Philosophical Health Check (quiz)

[EvieTheAvocado]

Here's a quiz to test the consistency of your beliefs:

https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/he...fault.aspx

And here's my result:

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.

We suggest you have another go at the test, responding differently this time around, just to see what kinds of tensions you've managed to avoid.

(The answer is that all 3 of the above explanations is true, in my case!)

[Unsapien]

Supposedly my philosophical tension level is 13%, which is still better then the average but I don't agree with one of the tests "tension" results.

It said that I disagreed that there is an objective moral standard, but that I agreed  an genocide is evil, which I did. But when I agreed which that I wasn't used an objective moral standard, I was judging it by my own moral standard.

The tension it cited about my views on the environment I think were because of the vagueness of the words "should" and "unnecessary" in the two statements.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I think that's because if you are being asked if something is evil ... they are not asking for your personal feelings but they're instead asking for what you think is the objective truth of the matter.

And I think that there is, indeed, a tension ... when many people who think that morality is naught but personal feelings, and that there is no objective fact of the matter, also argue against some things being highly immoral. If everyone's feelings about, and opinions on, morality are all equal then it is pointless and irrational to provide arguments for one's own moral opinions, which must be just as untrue, or irrational or meaningless, as even the supposedly worst people's moral opinions, right? If someone truly believes that Hitler didn't do anything objectively wrong then his feelings about what was the right thing to do are no less valid than anyone else's and providing arguments for why the Holocaust was morally bad is pointless, irrational and completely meaningless if you really believe that morality isn't objective and that all opinions about morality are equal.

[GirlyMan]

[EvieTheAvocado]

Thanks for taking the test.

I like your AD signature, by the way, Girlyman. Amor fati, indeed!

[julep]

Supposedly my philosophical tension level is 13%, which is still better then the average but I don't agree with one of the tests "tension" results.

It said that I disagreed that there is an objective moral standard, but that I agreed  an genocide is evil, which I did. But when I agreed which that I wasn't used an objective moral standard, I was judging it by my own moral standard.

The tension it cited about my views on the environment I think were because of the vagueness of the words "should" and "unnecessary" in the two statements.

The test itself admits that some of the "tensions" are not tensions, per se, but differentiations involving more subtle reasoning (which is precluded by the format of yes/no answers for questions that don't have such--as well as, several times, both answers provided being incorrect, just one more wrong than the other).  The questions and test design were both pretty bad.  

As for the results percentage, Evie's post makes it clear that at least some respondents are being urged to take the test more than once and answer differently, so the percentage comparison to other users is outright garbage.

[Vera]

Yeah, the hinted absolutes and dualistic black-and-white, either-or undertones did not sit well with me.

No, there is no "objective" morality, yes, we are humans, sharing the same physiology and psychology, and will come up with mostly similar moral systems.

[Bucky Ball]

The test administrator is a quack. I'm reporting her to the Philosophical Authorities.
She doesn't know what's wrong with "God *always* existed", and she has the balls to talk "philosophy" ..... LMAO.

[EvieTheAvocado]

She doesn't know what's wrong with "God *always* existed", and she has the balls to talk "philosophy" ..... LMAO.

That's a disagreement with her over on the other thread, so she's dealing with that unsubstantiated shite of yours over there, thanks very much.

[Grandizer]

The PHC has identified 0 tensions in your beliefs.

[SYZ]

The test indicated four tensions for me:

I totally disagree with the German nurse killing the children and the "locked in" person's involuntary euthanasia
comparative scenarios, as the test result cited these as tensions of mine due to their alleged opposing moral
stances—I said it wasn't OK for the nurse killing the kids, but was OK for the doctor euthanising his patient.

The children were young and healthy, and they may have been liberated by the allies on the following days, or
may not even have been chosen as test subjects.  On the other hand, the locked in person was older, totally
debilitated, with zero hope of recovery, and assured clinically of dying shortly.  Where there's life, there's hope.


As a side note, apparently philosophers have poor spelling skills, and can't even write Michelangelo correctly.    

[Szuchow]

Test looks like some quackery. Atheism as faith?

I had surprisingly low level of tension - 7% - but considering the questions I think that entire test is about as believable as Trump.

[Dānu]

I got to the first question and had to bail as I neither do nor do not believe that morals are objective. I'm agnostic on the question. Bad poll. Baaaaaad poll.

[Dr H]

I liked the political test better than this one; it was better constructed.
This one produces huge generalizations out of minimal data obtained from insufficiently detailed questions.

* For starters, they ask if "There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God." -- I disagreed.
Then, when they ask for my religious belief, my choices are several mainstream religions, "Other" and "Not saying".
Well "Other" doesn't fit, and I would be happy to "say" if "atheist" had been one of the choices, which it was not.
So already there is some tension between the designers of this test and my own philosophical beliefs, although not between my own particular beliefs.

* Next, I'm told I have tension between "There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures," and "Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil."  Where is the tension?  I make moral judgments on the basis of aculturated and personal ethical norms, and on that basis I judge genocide to be evil.  It's a natural progression:  no tension.

* Then they found tension between "The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives," and "Governments should NOT be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world."  Well, again, I think lives are more important than money.  I also think that government, and government control of economies is one of the chief causes and sustainers of the unequal distribution of resources which results is so many lives being placed in jeopardy in the developing world.  The government shouldn't be allowed to futz with this at all; there should be no "government."  
No tension there, either, from my viewpoint:  to an anarchist, the two statements considered together as a unit are a non sequitur.  

* Then they have a problems with:
"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."

That I don't think the environment should be gratuitously damaged says nothing about 
whether I think I should dictate that position to others, not about why I should be the
judge about what may or may not be necessary or possible for them.

* The last one they flagged:
"You agreed that:
Judgments about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists"

Their justification:
"The tension here is the result of the fact that you don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt."

Well, in my judgment of taste, Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists.  Why would they assume that I speak for anyone else?  They didn't, after all, ask if I thought judgments about works of art were impossible; merely if I thought they were matters of taste.  Nor did they ask if I thought everyone considered Michaelangelo one of history's finest artists -- else I would have given a different answer.  Because I agree that judgments about works of art are matters of taste, does that preclude me from ever making a taste-based-judgement in response to a direct question like the second one?  

Somehow, from my agreement with the second statement, they manage to extract all sorts of ideas about "objective" standards, which not only did I never suggest, but which I explicitly denied via the response I gave to the first statement.

Far from being a "tension", it is again a logical follow-through from my first statement.



So there.  

[Mark]

Cool.  You won a green T-shirt.  Good job!

[Mark]

I got to the first question and had to bail as I neither do nor do not believe that morals are objective.  I'm agnostic on the question.  Bad poll.  Baaaaaad poll.

I assumed it would throw around terms that would require me to come up with positions for which I am lacking fucks to give. Looks like I was right.  Sorry my  turtle loving friend.

[Phaedrus]

The PHC has identified 3 tensions in your beliefs.

I'm at 20% where the average is 27%.

[Bucky Ball]

Stupid test.
The tensions they identified as mine are in fact, not really tensions and easily explained otherwise.

[Phaedrus]

Stupid test.
The tensions they identified as mine are in fact, not really tensions and easily explained otherwise.

I basically thought the same thing.

[Vosur]

This was my result:

[Gwaithmir]

I scored 13. I'm not sure what to make of it and I can't say I'm particularly impressed by the questions. My overall reaction seems to be, "So what?!"