I think they're right -- you should change your belief that there are no 
objective moral standards.  There are!	You are objectively wrong to say 
otherwise! :)

Erica points out that this cosmo-style quiz is a lousy measure of belief 
tension.  It may be.  It occurs to me that it probably has a strong 
libertarian bias, which, being a born-again libertarian, didn't strike me 
as egregious.

Btw, my belief tension was, interestingly, about affirmative action. I 
guess I'm still a little torn.	My rationalization is that while people 
*should* be judged solely on merit, there are mitigating practical 
considerations, as spelled out beautifully by James Mickens recently.

Danny

--- \/	 FROM Robert Felty AT 06.10.25 15:11 (Today)   \/ ---

> me too
> here is where I am inconsistent:
> Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
>
> 44365 of the 97795 people who have completed this activity have this tension 
> in their beliefs.
>
> 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?
>
> My reasoning for this inconsistency is that 1) I was a bit confused by 
> question 27, and 2) when I say that morality is dependent upon culture, I 
> mostly just mean that morality is influenced (or perhaps defined by) 
> culturally accepted norms, which change from time to place. There are of 
> course moral issues which change more than others (e.g. homosexuality). In 
> terms of genocide, this could boil down to intentions and background reasons.

> If one's intention is to wipe out a bunch of terrorists, the set of whom 
> happens to coincide with a particular race, this might not be inherently 
> evil. But attempting to wipe out an entire race which has not violently 
> threatened anyone (e.g. the holocaust), would most likely be considered 
> morally wrong at practically any time or place.
>
> Rob
>
> On Oct 25, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:
>
>> How bout you?
>> 
>> http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm
>> 
>> 
>> (ps, didn't end up seeing Jesus Camp last night if anyone still wants to 
>> see it -- I know most of you are in ann arbor where it doesn't seem to be 
>> showing.  maybe we could have a trans-city movie night when it comes out on 
>> dvd.)
>> 
>> -- 
>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>> 
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs then
the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization."