community in the long run. Whoever wrote this analysis is a dodo.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions 26 and 6: Can I make choices for my own body?

You agreed that:
Individuals have sole rights over their own bodies
And also that:
Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal

Where do you draw the line on who should die or not and when? Who is going to administer the death? Too many questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions 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 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.

What a shitty quiz.

[Lurker]

27%

They got me on the morality is relative vs. genocide question. But I didn't like the way they phrased the "morality is relative" question. I actually "pretty much agree" on that. The choices were too black/white. I believe more in an intuitive, somewhat relative morality rather than a completely relative one.

In the end, we really don't know one way or the other, so there must be some wiggle room for doubt.

[ShadyShady]

Tension Quotient = 13%

I disagree with both.



You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.




Questions 19 and 7: Is the unnatural wrong?
11659 of the 86208 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Proper sanitation and medicines are generally good for a society
And also that:
Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural

You believe that something is wrong if it is unnatural. Yet you believe that sanitation and medicine are good. But aren't these also unnatural? What is natural about sophisticated modern sewage systems and the domestic supply of clean water? What is natural about chemotherapy or other sophisticated medical treatments? So the first problem here is that it is simply not true that most people think all things unnatural are bad. So that means being unnatural is no reason for homosexuality to be considered wrong. (There is also the question of in what sense homosexuality is supposed to be unnatural). The second problem is a logical one. Because something 'is' the case, it doesn't follow that it 'ought' to be the case. 'Cancer kills' is true, but that doesn't mean 'cancer should (in the moral sense of the word) kill'. So there is a problem in trying to derive matters of moral value directly from matters of pure fact.

[cafe]

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

20853 of the 86211 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 ?4 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.

Questions 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?

28518 of the 86211 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not.

Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate.

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

43152 of the 86211 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

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?

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

27800 of the 86211 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form

These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.

I'm surprised I didn't score higher. There is always a tension between my Ni and my Ti and a constant battle between mercy and righeousness. I've come to accept that I will always hold contradictory beliefs on some levels.

[ben from below]

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

This is the easiest case to make. Drug abuse harms the user and the community in the long run. Whoever wrote this analysis is a dodo.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Is it possible to use an illegal drug without abusing it?

Does my occasional use of cocaine harm you in any way?

[rivercrow]

33%

I'm not disturbed by my conflicts, either.

[In...TP]

http://www.philosophersnet.com/cgi-bin/check.cgi

[RottenApple]

Is it possible to use an illegal drug without abusing it?

Yes



Does my occasional use of cocaine harm you in any way?
No

However.
For purely selfish reasons I would not live in a country which legalised drug use. I have no moral objection to people using drugs but a country which sold hard drugs over the counter is a system waiting to collapse.

I simply don't have enough faith in man-kind's self-control.

I am a moral sceptic and see no logical reason to believe in right or wrong in the empirical sense of the word. Yet,for purely selfish reasons, I prefer to live in a country with laws and structure.

This test was designed by a highly un-insightful person.

[Hustler]

My results.


Tension Quotient = 0%
The average player of this activity to date has a Tension Quotient of 29%.

No tensions!

5168 of the 86250 people who have completed this activity also have no tensions in their belief system.

There are a number of possible explanations for the fact that you have no tensions in your beliefs:

1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You have very few beliefs - and consequently answered none or only a few of the questions!
3. You've done this test before!

[Arcades]

This test is bull shit. yes/no answers and Philosophy (personal or world) do NOT mix. This test seems to exisist to prove that people are confused and bend the questioning to prove there ideas. None of there arguments hold much water to even 30 seconds of examanation.