Ya ya, if you wanna be all reasonable and measured. — DingoJones
I’d bet the more trashy the more attention. — DingoJones
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? — SimpleUser
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? — khaled
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? — ChatteringMonkey
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. — T Clark
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. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Do you want to convince people that life is a pain-ridden mistake or do you want people to not have babies? — Manuel
If people don't share these intuitions, I don't understand why AN continue arguing so frequently on these points. — Manuel
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. — Manuel
Do these "others" exist before you force them to enter your world? — RogueAI
He wants to see people navigate the ups and downs of the challenges he has set the parameters for and see if people can improve on the parameters for new technologies, etc. He does not know how far it can be taken, he just has the initial conditions. He also likes seeing the people grow up and learn.. He thinks of them as his "children". He feels the joy of a kind of parent to a child.. — schopenhauer1
But it seems like you are saying that he should keep forcing more people into the world to play his game because as more people are forced in, they will rely on the people to maintain the jobs and keep the economy going so that people that already exist in the world have more workers to survive, etc. — schopenhauer1
Isn't there a major connection to these two ideas? — schopenhauer1
Can't you say that about any philosophical point? Doesn't philosophy have lots of (seemingly) unintuitive points that on further reflection become more understandable? — schopenhauer1
No Willy Wonka has provided plenty of jobs.. it looks something like our world. Aren't I great for forcing my players into my awesome world? — schopenhauer1
climate change. — Manuel
I agree that in my case, having children would be a mistake. Irrespective of that if you just look at kids, the vast majority of them are fascinated by the world. So it's only "forced" on that small percentage that think life is a mistake. It's a small minority. Otherwise, the issue of being forced to live doesn't arise. — Manuel
Yeah that's not depressing haha. — schopenhauer1
So as long as Willy can keep his contestants from feeling forced, the game itself is okay for Willy to perpetuate and continue to force? — schopenhauer1
If contestants do not feel forced, what's the problem? People aren't as stupid as is sometimes assumed, they know when they're being used.
And those that don't like this at all have a way out. Not an easy one, clearly, but the option exists. And in the end we all exit the factory anyway. Why not enjoy what we can instead of complaining about it? — Manuel
So as long as Willy can keep his contestants from feeling forced, the game itself is okay for Willy to perpetuate and continue to force? — schopenhauer1
I know you’re not addressing me but my answer to this is: definitely yes.
If everyone in Wonka’s world feels it’s worth it, then absolutely keep on enforcing. What’s the worst that can happen? Someone will exist that finds worthwhile to exist? Doesn’t seem like a bad outcome. — khaled
Wonka is cruel because unlike the real world he never added things that cause joy, pleasure, laughter, play, and so on. — NOS4A2
Point taken. How much joy, laughter, etc. does it take to ameliorate that Wonka has forced people into this world with the conditions explained in the OP (work, homelessness, etc.)?
It wouldn't take much if he sacrifices a great deal of his time to provide, protect, and raise us to thrive in his world. I would be quite grateful, personally. — NOS4A2
Thanks for making that distinction. — schopenhauer1
No, I don't propose that the number of free will discussions be should limited, but I reserve the right to whine about it. — T Clark
What happens if someone is not happy with the arrangement- everything from work, homelessness, and suicide options?
Also, what makes forcing the participants into the world moral vs. immoral? Is just the fact that people are sometimes positive at certain moments justifiable really? So are slaves, etc. The only difference is the range of options is larger, that I agree. It's still a bounded set of conditions and rules nonetheless.
If he creates them, he is forcing nothing and morality doesn't factor into it at all. — NOS4A2
Ok, so let's add in that the game is definitely not something of infinite pleasure. People don't just feel pleasure from these activities or just existing. There is a lot of intermediate to negative values placed on each activity in the game. So the game is not one of paradise proportions but much more mediocre. Wonka just doesn't have the ability to create "the best of all worlds" for each individual experience. — schopenhauer1
So are surprise gifts wrong now? I wouldn't think so. — khaled
So using the dignity threshold idea, if the magnitude of the surprise is controlling another person to a high degree, then yes. — schopenhauer1
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.