I re-took it, and managed to get the same results (more difficult than it sounds given how I neither agreed nor disagreed with several statements, and made what was really a guess the first time round, which I then had to remember this time):
The first is this: [...]
The argument initially made is that apparently it is contradictory to recognise subjective morality and still make judgments. If this were true, then it would be contradictory to have a favourite colour. Entertainingly, the writer then solves this "tension": [...]
There's no contradiction in your view, sure. Now that you say it, I think the term 'tension' is really quite misleading. I don't see how two moral systems which are both entirely consistent could have different levels of 'tension'.
Before forgetting that objective and subjective mean different things in the final conclusion: [...]
The writer apparently does not realise that one can subjectively view their own culturally ingrained viewpoints as the superior ideals.
If you judge subjective moral systems based solely on your own, subjective view and not on objective standards, then there is no contradiction, right. Aside from that, the quote from the website seemed quite odd to me. Whether the subjective standards by which you answer moral questions is superior to other subjective standards was not at all important, if you ask me. That would have been an entirely different matter.
The last sentence from the quote in your post (that's confusing
) was a question. I don't think that was a 'I got you there!'-question, but rather a simple 'Think about it!'-question. I've taken many tests on the website, and it's my impression that the authors want their readers to think for themselves. They don't want to show them how stupid they are. Maybe you interpreted the question more harshly then the authors intended?
It doesn't help that the survey apparently distinguishes between statements of opinion and statements of fact, but doesn't tell you which questions you are supposed to give opinion for, and which you are supposed to give a factually correct answer to.
I didn't see this problem when I took the test, but it sounds at least plausible. Maybe if I retake the test, which I'll probably do tomorrow.
Then we get this: [...]
This mostly stems from the vagueness of the first statement. I don't know every single situation - perhaps it might be desirable, and therefore I have no choice but to agree. Nor is positive discrimination necessarily the same as actively judging someone. If I were teaching a class about rape, and I had a student who had been raped in the past, I may positively discriminate in their favour by allowing them to skip the class. At no point am I judging them, I'm merely recognising a potentially triggering situation.
I can see how the two statements contradict, but it requires a very narrow set of definitions and potential circumstances. The writer simply defines positive discrimination as taking factors other than ability into account when considering how to treat someone - this encompasses a wider scope than the second statement does.
Point taken, I don't see the contradiction there. Unless I go out of my way to construct one, that is.
The final one was this: [...]
I got this one because I know next to nothing about Michelangelo, and so just picked an answer. A decent survey would give me a "no opinion" option.
The Wikipedia article for Michelangelo states in the second paragraph that he's considered one of the most talented artists of all time. I don't know much more about him, either, but I think that's all you need to know to see what the question is aiming at.
Again, the issue with some questions appearing to be a matter of opinion and others being statements of fact comes into play. "Indubitably" is not always a word that implies objectivity, it can also be used subjectively to describe a strong opinion.
Now I see what you meant. Yes, that's definitely bad wording on the side of the author.
All in all, it was an entertaining survey, but a badly executed one.
They have better surveys, if you ask me. Still, it made me think, and that's at least something, even though it didn't change my views.
You could have consistency with a higher tension, too. It would just be harder to pull off, but not impossible.
