Another philosophical quiz

[Crissa]

What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com
Hedonism 80%
Existentialism 65%
Utilitarianism 45%
Justice (Fairness) 45%
Nihilism 20%
Strong Egoism 15%
Kantianism 10%
Apathy 0%
Divine Command 0%

[Absentminded_Wizard]

My results:

Existentialism
80%
Justice (Fairness)
75%
Utilitarianism
75%
Kantianism
50%
Hedonism
50%
Strong Egoism
40%
Nihilism
25%
Divine Command
15%
Apathy
10%

[Orion]

100% Existentialist
85% Utilitarian
80% Hedonist
55% Egoist
40% Justice
35% Kantian
30% Nihilist
25% Apathetic
10% Divine Command

[Fwib]

75% Justice (Fairness)
75% Existentialism
70% Hedonism
60% Apathy - Is that a lot?
50% Utilitarianism
30% Strong Egoism
25% Kantianism
10% Nihilism
00% Divine Command

[Koumei]

60% Apathy - Is that a lot?

Who cares?

I'm an existentialist, apparently. Hedonist is a very close second though - but I always imagined Hedonism as being very "I want it now, so I will have it now" based. Pleasure taken to an extreme where it can be a bad thing. The "Hedonism" statements in this, however, suggest more that it's merely about pursuing happiness above all else. Interesting.

After that is Utilitarianism and Kantianism.

[Username17]

Utilitarianism 90%
Nihilism 80%
Existentialism 80%
Hedonism 70%
Justice (Fairness) 40%
Kantianism 35%
Apathy 15%
Strong Egoism 15%
Divine Command 0%

Much more accurate than most of those tests.

-Username17

[shau]

Existentialism
70%
Utilitarianism
70%
Justice (Fairness)
60%
Hedonism
60%
Apathy
50%
Kantianism
45%
Strong Egoism
20%
Nihilism
20%
Divine Command
0

I seem to lean towards the middle of everything.

[bosssmiley]

Existentialism 95%
Hedonism 85%
Justice (Fairness) 85%
Strong Egoism 75%
Kantianism 65%
Utilitarianism 60%
Nihilism 30%
Apathy 25%
Divine Command 15%

Didn't anticipate that.

[josephbt]

Utilitarianism
70%
Justice (Fairness)
70%
Nihilism
70%
Strong Egoism
65%
Hedonism
60%
Kantianism
50%
Existentialism
45%
Apathy
25%
Divine Command
0%

[Jerry]

Hedonism 65%
Existentialism 65%
Justice (Fairness) 60%
Strong Egoism 50%
Kantianism 30%
Utilitarianism 30%
Nihilism 15%
Apathy 0
Divine Command 0

Hedonism for the win!

[Maj]

Hedonism - 90%
Existentialism - 85%
Utilitarianism - 70%
Justice/Fairness - 50%
Kantianism - 45%
Divine Command - 30%
Strong Egoism - 20%
Apathy - 0%
Nihilism - 0%

Not exactly what I expected, but interesting nonetheless.

[Calibron]

Divine Command-90%
Existentialism-80%
Utilitarianism-70%
Hedonism-60%
Kantianism-55%
Justice(Fairness)-35%
Nihilism-30%
Strong Egoism-25%
Apathy-15%

I'm wondering why I got such a relatively high Nihilism rating.

[Talisman]

Existentialism by a single point.

Hedonism - 75%
Existentialism - 75%
Justice (Fairness) - 65%
Utilitarianism - 65%
Strong Egoism - 60%
Kantianism - 45%
Apathy - 30%
Divine Command - 25%
Nihilism - 5%

Oddly high hedonism score...apparently I'm quite the reveler. Who knew?

[Koumei]

Talisman: I'm pretty sure their definition of Hedonism is "enjoying life and pursuing happiness". So if you aren't being GRIM AND DARK then you're a hedonist.

You Slaaneshi deviant, you.

[JonSetanta]

You scored as Existentialist. Existentialism emphasizes human capability. There is no greater power interfering with life and thus it is up to us to make things happen. Sometimes considered a negative and depressing world view, your optimism towards human accomplishment is immense. Mankind is condemned to be free and must accept the responsibility.

Existentialist 75%

Cultural Creative 75%

Postmodernist 75%

Idealist 75%

Romanticist 38%

Modernist 25%

Materialist 25%

Fundamentalist 0%



EDIT: Oops, just noticed that this result copypasted is obsolete. It's the same quiz, though. I'll do the new one and post it later.

[Bigode]

Kantianism 90%
Existentialism 85%
Justice (Fairness) 80%
Strong Egoism 70%
Utilitarianism 60%
Nihilism 55%
Hedonism 40%
Apathy 30%
Divine Command 0%

Sort of weird for someone who knows the categorical imperative can become meaningless with enough qualifiers, but nonetheless quite true.

[JonSetanta]

OK, here are the new results.

You scored as a Existentialism
Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre

“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal

More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...

Existentialism 90%
Nihilism 80%
Hedonism 70%
Utilitarianism 60%
Strong Egoism 60%
Justice (Fairness) 40%
Apathy 25%
Kantianism 25%
Divine Command 0%

[rapa-nui]

Hedonism 100
Existentialism 100

I expected a stronger showing for Utilitarianism than a measly 80.

[cthulhu]

Existentialism 100%
Hedonism 75%
Strong Egoism 75%
Kantianism 75%
Justice (Fairness) 70%
Utilitarianism 65%
Apathy 0%
Divine Command 0%
Nihilism 0%

I'm not even particularly sure what some of them are.

[Username17]

I'm not even particularly sure what some of them are.

Which ones have you confused?

-Username17

[Koumei]

I'm not sure what Utilitarianism, Kantianism and Strong Egoism are, seeing as you're offering to explain them.

And there's always debate and confusion as to what Nihilism is, though my understanding of it is "Nothing has intrinsic meaning, nothing actually matters. This could all just be the dream of a brain in a jar and it wouldn't make any difference."

Which leads to arguments of "If you're a nihilist, nothing matters, so please be killing yourself. You're not a true nihilist if you bother to keep living." against "If you're a nihilist, then the current life is all there is, and so how I feel is all that does have any relevance, seeing as nothing matters. There isn't an eternity, I'm going to enjoy myself now."

But to be fair, this understanding is largely based on 4chan arguments.

[Jacob_Orlove]

(From Wikipedia)

Utilitarianism is very straightforward:

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility[clarify] in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means. Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus sadness or pain), though preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance with happiness or pleasure as ultimate importance.

It can be described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number", though the 'greatest number' part gives rise to the problematic mere addition paradox. Utilitarianism can thus be characterized as a quantitative and reductionistic approach to ethics.

Utilitarianism can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which disregards the consequences of performing an act, when determining its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism. Adherents of these opposing views have extensively criticized the utilitarian view, though utilitarians have been similarly critical of other schools of ethical thought.

In general use of the term utilitarian often refers to a somewhat narrow economic or pragmatic viewpoint. However, philosophical utilitarianism is much broader than this, for example some approaches to utilitarianism consider non-human animals in addition to people.

Kantianism is a little less straightforward, hopefully this helps explain, but if not, I'm sure Frank will offer up something suitably clear and pithy:

Kant's ethics are deontological, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotional feelings or end goals. All actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle; it is this that the moral worth of an action is judged according to. Kant's ethics are founded on his view of rationality as the ultimate good and his belief that all people are fundamentally rational beings. This led to the most important part of Kant's ethics, the formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which acts as a test for whether a maxim is good or bad.

Simply put, the test is that one must universalize the maxim (imagine that all people acted in this way) and then see if it would still be possible to perform the maxim in the world. For instance, holding the maxim kill anyone who annoys you and applying it universally would result in a world which would soon be devoid of people and without anyone left to kill. Thus holding this maxim is irrational as it ends up being impossible to hold it.

Universalizing a maxim leads to it being valid, or to one of two contradictions — a contradiction in conception (where the maxim, when universalized, is no longer a viable means to the end) or a contradiction in will (where the will of a person contradicts what the universalization of the maxim implies). The first type leads to a "perfect duty", and the second leads to an "imperfect duty."

Kant's ethics focus then only on the maxim that underlies actions and judges these to be good or bad solely on how they conform to reason. Kant showed that many of our common sense views of what is good or bad conforms to his system but denied that any action performed for reasons other than rational actions can be good (if I save someone who is drowning simply because I felt a great pity for them, the act was not a morally good one). Kant also denied that the consequences of an act in any way contribute to the moral worth of that act, his reasoning being (highly simplified for brevity) that the physical world is outside our full control and thus we cannot be held accountable for the events that occur in it.

The Formulation Rule of Kantianism:

1. Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time obey will be the universal moral rule.

2. Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end.

and Egoism. Wikipedia lists three types, and I'm not sure which corresponds to the "strong" Egoism referred to here:

Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It is important to distinguish this from psychological egoism, the claim that people can only act in their own interest. Psychological egoism is a claim about how people do act, not a claim about how they ought to act. Ethical egoism is distinct from rational egoism (which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest) and individualism, neither of which posit that acting in one's self-interest is necessary to act in a morally right way.

Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an ethical obligation to help or serve others. Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to disregard the well-being of others, nor does it require that a moral agent refrains from considering the well-being of others in moral deliberation. What is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental to, beneficial to, or neutral in its effect on others. It allows for the possibility of either as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying self-interest of the agent.

Ethical egoism is sometimes the philosophical basis for people's support of libertarianism or anarchism (though anarchists, except anarcho-capitalists, believe that people do have a duty to help others) - political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.

Three different formulations of ethical egoism have been identified: individual, personal and universal. An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits him;[1] A personal ethical egoist, that he should act in his own self-interest, but makes no claims about what anyone else ought to do, while universal ethical egoists argue that everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest.[2]

A philosophy holding that one should be honest, just, benevolent etc., because those virtues serve one's self-interest is egoistic; one holding that one should practice those virtues for reasons other than self-interest is not egoistic at all.

[JonSetanta]

Yeah, I had to look up Kantianism too.
Ironic, since I read some about Kant's 'works' years ago. Must have forgotten exactly what the hell he meant, it was so mopey.

[Username17]

Simple and pithy, here is comes:

Kantianism: Everyone ought to act in the manner that everyone ought to act.

Strong Egoism: The best for me is the best that there is.

Utilitarianism: Results matter for everyone.

Each of those statements actually has a lot of implications, which you may not agree with.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Ah, of course. Now I remember the Kantian Paladin, with the basic ideas of "Is this something you think everyone should do for everyone? If so, you must do it. If not, you must not."

I guess I am more Existentialist than any of the others then.