From: David McFadzean (david@lucifer.com)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 10:21:35 MST
SPOILER warning. Take the test first.
I have a TQ of 13% (2 pairs of answers were in "tension"):
===
Questions 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?
160 of the 311 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?
===
I guess I am guilty as charged here. I do often walk or cycle on occasions
where most people (in my part of the world) would drive (the 3km from home
to work, for instance). However I do often drive when I could theoretically
use another mode mostly to save time (20 minutes to the movie theater
instead of 90 minutes) and also to go with other people who wouldn't
accompany me otherwise. I could (again theoretically) cycle to Vancouver or
LA if I wanted to take weeks instead of days, and go alone. Does that make
me a hypocrite?
===
Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?
145 of the 311 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.
===
I really have to take issue with this one. If you agree with the first
statement, then the no matter how you answer the 2nd you are just stating
your opion or "taste". I don't see any tension there.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Davis" <jonathan.davis@lineone.net>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:24 AM
Subject: virus: From the people who brought you the God test...
> ...now we have the Philosophical Health Check
>
> http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/check.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT