• I like sushi
    4.8k
    This is going to be a long one. I’ll be as brief as I can as this covers a lot, but not nearly enough.

    I posted these two threads a while back:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5489/killing-a-billion/p1
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5497/an-alternative-trolley-problem/p1

    What is always the case everywhere is how people tend to initially respond to these hypotheticals. People mock them and/or are often upset by them deeming them dehumanizing.

    Even when people answer they tend to be torn between the problem as a moral problem and the problem as a logical problem. I did sadly make a mistake in the “alternative trolley problem”. What a number of people tend to do - from previous experience - is to reduce the problem to the numbers presented and focus on the percentages given. Most realise that the problem requires a basic understanding of how to calculate probabilities and on numerous occasions people forgot about the people on the track who would die because they were overly concerned with the probability calculation; they didn’t see the death of innocent people on the track because they were potentially murderers. This is a common feature of all hypothetical questions. The constant shift between pure logic and pure feeling; a feature most explicit in ethical problems where the logical is convincingly dressed up as the emotional and the emotional is used as a reason for a logical choice. The contrariness is where some people may take a more drastic move toward a “altruistic” or “nihilistic” attitude (I’ll come to that later).

    Many people in the trolley problem are happy to do nothing. This is why I posed the “Killing a Billion” question where the effect of inaction means the death of the entire human species and/or all life on earth. Here people evade even more by ignoring the fact that this is a hypothetical and prefer to obsess over the improbability of the situation where they were more ready to engage with the trolley problem. They think it easier to dismiss the problem as stupid and/or ask an endless array of questions about how such a situation could occur rather than deal with it face on.

    A response from one poster:

    The problem with these hypotheticals for someone of my convictions is that they break down the process of moral decision making further than I think we have the capacity to judge of ourselves. I believe moral judgements are made mostly without our conscious awareness and any rationalisation of them is mostly post-hoc. — Isaac

    This, I am arguing, is precisely the point of the hypothetical. To prime our decisions - where direct conscious awareness is absent - by engaging as fully as possible with an extreme situation through application to a hypothetical scenario. How this can be done requires severe self-investigation and a large amount of resolve - the social interaction of having the question posed is a difficult, if not unsurpassable, hurdle to deal with.

    A major difficulty with such hypotheticals is our readiness to respond to them in the public eye - to virtue signal. To share our thoughts and feelings on the matter is certainly beneficial as we can learn, and foster, the perspectives and reactions of others. Regardless, in public declaration we’re always going to stop short of saying something we deem socially abhorrent and/or outright monstrous; the problem here being if we don’t engage with the “darker” aspects of our being, or simply the part of us we refuse to admit, then they can consume us from within. In the “killing a billion” scenario the self-proclaimed “passive,” “peaceful,” and “non-violent” person would mete out the destruction of humanity or apply a sickening means of meting out their version of “justice” - taking the opportunity to unleash the violence they deny they possess within.

    I the above respect the most honest manner of dealing with these hypotheticals is not by denying them (to do so is to deny ourselves) but by not announcing them. This does not mean we cannot explore some of the problems publicly, but at the end of the day facing the inner demons we all possess is not something anyone, other than a masochist, would willing do - even if they did they wouldn’t be taken seriously and/or bring about a fertile ground upon which the self-righteous self-deniers could cultivate their virtue signaling seeds (much like I am doing now by setting myself up as some shining star, some pinnacle of morality! Haha!). My comments show blatantly the hypocrisy of publicity; we’re all at fault here and that is not a bad thing or a good thing, just something it pays to be aware of.

    So what do we do with the hypothetical? Well, we apply our thoughts and feelings to it with no intention of expressing this to anyone else. We navigate the problem, explore our options, and come to an understanding of where it leads to the best of our abilities and then cleave to an overall conclusion. Once the best conclusion we can brew up is ready, we then tweak the original hypothetical and/or disallow any iteration of our “conclusion” and begin afresh! We will all meet a boundary we cannot, or simply will not, pass. Some stones are better left unturned if we wish to live our lives out with some degree of ‘sanity’ (‘sanity’ here can be taken to mean ‘moral orientation’).

    When it comes to ‘morality’ we’re essentially talking about a means to ‘measure’ what cannot be ‘measured’. Through pragmatism and social interactions in societies we apply an ‘ethical canvas’ upon which our individual ‘morality’ is contrasted against; even altered to some degree against its secluded and primary engagement.

    Note: I very much prefer to differentiate between “ethic” and “moral” in this way. ‘Morality’ being much more skewed toward the individual’s attitude and the ‘ethical’ being much more skewed toward the societal attitude (both of which we’re only ever partially aware at any given time - stretched out in a ‘tension’ of ‘convictions’ that make emotional experience navigable.

    As an example, let us say we have to choose the death of one of several persons. You can think up your own ‘categories’ of persons (an interesting, and difficult, truth to face by the manner of our arbitrary choices - likely instilled by social attitudes we’ve been forced to take on due to the “ethical canvas”). Now watch how you struggle with your choice! Don’t make the choice as if you’re going to tell anyone else about these thoughts, explore the tropes you’ve come accustomed to, and reveal the vapidity of them (or more scarily, the tropes that are meaningful to you!). You may find yourself exposed to some utterly arbitrary delineations between persons - eg. hair length or clothing - yet the hypothetical insists you make a choice! Observe the machinations of logic here as you grasp for any old vague association between hair length as a character judgement (your personal associations and biases) - logic is a deadly weapon when it comes to moral conviction, a double-edged sword that can destroy our sense of morality or strengthen it. The danger is the reduction of a moral problem to a purely logical one, or of reducing a logical problem to a purely moral one. The idea that “emotions” muddy our rational choices is a fallacy. Our rational choices exist because of our emotional reactiveness and orientation in the world. The emotional revulsion felt by “killing a billion” doesn’t allow us to fully withdraw from the situation as to do so means the death of a species (if the hypothetical is taken on as a serious proposition rather than made a mockery of - a lie to the self of the seriousness with which one handles emotional stress a s strain), nor does the “killing a billion” allow for a purely logical approach, yet initially this judgement must be made somehow regarding the ‘value’ of human lives and the roughshod means of ‘balancing’ your choice.

    Note: There is an embedded problem within all of this that is so obvious as to make us blind to it. This is the very means I am using to communicate these thoughts, that is what we commonly call “language”. This is a problem when dealing with our moral sensibilities as language is a community project not a private affair, and so given the above ‘moral’ I talk of it necessarily carries a seed of ‘linguistic conviction’ that is NOT our individual position. In fact our logical convictions are formed in a language and these thoughts, these contemplations, are therefore never truly our own if we put all our effort into “verbal thought” - and there is, for some at least, to partly decouple “verbal thought” from a problem at hand to some degree (this will never escape the “verbal” expression of the hypothetical though, because a “hypothetical” is always posed in “verbal language”!

    To move quickly onward ... let us assume we’ve made a decision. What we can often find after several levels of peeling away the different skins of the hypothetical is that we arrive at an ever growing and increasing horrific set of options. What is interesting is where we draw the line between our own self-interest and the interest of others (maybe this is what we call “altruism,” but that is a concept I’m suspicious of). Here we can find that those of us who may act with most sensitivity and repulsion may be doing so simply out of self-interest. They want to avoid suffering at all costs - even that of survival of the human species perhaps - so outright annihilation is of more appeal to them; an attitude legitimised by a form of ‘nihilism’ and a base denial of ‘morality’ or any meaning. The counter reaction would be a severe ‘altruism’ I alluded to earlier, that is an attitude that avoids all negativity an attitude where when given the “killing a billion” hypothetical the question is warped into a seemingly more ‘positive’ question of “what six billion do I save?” rather than “what billion do I kill?”. If you understand what I’ve been saying you’ll understand that dishonesty involved here; the avoidance of the darker aspect of the self. This is a fruit that appears delicious on the outside yet is rotten to the core - the violent reaction produced after taking one huge bite out of this is going to be seriously damaging to anyone in its proximity as well as the said biter.

    The main question we’re forced to deal with here is how we wish to act in such a given situation. How we wish to act and how we actually act are quite obviously not by any means always - if ever! - the same thing. Exploring how you wish to act when faced with a difficult situation will help you act as you would wish to act - conditioning is part and parcel of this and is a common feature of how soldiers and people in the emergency services are trained. The difference is they are trained to act in a mostly automated manner based on somatic responses and by disassociating emotional contents in order to ‘get the job done’. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the unfortunate consequence of this. From my perspective the point of the Hypothetical question and its use is in understanding ourselves better and instilling a sense of ‘morality’ in our everyday life. You may say contemplating what billion people to kill is not going to make me more morally astute. I would argue otherwise. The point being you are fortifying yourself with the tools to approach an extreme problem with a serious and meaningful attitude, of facing your inner shadow self and therefore when a situation occurs you’ll have a more defined sense of moral orientation. You will be more likely to both act as you would like to act AND be more likely to know when you DO NOT act as you would have preferred to (the later being the more likely I expect!).

    The reason most people don’t do what they say is because they don’t think about what they want to do and then rationalise their own stupidity as wisdom; humans mostly believe they acted in the ‘correct’ manner and it is only when they are true to themselves and knowingly act how they say they should act that they real benefits. The sequential nature of the stories we tell ourselves and others about life - the chapters, scenes, paragraphs and lines - are symbolic lies produced to explore our faults not to instill our just convictions for acting as we did.

    Next time you find yourself saying “How can people do such things!?” in what is nought but mock outrage, stop and understand that you KNOW what it is to do such a thing. You are that evil you view in others because you recognise it for what it is. You don’t see the misdeeds in others by having no experience of them yourselves.

    How you deal with this is ‘morality’ and what you tell others about it is a lie.

    If you’ve got this far without spitting good job and thanks be to yourself! These have been my lies, this has been my denial and I aim to do better by my measures :)
  • Shawn
    13.2k


    The problem I have with proposed extremism towards situations or hypothetical dilemmas such as killing a billion or so is that it is in some form, shape, or manner the radicalization of philosophy.

    Is that your goal here or what?
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Address the problem then as you see fit. My point is that hypotheticals are of use and that most people, myself included, tend to ignore the use of them. They turn, for many, into either a means to virtue signal or condemn.

    There are negatives and positives. Such is life. My point is that denying your own negative field of thought is potentially dangerous in the long run. If it’s too much then simply create a scenario that is more subtle and slowly push out from there.

    Note: I did say not every stone should be looked under. Some monsters are best left hidden, just like when we swim we start in the shallow end. i am by no means suggesting that people should, or could, take on their biggest inner demons. I’m just saying there is something of use in the hypothetical that can allow us to approach these problems in a reasonably safe manner.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Is that your goal here or what? — Wallows

    My goal on forums remains the same. To improve my writing, to learn different viewpoints, and to formulate different ideas through a generally open expression of thoughts. i am very intrigued by what is referred to as “emotional” and “logical” thought, as well as ‘language’, and how these play off/into each other.

    There are numerous points to discuss in the OP and if clarification is needed anywhere please ask. It is condensed and my ideas in this particular area are not writ in stone.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    Address the problem then as you see fit.I like sushi

    My point is that the problem itself is unfit for the domain of philosophic discourse.

    Again, if you manage to persuade a person that blacks are deserving of elimination due to some deep-seated prejudice against them or that the baby who would turn out to be Mozart and produce such great works of art, on the tracks, is ultimately deserving of life than a Hispanic middle-aged group of people on the other tracks, then isn't this extremism or bona fide radicalization of philosophic discourse? These are no-win situations if one assumes a veil of ignorance, which is my original position whenever I encounter these situations, which leads me to always recuse myself from any part in decision making.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    It sounds like you didn’t read the OP all the way through carefully?

    Maybe you missed the point about the primary use being in self-reflection not a public announcement used to persuade people about this or that personal view. I am saying that is the main force against the benefit of the hypothetical. Get it?
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    It sounds like you didn’t read the OP all the way through carefully?I like sushi

    I read it all. Your point is exposing prejudices and in some shape or form enhancing self-knowledge through/by this ethical dilemmas. I'm saying that the methodology is twisted and rather daft.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Why is it “daft”? That is the point you’re not making clear. Point out something specifically that is “daft”.

    This:

    Again, if you manage to persuade a person that ... — Wallows

    Need amending. If you insist it doesn’t need amending then you don’t understand what I’m saying and calling it “daft” is likely due to this.

    To be clear I am NOT saying people should go around persuading others about their moral justifications. That is what I am saying is far from the primary use of a hypothetical moral dilemma. It would be helpful, if this isn’t enough, to point out part of the text where you disagree and why.

    Thanks
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    Why is it “daft”?I like sushi

    I thought I already said that the use of these hypotheticals promotes the radicalization of philosophy. Have you by chance heard of The Third Wave (experiment)? Perhaps that can serve as an example at what I'm trying to say.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Not in the slightest. Either retract the “persuading others” line or point out what you disagree with in the text.

    Again, if you stand by your first post (as I expect you do given you’ve refuse to amend it) then you have utterly missed the point of the OP and the position I am putting forward. The ball is in your court and you’ve got one more chance to either amend or retract (evasion will be met with silence).
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    Either retract the “persuading others” line or point out what you disagree with in the text.I like sushi

    Ok:

    Next time you find yourself saying “How can people do such things!?” in what is nought but mock outrage, stop and understand that you KNOW what it is to do such a thing. You are that evil you view in others because you recognise it for what it is. You don’t see the misdeeds in others by having no experience of them yourselves.

    How you deal with this is ‘morality’ and what you tell others about it is a lie.
    I like sushi

    Isn't this an attempt to at the very least convince others of a POV that you hold is quite important and worthy of contemplation? I'm going to refrain from calling this flat out psychological "projection".
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Thank you.

    It is psychological projection for sure. That is part of what I am talking about AND more importantly the societal norms that we live by and what we consider socially acceptable speech and expression of opinion.

    The only examples I have expressed have been regarding hair length and humans in general. The only view I have openly expressed was that one billion people dying is worse than one person dying - because I’m biased and somewhat fond of humans.

    You also managed to show that when it comes to marking out delineations of people you go for “race”. Likely due to how you misinterpreted the thread or perhaps because, let’s face it, it is a common enough politicized theme - something I deem as worthy a difference as hair length, yet in the socio-political sphere a misguided weight has been forced on this arbitrary surface difference. I find how we absorb such falsehoods interesting and part and parcel of taking the hypothetical as a personal exploration, outside of sociopolitical norms, is one way to address/reveal such misconceptions and watch how our thoughts play out and create false narratives about the world around us if given a rigid problem to meditate upon.

    My position, what I guess you could say I am trying to persuade the reader of, is that if I answer any hypothetical dilemma publicly I am doing so in a social sphere, I am acting - to some degree - as someone I deem socially justified not as an individual being facing a emotionally strenuous task.

    Let us take a more subtle, more somatic, scenario. I am on a plane that has crash landed. The plane is ablaze. Do I wish to fight tooth and nail to get to the door stepping on women and children or look around to help those most in need of assistance. I imagine (hope!) we’d all go for the former! In reality the bast majority of us wouldn’t. We’d simply tread on everyone and go for the door (at the most we may avoid actually kicking and punching our way out!). How do we act how we wish to act? My point is that by taking the situation as a serious situation that will happen to you in the future and instilling reasoning, by understanding your primal drives, to act in a way you wish to act.

    The thing is in such extreme situations we tend not to think. The hero returning to a burning building acts without thinking. It is unrealistic for us to train as firefighters and instill a rational understanding of the situation on the off-chance that there a fire. I am saying to use the hypothetical as an approximate and abstract scenario (not to literally, physically act it out) and look at what kind of person we are and what kind of person we can be.

    The “mock outrage” I am referring to is psychological projection. We hear of a murder and we feel disgusted because we KNOW we’re capable of murder and this person has reminded us of our faults and insecurities, of the path we’ve taken to avoid being a murderer, yet we don’t sympathise with the human we mark them as a “monster” or “subhuman” when given a different set of circumstances the chances are we’d do just as they have done. We say to our friends and family “how can a person do such a thing!” yet inside we know full well that people can be driven to extreme actions and our refusal to address this directly could lead us, in purposeful naivety, to do something abhorrent; although maybe not as abhorrent, then we can rationalise and say “at least I’m not a murderer!”

    So I am not trying to “persuade” anyone to kill a billion people nor am I suggesting they tie people to tracks. I am saying to call such hypothetical questions “silly” is to deny the opportunity of self exploration and to go out of your way to dismiss such thoughts is perplexing without a decent argumentation against them. I am NOT condoning answering the question and posting it publicly, nor am I dismissive of such offerings and just don’t see how that is the optimal way to get the most from a hypothetical dilemma. Perhaps I need to express this with another simple example.

    Let us say that we’re in a room of people who have tattoos. You don’t have any tattoos, but you’re interested in the history of tattoos and what they mean to different cultures and traditions. Let us say that a question arises about some ethical issue about attitudes - in the workplace or whatever - I am convinced given that we set ourselves in this situation (without any tattoos) as being cautious in what we say publicly. It could be that our research into the social stigmas of tattoo and/or maybe what this says about certain individuals psychological makeup and life choices tells us this or that about said groups of people who have tattoos (maybe between Maori and bikers). Your spoken words and the manner in which you present them will be biased by the company. What is more if you were with a group of people with no tattoos then you’d still present a bias; perhaps defending any negativity you may assume will be felt by people with no tattoos - in one instance you act softer and in the other you act softer too. In academic circles such “soft” attitudes are not encouraged for an open investigation.

    Note: I mention tattoos because I saw someone the other day with a full face tattoo.

    Extrapolate this to some moral problem. Anyone can say how they should act, but more often they never do act as they say. I think Rousseau commented about this?

    Note: the “YOU” is the universal “YOU”. I am not saying I know better than you, I am saying we all act like this to some degree and I certainly feel disgusted by certain actions I witness - example being children under five being taught to use mobile phones! Such reminds me of my own personal negligence in life misdirected at some other parent whom I know nothing about. It is a reflection of what I need to attend to in my own actions more than it is my dislike of the actions of some hypothetical other - of which you are one being a rather abstract entity online :D
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    No need for this topic. Only self righteous morons dont get it, the rest of us understand
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    If you understand what have you found in relation to ‘aesthetics’ (personal tastes) and ‘moral conviction’? When all else fails do we turn, with a last gasp, for aesthetic judgement immediately prior to the unseen moral lumen that runs hollow through our centre?

    My pondering, metaphorically speaking, is that what we call ‘morality’ is the form around an empty space - a potential, or spandrel, as an off-shoot of being emotional beings. I’ve heard “language” referred to as an evolutionary spandrel so why not consider our social existence as the maker of the moral space? Or is there ‘substance’ to morality? There I’m dipping more into mystical conjecture rather than doing serious analytical thinking though. If you can build something from such musings go ahead please.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    My comment was about moral thought experiments, not morality in general. Self righteous morons do not understand a moral thought experiment, their emotional response hijacks their reason and their moronic self righteousness compels them to pass defensive judgement.
    ie “i do not understand this and it makes me uncomfortable to try, so Im just going to lash out so I can still feel like Im a better person than you”
    Pathetic.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    My point is that hypotheticals are of use and that most people, myself included, tend to ignore the use of them.I like sushi

    I agree. And sometimes the more absurd, the better. The hypothetical can then magnify and refine the matter in question. But you're right; many people cannot handle such.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    The “mock outrage” I am referring to is psychological projection. We hear of a murder and we feel disgusted because we KNOW we’re capable of murder and this person has reminded us of our faults and insecurities, of the path we’ve taken to avoid being a murderer, yet we don’t sympathise with the human we mark them as a “monster” or “subhuman” when given a different set of circumstances the chances are we’d do just as they have done.I like sushi

    I would disagree. There seems to be some cognitive distortion at play here in stating that anyone is capable of committing murder. In principle, it is possible. In practice not really.

    We say to our friends and family “how can a person do such a thing!” yet inside we know full well that people can be driven to extreme actions and our refusal to address this directly could lead us, in purposeful naivety, to do something abhorrent; although maybe not as abhorrent, then we can rationalise and say “at least I’m not a murderer!”I like sushi

    If a person says "that's abhorrent" or "how could they", I'm going to assume that they mean what they say. Stating otherwise is some sort of fallacious distorted way of perceiving reality or the intent of other people, at least in my view.

    Extrapolate this to some moral problem. Anyone can say how they should act, but more often they never do act as they say. I think Rousseau commented about this?I like sushi

    Do go on, what did Rousseau say?

    It is a reflection of what I need to attend to in my own actions more than it is my dislike of the actions of some hypothetical other - of which you are one being a rather abstract entity online :DI like sushi

    Just trying to stay sane here. Your position is quite a perplexing one.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Maybe I haven’t emphasized the social discourse involved that shapes our utterances well enough?

    I cannot remember the quote and I’m not 100% it was Rousseau (but believe strongly it was). To paraphrase he commented on how people say they are one thing and do another. He did at least say this about the facades people put on in society in order to fit in.

    I knew a guy who used to be homophobic. He used to be a bit of a skinhead and went around purposely attacking gay men. He did this because he was gay himself and refused to admit it to himself. The same goes for love as it does for hatred. So when I say “that’s abhorrent” it is because on some level I understand what it is to act out said abhorrence. I do this as a refusal to look at what is happening within myself and my understanding of the act. To physically see such acts induces us to wince and/or avert our eyes. We don’t wish to know what it is we dislike, we prefer to just dislike it and then dismiss it - and this is often the best course of action, yet it is not always the best course to take.

    The hypothetical presents an item that can be regarded, turned over and looked at from multiple angles. It is a means of modeling and preparing for future events. I am not saying we should sympathize with the devil, but if we wish to avoid becoming the devil we better understand the roads to hell to some degree in order to understand them - and it’s foolish to think they are marked out explicitly for us to avoid.

    I do get the impression this is perhaps perplexing to you because you’re looking to attack something where there is nowhere to get purchase. It is not about MY view of OTHERS that is under scrutiny here, it is MY view of MYSELF. I see what I am through others and it seems you’re judging me from a position of attacking others and telling them how to behave. I’m not. I’m saying I find that hypothetical dilemmas are of great use as a means of private reflection more so than as an exposed public discussion because we’re not exactly honest creatures and we’re very susceptible to saying what we think we should say rather than what we really believe. In saying what we think we should say we’re ignoring ourselves and leaving ourselves open to inner demons - this is unavoidable of course and in reality it is more a matter of damage control.

    Below is a more intricate expression of discourse, language and societal norms, that I expect to be perplexing (up to now I’ve not said much that I would regard are overtly difficult to grasp). I’m not as naive as Rousseau though to regard prehistorical man as a “noble savage” in the terms he frames them, yet there is some paralleled lines of enquiry here:

    What intrigues me about this is that we think in a verbose manner more often than not, and that the language we communicate in is necessarily a communal language. So our privately articulated thoughts are worded upon a social foundation - meaning the words I utter in thought are extended from a community of thought and so I am never out of the reach of “discourse with others” even when the dialectic is my own head.

    By stripping down any given hypothetical and removing each answer as it dawns on you I find that once the biases are ripped away, layer by layer, underneath the worded thoughts something else is partially exposed - such experiences are traumatic by nature it seems.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    We don’t wish to know what it is we dislike, we prefer to just dislike it and then dismiss it - and this is often the best course of action, yet it is not always the best course to take.I like sushi

    OK, so nobody likes the cognitive dissonance that the trolley dilemma induces or any other ethical dilemma. So what? I remember quite vividly the feeling of dissatisfaction and dissonance that I felt when I first encountered the trolley dilemma.

    The hypothetical presents an item that can be regarded, turned over and looked at from multiple angles. It is a means of modeling and preparing for future events. I am not saying we should sympathize with the devil, but if we wish to avoid becoming the devil we better understand the roads to hell to some degree in order to understand them - and it’s foolish to think they are marked out explicitly for us to avoid.I like sushi

    Yeah; but, I like living in my bubble. Don't burst it, please.

    By stripping down any given hypothetical and removing each answer as it dawns on you I find that once the biases are ripped away, layer by layer, underneath the worded thoughts something else is partially exposed - such experiences are traumatic by nature it seems.I like sushi

    So, you want to burst my bubble. But, you know what happened to Socrates.

    But, let me invert the situation for you. It is through the Humean hurrah and boo responses that moral behavior is conditioned and reinforced. Just watch the news as an example. So, your method is going to produce unhappy people despite good intentions.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    I’m not tryin to burst your bubble. We all have bubbles. My argument is in the title of the thread. I am posing the use of hypotheticals - the key point being that public announcements of likes and dislikes is, to some degree, to paint over the issue. Simply put, don’t throw your bubble at me and blame me when/if it bursts.

    You cannot complain about me ‘bursting your bubble’ and keep posting here anyway. DonThat is like knocking on the door of every person who enjoys to eat chocolate and telling them you think chocolate is disgusting - they don’t care my friend and they’re not going to thank you for sticking your nose into their life and judging them on their taste in foods.

    It is through the Humean hurrah and boo responses that moral behavior is conditioned and reinforced. — Wallows

    That is a major problem. That is where I would say explicitly that the distinction I make in the OP between “moral” and “ethic” is important. What is ‘moral’ is individual leaning, and what is ‘ethic’ is social leaning. The same goes for speech, thought and general responses to “law and order”. To act morally is to strive against the flow of popular opinion not adhere to it conveniently. To steal an apple to feed a starving child is ‘moral’ even though it is ‘illegal’. Law is based on ‘ethic’ (the general consensus of what is just or not), and I don’t live my life by the rules and laws of states, yet I certainly shape my actions by them for self preservation.

    So, your method is going to produce unhappy people despite good intentions. — Wallows

    I don’t see how ‘happiness’ or ‘unhappiness’ can be produced. My intention, to repeat, is to offer up why hypotheticals are useful and how they are most useful for enforcing a personal sense of morality rather than agreeing blindly with the mob; and the intrigue within - for me at least - is the nuance of language and how individual morality always has a foot in the mob mentality that is the sociopolitical sphere.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.