This week’s internet quiz is a bit different. Because it centers on meta-ethics, it takes a bit of thought to get through the questions. Each needs true consideration.
And I don’t know enough about this line of study to agree or disagree with my result. It’s interesting, as is the entire exercise, but it could be so wrong as to be laughable.
What I do know is this: I rarely believe in moral absolutes. The infinitely complex universe is quite capable of turning such beliefs on their ears simply by imposing a heretofore unknown set of variables and considerations. A good example of this would include killing a human being. I do not support the death penalty. I do not support murder. But I do support self-defense, and if such a thing results in the death of another human being, I would find that unfortunate but not morally wrong.
Another example is to say that lying is bad. That statement is true to a certain point, but it’s not absolute. I lied to Derek when he was dying in the hospital because there was nothing that could be done to stop it, his mental condition had deteriorated such that his emotions were volatile and unpredictable, and I felt it more important that he and his family have more time to share with each other sans the overwhelming fear of impending doom. They knew his condition. I knew his condition. He had only weeks to live and would never see the outside of a critical-care hospital unit, so what would have been the point in telling him? It was more important to help him be comfortable, to enjoy those final days with little worry, and to ensure he had his affairs in order as a “just in case” preparation.
So in that sense, the answer below is somewhat applicable, but again, I don’t think absolutes in morality are always good or sound, so even trying to label me thus tends to make me cringe.
My score on The Meta-ethical Theories Test:Subjectivism
(You scored 50 Objectivism, 63 Naturalism, and 52 Cognitivism!)
There are meaningful ethical propositions which can be reduced to talk of other things, but no independent moral facts. You might agree with subjectivists.“Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical belief that ethical sentences reduce to factual statements about the attitudes and/or conventions of individual people. An ethical subjectivist might propose, for example, that what it means for something to be morally right is just for it to be approved of. (This can lead to the belief that different things are right according to each idiosyncratic moral outlook.) Another kind of ethical subjectivist might define “good” as “that which I desire”.