(by Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom) got me thinking...
The ultimate philosophical quiz book helps you understand any tension standards that one might have. In other words, certain beliefs that are contradictory with one another. I ended up with 6 tensions (of the 15 possible ones), which is a high ranking .... oops. So this attempts to help me challenge some of my own beliefs, and either change my opinion or answer on some of the questions, or try and live with inconsistency (not advisable by the author).
TENSION 1: Is morality relative?
- There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures. (Agree)
- Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil. (Agree)
These two beliefs contradicts one another, one has to either judge people by your own standards, or believe that each person acts morally from their own perspective. Ouch. I'm not prepared to give up number 1, so number 2 will have to go.
However, the author challenges my thinking by stating that: "if moral judgements really are merely the 'expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?" Hmmmm....
TENSION 2: Can you put a price on human life?
- The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives. (Agree)
- Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world. (Disagree)
When I answered 2, I did have it Agree at first, but changed it as I thought maybe it is little harsh. Now I can see and I confirm that life is more important than financial gain to me, and therefore 2 should change to Agree. Where does this leave theft, I wonder?
TENSION 3: How much must I protect the environment?
- The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends. (Agree)
- People should not travel by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead (Disagree)
Okay, so I kinda made myself feel better by answer disagree with no 2, but I really agree with the statement, and to be honest, I did start doing that as well (rather walk to the shop).
TENSION 4: Can we please ourselves?
- So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own needs. (Agree)
- The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalized. (Disagree)
With this one, I don't agree that it is contradictory, because in case of drugs, the user will certainly do harm to their family. This tension I am prepared to live with.
After reading the authors explination, I am not so sure anymore, because what about drugs that are legal, like alcohol (and maybe road accidents) that are among the leading killers in our society. Even second hand smoke is bad for others, but yet are legal. "there is no reason to treat all currently illegal drugs the same."
TENSION 5: How do we judge art?
- Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste. (Agree)
- Michelangelo is one of history's finest artists. (Agree)
Again, I am not giving this tension up, I still believe that art is matters of taste. Most people just happened to like Michelangelo's work. I am happy to accept some debate on this one.
TENSION 6: What should be legal?
- The government should not permit the sale of health treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety. (Agree)
- Alternative and complementary medicines are as valuable as mainstream medicine. (Agree)
Okay, so no. 1 will have to go, I forgot about alternative medicines. I use them myself and find them to be useful.
So I'm left with 2 tensions now, which seems to be reasonable.
And so I shall live with contradictions...
I end with the authors final thoughts on this section:
"is [our inconsistancies] someting we should be sanguine about, or do we all have a responsibility to think our opinions through much more carefully?"
