Philosophical Health Check

I did that philosophical health check thingy found via Chris. My tension rate was 27 – just below the average. However, it makes some startling assumptions. Take a look at this:

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’. But what does it mean to say ‘genocide is evil’? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say ‘genocide is evil’ is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? 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?

This apparently means I am in tension because I hold contradictory views on morality. In my opinion when asked, I believe that genocide as carried out in Rwanda was horrific and is, indeed, a testament to man’s inhumanity to man. That is my moral judgement based upon the values of my culture used as the yardstick when replying to the question. Others may differ. As, presumably, did the Rwandan army that committed the acts. But, then, I wasn’t answering on their behalf, was I? Therefore, there is no contradiction and there is no tension. I do not have to conduct philosophical cartwheels to extricate myself from a contradiction that does not exist.

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?

Hm… this one makes the assumption that the greenies are correct in their assertions about “damage”. If you don’t buy that assumption – and I don’t, there is no contradiction. The crucial word here; “unnecessary” is being interpreted in a narrow manner – an interpretation not made clear in the question. If that interpretation was made clear, then perhaps the answer to the second question is that very few journeys are necessary whatever means used. If the word “unnecessary” was omitted from the question, my response would have been different. It also assumes incorrectly that I am making judgements about others in my response. I am not.

When making a decision about transport, I opt for the most practical – frequently that is personal transport (a bike, rather than a car, but I’ll stick to it as a parallel). Given that often my journeys are for work – and therefore necessary for survival using the quiz writer’s definition, I use what suits me best. Therefore, no tension, no contradiction. Strike two.

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.

Ah, well, this is where a closed question is the wrong question. My answer to the second of the pair of questions if allowed, would be; “I don’t know”. However, if we exist apart from our bodies (and I don’t know), then while we exist in a corporeal form, a failure of that form limits our abilities while we still inhabit it. Therefore, there is no contradiction and no tension. Strike three.

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.

Sigh… I’m getting bored now. Again, the quiz writer makes an assumption about the respondent’s beliefs. In my opinion Michaelangelo was a great painter and sculptor. The question asked presumably sought my opinion. Others may differ. Others may believe that Michelangelo was a talentless twat on the level of the awful Tracy Emmin or Damian Hurst for all I know or care (again, my opinion, others may differ). Therefore, judgements about works of art are both subjective and a matter of taste.

Strike four, I think. What a silly test.