Political Compass

[Kidlicious]

Imran,

You seem to be saying that you don't believe in his theory just because of this extreme case though. Is that it?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That means that even he considers his model to be different from the real world. That doesn't mean we can't apply it to the real world were it may fit

I'm sure that he feels that his conclusions should apply to the real world, even though his model isn't . Which is one reason I have certain problems with him. How can we apply a severly controlled theoretical excersize to the real world when, IMO, it doesn't really tell us anything about the real world.

I think the problem is that you think that there are some theoretical model that are perfect depictions of the real world. There aren't. Rawls' model is no different from any other.

Ok, sure. Then what rights should people have? How do you determine them?

Ted Striker's wish

, No, seriously, the rights of the people are determined by their societies or governments, basically by people in power. Rights arise from the group deciding what needs to be protected.

What about the minorities? Are they just screwed?

[Jon Miller]

new questions

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59

JM

[MalevolentLight]

Ok wait a minute here why am I labeled as an absolutist?

A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.

I don't remember seeing any questions on there that would give me a score like that. In fact all the questions asked that apparently pertain to their score on absolutism had to do with science and whether or not there was god. Every time I answered that science can answer everything and that there is no god. So that makes me an absolutist?

[Drogue]

Nope. Absolutism comes from the questions on state power and checks on that power. Science and God was more the other way, IIRC.

[Natalinasmpf]

Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.48

Hmm....

Two years ago, I believe it was something like -3.26 economically and 1.05 in the social scale....how that has drastically changed.

I dislike the way religious issues are insinuated into these tests. That would be another scale - the philosophical scale (objectivity vs subjectivity, for example) - it doesn't really affect political and social beliefs.

Ie. I have anarchist tendencies, but I am Christian.

[MalevolentLight]

The absolutist believes that either a divine presence or scientific laws provide absolute truths about the world, which can and should be applied in practise. The non-absolutist may be either a relativist, or simply someone who is more pragmatic.

Nope, it was the questions about god and science. I put stuff like I felt science can explain anything. It was definitely because of this. I also decided to look at the documents section for politicsforum.org and all I see is Soviet Russian ****. The conservative forum is described as "common sense values and duty to the state". Which makes it sound like it's some fascist or communist forum. The liberalism forum which I supposedly fit under is described as "Modern liberalism. Civil rights & liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare)." Now, I think we all know by now I don't fit the description even remotely of the Liberalism forum. Yet according to the description of the conservative forum you would think you are stepping into Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Why do I get the feeling this site is biased? Interesting links they have for news too. This site is definitely biased.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You seem to be saying that you don't believe in his theory just because of this extreme case though.

Well I don't consider it that extreme to his philosophy, but an integral part. But yes, I don't agree with his theory because I don't agree with the maximin.

I think the problem is that you think that there are some theoretical model that are perfect depictions of the real world. There aren't. Rawls' model is no different from any other.

So then he doesn't want his thoretical conclusions to apply to the real world? What then? Usually, even with theoretical exercises (like, say, the Social Contract), philosophers want to conclusions to apply to the actual world, even if they didn't start from the actual world. You just have to buy into the premise.

What about the minorities? Are they just screwed?

Who says the minorities can't be the power brokers? After all, look at South Africa for the longest time.

But, realistically, minorities without power are screwed in terms of rights and have been since time immemorial. They are extended rights when the people in power feel moral guilt at the way those minorities are treated.

Ok wait a minute here why am I labeled as an absolutist?

You believe things can be answered in an absolute right and wrong sense. You are not a relativist.

[MalevolentLight]

You believe things can be answered in an absolute right and wrong sense. You are not a relativist.

Ok I can go with that.

I love how they list one of their links to the SF Chronicle. Can they link to even more liberal newspapers? I mean the SFC is about as liberal as you can possibly get. And the BBC?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Ok wait a minute here why am I labeled as an absolutist?

I don't remember seeing any questions on there that would give me a score like that. In fact all the questions asked that apparently pertain to their score on absolutism had to do with science and whether or not there was god. Every time I answered that science can answer everything and that there is no god. So that makes me an absolutist?

Originally posted by Drogue
Nope. Absolutism comes from the questions on state power and checks on that power. Science and God was more the other way, IIRC.

Nope, both wrong (AFAIK).

When you say God doesn't exist, that makes you a materialist instead of a theist.

Questions regarding state power and checks on that power had usually relate to Big<->Small Government & Free<->Controlled Market.

Absolutism here has to do whether or not you believe there is one fundamental truth or moral system that exists or can be found, what is your view on moral relativism, etcetera.

Taken together, this means:

If one is eg a christian or muslim fundamentalist, one would probably end up as an absolutist theist.

If one doesn't believe in God, yet still has a rather strong belief in one's moral system as the only correct and superior one, and have an unbreakable belief in science to discover "the truth", he's also an absolutist just like religious extremists are. Only difference is that person is a materialist absolutist instead of a theist absolutist.

However if like me you don't believe in God, and neither have an unbreakable belief in any ideology, moral value or science to solve all the questions and problems in the universe, you're a relativist, and would like me score as a materialist non-absolutist.

Edit: Or read Imran Siddiqui's post for a shorter answer.

[MalevolentLight]

Nope, both wrong (AFAIK).

When you say God doesn't exist, that makes you a materialist instead of a theist.

Questions regarding state power and checks on that power had usually relate to Big<->Small Government & Free<->Controlled Market.

Absolutism here has to do whether or not you believe there is one fundamental truth or moral system that exists or can be found, what is your view on moral relativism, etcetera.

Taken together, this means:

If one is eg a christian or muslim fundamentalist, one would probably end up as an absolutist theist.

If one doesn't believe in God, yet still has a rather strong belief in one's moral system as the only correct and superior one, and have an unbreakable belief in science to discover "the truth", he's also an absolutist just like religious extremists are. Only difference is that person is a materialist absolutist instead of a theist absolutist.

However if like me you don't believe in God, and neither have an unbreakable belief in any ideology, moral value or science to solve all the questions and problems in the universe, you're a relativist, and would like me score as a materialist non-absolutist.

Yep you're right. I don't believe in god or Christianity but I do have a very strong and strict moral code. I believe there is an absolute right and wrong and I believe when it comes to people like Muslims we are definitely in the right and they are definitely in the wrong.

[Arrian]

"People like Muslims"

You mean all 1+ billion of them? You're not only an absolutist, you're a bigot. Yay!

-Arrian

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.48

Hmm....

Two years ago, I believe it was something like -3.26 economically and 1.05 in the social scale....how that has drastically changed.

I dislike the way religious issues are insinuated into these tests. That would be another scale - the philosophical scale (objectivity vs subjectivity, for example) - it doesn't really affect political and social beliefs.

Ie. I have anarchist tendencies, but I am Christian.

Try out that second test link I provided. That adresses the critique you give on the first test.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Arrian
"People like Muslims"

You mean all 1+ billion of them? You're not only an absolutist, you're a bigot. Yay!

-Arrian

It's a good thing that he's got such a winning personality...

[MalevolentLight]

When you go visit the middle east and convert to Islam and live the way they do then you come talk to me and tell me they are not morally inferior.