From: BIll Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Wed Mar 06 2002 - 09:50:35 MST
I liked this one too, but I have the same complaint as I did in the
other test.
"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 problem here is that in the first question we are saying that
people's general moral and ethical behavior is based upon the culture
from which they come. As I come from a culture that suggests murder,
genocide, etc... are evil acts, for me to answer the second question
differently would be saying that I am not affected by the moral or
ethical norms of the culture from which I come - I would contradict my
first statement. Certainly some of my attitudes are less common than
others in my culture, but we generally agree on the basics.
Had the second question been worded: From an objective viewpoint, Acts
of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil, the
I could have answered differently. Worded as is, I'm sticking to my
guns.
This same argument goes for the Michelangelo Question. Art is based on
taste, and just about everyone, including myself, liked his art. As the
quality of art is defined by personal taste, then that must be the
measurement for it's greatness - what else could be?
I agree with the other one I got snagged on - but I don't care what the
question is - sure I can walk a few blocks to get groceries - but at 110
degrees, it aint fun.
Bill
Jonathan Davis wrote:
> ...now we have the Philosophical Health Check
>
> http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/check.htm
>
> I had a tension quotient of 7%
>
> Evidence is here : )
>
> http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/weblog/images/tension.jpg
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT
