Willy Wonka's Forced Game

schopenhauer1

Here's a thought experiment..

Let's say I am Willy Wonka..
I have created this world and will force others to enter it... My only rule is people have the options of either working at various occupations which I have lovingly created many varieties of, free-riding (which can only be done by a few and has to be done selectively lest one get caught, it is also considered no good in this world), or living day-to-day homelessly. The last option is a suicide pill if people don't like the arrangement. Is Willy Wonka moral? I mean he is giving many options for work, and even allowing you to test your luck at homelessness and free riding. Also, hey if you don't want to be in his arrangement, you can always kill yourself! See how beneficial and good I am to all my contestants?

There are lots of ways to feel strife and anxiety in my world.. There is generalized boredom, there are pressures from coworkers, there is pressure of joblessness, there are pressures of disease, disasters, mental illness, annoyances, malicious acts, accidents, and so much more that I have built into the world..

I have also created many people who will encourage everyone to also find my world loving so as to not have too many dropouts.

frank

Is Willy Wonka moral? — schopenhauer1

What difference does it make?

ChatteringMonkey

↪schopenhauer1

If Willy can create any world he wants, then no, creating this one doesn't seem particularly moral.

SimpleUser

It is quite moral. Because he gives free will and does not punish any choice.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪schopenhauer1

You're back :smile:

I think you are being too generous regarding the suicide pill. The reality is a lot more distressing for the person doing the act, and for the people left behind.

khaled

If the fruits of these people's labor are needed somewhere then it's fine depending on how needed this labor is. Otherwise if you're doing it for no reason probably not.

schopenhauer1

If Willy can create any world he wants, then no, creating this one doesn't seem particularly moral. — ChatteringMonkey

What happens if Willy can imagine other worlds that are better, but the best he can do is create the one described in the OP?

schopenhauer1

I think you are being too generous regarding the suicide pill. The reality is a lot more distressing for the person doing the act, and for the people left behind. — Down The Rabbit Hole

True true. It's not much of an "option B" is it? Willy's a bit cynical here. More of "Well, it's an 'option' (wink, wink)."

schopenhauer1

If the fruits of these people's labor are needed somewhere then it's fine depending on how needed this labor is. Otherwise if you're doing it for no reason probably not. — khaled

Interesting.. Why are the fruits of the labor the summum bonum?

schopenhauer1

It is quite moral. Because he gives free will and does not punish any choice. — SimpleUser

So that is all that matters here? So if I put someone in any X circumstance, as long as they have free choice, putting them in that circumstance itself makes no moral difference? That will lead to some weird conclusions...

schopenhauer1

What difference does it make? — frank

I mean, what difference does anything make, man?

ChatteringMonkey

↪schopenhauer1

What happens if Willy can imagine other worlds that are better, but the best he can do is create the one described in the OP? — schopenhauer1

Then it cannot be something to be blamed for morally. Moral evaluations require some agency typically, the ability to do otherwise...

In any case, I take it you meant the thought experiment to shed some light on the real world. I don't think it does, because we indeed don't have the ability to create any world we want... and there is no one Willy that created this world to begin with.

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

Why are the fruits of the labor the summum bonum? — schopenhauer1

They're not. The highest value is prevention of suffering. If said labor is needed (aka is preventing suffering) then it's fine. Because in that case not creating the factory is also harmful.

SimpleUser

So that is all that matters here? So if I put someone in any X circumstance, as long as they have free choice, putting them in that circumstance itself makes no moral difference? That will lead to some weird conclusions... — schopenhauer1

But you yourself created the conditions for the game. If the very creation of such a world is moral, then the creation of a pill for committing suicide in this world is also moral. The only thing the creator should do in this situation is not to punish the creature for the choice. Otherwise it will be immoral in itself.

schopenhauer1

Then it cannot be something to be blamed for morally. Moral evaluations require some agency typically, the ability to do otherwise...

In any case, I take it you meant the thought experiment to shed some light on the real world. I don't think it does, because we indeed don't have the ability to create any world we want... and there is no one Willy that created this world to begin with. — ChatteringMonkey

Willy has the agency not to create the world or rather not to force others into the world in the first place, no?

schopenhauer1

The highest value is prevention of suffering. If said labor is needed (aka is preventing suffering) then it's fine. Because in that case not creating the factory is also harmful. — khaled

Ok, so this is then interesting. So Willy should not have started the game, but now that he has, it must keep going?

schopenhauer1

But you yourself created the conditions for the game. If the very creation of such a world is moral, then the creation of a pill for committing suicide in this world is also moral. The only thing the creator should do in this situation is not to punish the creature for the choice. Otherwise it will be immoral in itself. — SimpleUser

Is not putting people into this forced circumstance itself suspect or immoral?

SimpleUser

Is not putting people into this forced circumstance itself suspect or immoral? — schopenhauer1

What circumstance? If creatures voluntarily leave the world you created, then most likely you are a bad creator. After all, you created a free world, and not just a theater for your own entertainment. Or theater?

frank

What difference does it make? — frank

I mean, what difference does anything make, man? — schopenhauer1

exactly

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

Now that he can’t stop it harmlessly*. If, for instance, the people in the world rely on the products and need a continuous supply of them.

Thing is, it’s a chocolate factory. Idk why Willy became a God all of a sudden. I’m assuming he has some purpose behind forcing all these people and is not doing it for shits and giggles.

Why would Willy consider creating that world in your example? What’s the motivation?

ChatteringMonkey

↪schopenhauer1

Willy has the agency not to create the world or rather not to force others into the world in the first place, no? — schopenhauer1

There's no real world equivalent for Willy. Like who does the forcing or creating? Not a single person, by a single action... how do you assign agency to something that happens over time compounding actions by many people?

T Clark

Let's say I am Willy Wonka.. — schopenhauer1

Thank god, Willy Wonka. At least it's not another antinatalism discussion.

DingoJones

↪T Clark

Ya no kidding. Its nice to see him try something new to discuss. Especially such a rich question with no relation to Antinatalism whatsoever.
How it doesnt count as prosthelytising which is forbidden I cannot tell. Its the same thing over and over with the only discussion offered is a tactic so he can whine about life.

T Clark

How it doesnt count as proelytis which is forbidden I cannot tell. Its the same thing over and over with the only discussion offered is a tactic so he can whine about life. — DingoJones

I was just teasing S1. I don't get involved with antinatalist discussions much anymore. I've laid out my arguments, S1 and his friends have laid out theirs, and no one has been convinced.

I don't see what he does as proselytization. He just makes his philosophical point over and over. He's not promoting any ideology, organization, or business.

DingoJones

↪T Clark

Isn’t antinatalism an ideology? If not, doesn’t it become ideological if the anti-Natalist cannot let the subject go and everything they “contribute” to discussion is either the anti Natalist point or the anti natalist point disguised as something else? Plus the counter arguments not being much acknowledged as the broken record plays on. How is that not promoting an ideology?

Manuel

↪schopenhauer1

I don't understand something. What's the endgame with these types of arguments? Do you want to convince people that life is a pain-ridden mistake or do you want people to not have babies?

If people don't share these intuitions, I don't understand why AN continue arguing so frequently on these points.

As per your OP, is Willy Wonka the only option? Are there other jobs or hobbies that are meaningful? If there are other places outside Willy Wonka's factory, that may be worth pursuing. If Willy Wonka is all there is in the world, then people will have to see what works for them.

If it's the only posstible option in the world, the morality of Willy Wonka does not arise.

RogueAI

↪schopenhauer1

I have created this world and will force others to enter it.

Do these "others" exist before you force them to enter your world?

T Clark

Isn’t antinatalism an ideology? If not, doesn’t it become ideological if the anti-Natalist cannot let the subject go and everything they “contribute” to discussion is either the anti Natalist point or the anti natalist point disguised as something else? Plus the counter arguments not being much acknowledged as the broken record plays on. How is that not promoting an ideology? — DingoJones

The moderators here tend to use a light hand on these types of decisions, which is a good thing. S1 is a long-time established member. People respond to his threads. I don't see anything to get excited about. I usually just pass over his discussions.

DingoJones

↪T Clark

Ya ya, if you wanna be all reasonable and measured. Pft. :wink:
...anyway, your enlightened response to his shenanigans aside I think my point still stands. The fact people respond isn’t persuasive, I could write complete trash on here and it would get responses. I’d bet the more trashy the more attention. Would you take that bet?

baker

Is not putting people into this forced circumstance itself suspect or immoral? — schopenhauer1

This bloody victim mentality again.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪schopenhauer1

Willy's a bit cynical here. More of "Well, it's an 'option' (wink, wink)." — schopenhauer1

I think there's plenty of Willys. I'm sure with your experience debating the matter, you've seen many people argue the 'option' as a defence for natalism.

Willy Wonka's Forced Game

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions