Test: which moral philosophy is yours (even if you don't know it)

[Az]

How come I share so much with Az?

Spiff: because you're wise and benevolent, just like me.

anyway, don't wave your tongue at Mill. He's good. I am a die-hard utilitarian ( although the test might suggest otherwise)

[Kuciwalker]

Kant.

[orange]

1. Kant (100%)
Browse Kant related books. Click here for info

2. John Stuart Mill (85%)
Browse John Stuart Mill related books. Click here for info

3. Jeremy Bentham (81%)
Browse Jeremy Bentham related books. Click here for info

4. Prescriptivism (80%)
Browse Prescriptivism related books. Click here for info

5. St. Augustine (70%)
Browse St. Augustine related books. Click here for info

6. Aquinas (67%)
Browse Aquinas related books. Click here for info

7. Nel Noddings (66%)
Browse Nel Noddings related books. Click here for info

8. Spinoza (54%)
Browse Spinoza related books. Click here for info

9. Jean-Paul Sartre (50%)
Browse Jean-Paul Sartre related books. Click here for info

10. Epicureans (44%)
Browse Epicureans related books. Click here for info

11. Plato (42%)
Browse Plato related books. Click here for info

12. Ockham (35%)
Browse Ockham related books. Click here for info

13. Ayn Rand (33%)
Browse Ayn Rand related books. Click here for info

14. Stoics (31%)
Browse Stoics related books. Click here for info

15. Nietzsche (29%)
Browse Nietzsche related books. Click here for info

16. Aristotle (25%)
Browse Aristotle related books. Click here for info

17. Cynics (17%)
Browse Cynics related books. Click here for info

18. David Hume (17%)
Browse David Hume related books. Click here for info

19. Thomas Hobbes (17%)
Browse Thomas Hobbes related books. Click here for info

[Berzerker]

as someone who does professional philosophy

Translation: "My name is Agathon, kneel before me as I look down upon you with disdain from my ivory tower."

1. Ayn Rand (100%)

2. John Stuart Mill (94%)

3. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%)

[Az]

****ing incredible. Berz, with Mill in No.2.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Agathon
All these philosophers had metaethical views which informed their normative views.

Indeed they did. I just don't think it is significant enough as a distinguishing factor (just look at me getting Kant, Mill and Rand as my first three choices, based on picking the "rational" answer every time) to truly be able to show people what philosopher they should look into more, which is surely the purpose of such a test.

I appreciate that for someone with a classical bent (such as yourself) the metaphysical portion must be important, but as interesting as questions of truth, necessity, reality and relativism are (and I took a term-long course in Metaethics a year ago) I think the way moral arguments are structured and the basic tenets of their interpretetion of human morality is more important.

Sure, one can argue about antirealism or whatever and make in interesting, but what I've always found fascinating about the nature of ethics (and part of metaethics) is that it explains and theorises about real, verifiable human behavior much more than any other branch of philosophy. It's not about pure thought and the nature of things, no, it has a starting point (morality and our way of thinking) and constructs models to explain why we're moral beings, and how to logically extend our morality. Why aren't those kinds of questions present in the test?

[Spiffor]

I only know Mill through his economic ideology, and though he isn't as crazy as Smith and Say, he is pretty much a free-for-all guy. Hence my tongue at him.

[Az]

Mill always seemed to me like a "welfare state"ist. I agree almost fully with his ethical work though.

Read "Utilitarianism". It's available on the web. you'll see you'll agree with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Az, Mill always seemed to me to be a free marketer (like Spiffor says). He isn't crazy like some of our libertarians, but he is a market guy.

[Az]

That's why I said "Welfare State"ist. Unless welfare state=socialism. ( Libertarians might just believe in that. )

Although I heard he described himself as a socialist.

[Kuciwalker]

orange - you and I were EXACTLY the same!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Translation: "My name is Agathon, kneel before me as I look down upon you with disdain from my ivory tower."

What a load of cr@p. If a psychologist endorsed one of Red Jon's tests I suppose you'd take him seriously.

[el freako]

Well here's my results...

To return to the Ethical Philosophy Selector page with your current scores, use your back browser button.

1. Aristotle (100%)
2. Aquinas (90%)
3. Jeremy Bentham (76%)
4. Epicureans (73%)
5. Spinoza (72%)
6. John Stuart Mill (70%)
7. Ayn Rand (56%)
8. Stoics (55%)
9. Jean-Paul Sartre (51%)
10. Kant (51%)
11. Nietzsche (51%)
12. Cynics (48%)
13. David Hume (46%)
14. Ockham (44%)
15. Nel Noddings (37%)
16. Thomas Hobbes (36%)
17. St. Augustine (35%)
18. Prescriptivism (34%)
19. Plato (32%)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed


Indeed they did. I just don't think it is significant enough as a distinguishing factor (just look at me getting Kant, Mill and Rand as my first three choices, based on picking the "rational" answer every time) to truly be able to show people what philosopher they should look into more, which is surely the purpose of such a test.

Well it depends on whether we think that normative or metaethical agreement is worth more. I always think ME is more philosophical, but there you go.

I appreciate that for someone with a classical bent (such as yourself) the metaphysical portion must be important, but as interesting as questions of truth, necessity, reality and relativism are (and I took a term-long course in Metaethics a year ago) I think the way moral arguments are structured and the basic tenets of their interpretetion of human morality is more important.

In applied ethics it sure is. But this is a really modern and pragmatic view of it. When people think of philosophy they usually think of the old masters.

Sure, one can argue about antirealism or whatever and make in interesting, but what I've always found fascinating about the nature of ethics (and part of metaethics) is that it explains and theorises about real, verifiable human behavior much more than any other branch of philosophy. It's not about pure thought and the nature of things, no, it has a starting point (morality and our way of thinking) and constructs models to explain why we're moral beings, and how to logically extend our morality. Why aren't those kinds of questions present in the test?

Well Plato constructs a fairly elaborate model to show why we're moral beings, as does Aristotle, Hobbes, and Sartre (the stuff on the inescapability of responsibility).

I wasn't under the impression that this test was about pure thought and the nature of things so much as it was about the way you think about the nature of ethics. Is it to ameliorate the human condition; or to serve God; or neither? Is always it concerned with ends over means or not? Does it rely on sentiment or is it a matter of pure reason?

I think these are the broadest questions.

[Agathon]

Hey el freako, I'd like to know how you got Plato and Aristotle so far apart.

And Mill is the classic welfare statist liberal.