This is a reply to an FI post:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/10960
do they have doubts that they evaded?
>>>>>> but isn’t it immoral? Just because they both prefer it, it doesn’t mean they’ve passed a morality test and what they are doing is moral.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's not clear to me that they don't have any objections.
>>>>
>>>> i think lots of ppl really want to get married. so much so that it bothers them to NOT be married.
>>>
>>> that seems off topic. being bothered to not be married doesn't say
>>> anything about other objections they have.
>
> they don’t have objections. some ppl whole-heartedly prefer to get married and don’t want to even consider any criticisms of it.
how do you know they are whole-heartedly preferring it? i say more
about this below.
>>>>> So let's say they didn't have any objections. So it's a cp. Is it immoral?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well what are you thinking makes it immoral?
>>>>
>>>> it hinders one’s individuality / growth / learning / life / sense of self.
>>>
>>> i'm starting to think we should take a step back.
>>>
>>> the question that started this discussion was somebody asking me this:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know if something is morally good or not? What’s the check? What’s your test?
>>>
>>> What was meant by it is this:
>>>
>>>> If I have a choice to make, and I have an idea about what to choose. How do I know if that's the idea I should choose or not?
>>>
>>> So, what I'm focussed on is how to choose. more below.
>
> ok. I’ve always thought of a common preference as just what is says - a preference 2+ ppl have in common. I don’t think “cp" means you have to use 100% good methods, like specifically seeking external crit of your preferences, not evading or lying to yourself, etc.
>
> So I don’t see it as like THE test that you are making a moral choice. It’s important. And if something is not a cp (and one person coerces the other), then it’s (usually) immoral.
>
> But just because it is a cp, I don’t think that necessarily means its a moral choice.
I think it does. I explain below.
//TRIM//
>>>> If it’s a CP, there would be an aspect of their method which is moral. However:
>>>>
>>>> - there could other aspects of their methods which are immoral. Like how much have they really thought it thru and looked for flaws / crits with their plan. Is it a whim-based preference? A static meme based preference?
>>>
>>> Even if those things are the case, I think what's important is what
>>> knowledge the people interacting have.
>>>
>>> Like, if one of them has some knowledge about that marriage is bad.
>>> And if he ignores that and chooses marriage. Then it's not a cp. So
>>> choosing marriage in this case is immoral.
>
> ppl are really really good at evading and lying to themselves about stuff, tho. They don’t find their wedding day TCS-coercive. They get really good at convincing themselves that they whole-heartedly prefer certain things (even if they do have tiny doubts or fears or whatever in there. they effectively ignore them to the point where they don’t exist).
The thing is, just because they are convinced that they are
whole-heartedly preferring something, that doesn't mean that they
actually are whole-heartedly preferring something.
> And they don’t SEEK external crit. They don’t want to hear about ideas which would criticize what they think they want. So without any criticism and lots of evasion, their preference remains the same.
>
> If you ask them if they have any doubts, they’d say “No”. they’d say the prefer to get married.
>
> so what then? if both ppl believe it’s their preference, isn’t that a cp?
i don't think that's a cp. i try to explain why below.
> yet, at the same time, seems immoral. they’ve lied to themselves and evaded opportunities to get crit.
>
> it's hard for me to believe that someone is *moral* when they evade, just because they don’t know that evasion is bad or that they’ve evaded the fact that evasion is bad.
Maybe the original question is misleading. Here's the question I had
in mind that began this discussion.
Question: Say 2 people are considering doing a joint project. And one
of them has an idea for what to do. How do you check if an idea should
not be acted on?
Answer: If either of them has any objections/doubts about acting on
the idea, then that idea shouldn't be acted on. And if you're evading
your doubts, to the point that you don't have any of your doubts
conscious in your mind at the moment, then you're cheating. That
doesn't pass the test. Evaded doubts are still doubts.
So about cps. Let's talk about 1 person finding a cp with himself. He
has a conflict and he's resolving it. When he finds the resolution,
that's a cp. But how could a resolution be found when there are evaded
doubts? I mean, the conflict is still there. So it's not a resolution.
So it's not a cp.
What do you think?
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fallible-ideas/conversations/messages/10960
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Erin Minter erinminter@icloud.com [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.
>
>> This was sent to me offlist and I am forwarding it to FI with permission.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Rami Rustom <rombomb@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FI] Morality Test
>> Date: August 15, 2015 at 8:56:11 AM EDT
>> To: E Mint <erinminter@icloud.com>
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Rami Rustom <rombomb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:39 PM, Rami Rustom <rombomb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://ramirustom.blogspot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know if something is morally good or not? What’s the check? What’s your test?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Say 2 people are thinking about doing something together.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Say one of them has an idea that is being considered as a common preference (cp). A cp is an idea about how to proceed that they both have no criticisms of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And say one of them has an objection to that idea. Then it’s not a cp. So it’s not morally ok to act on this idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If nobody has any objections, then it’s a cp. So it is morally ok to act on this idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the "something" could still be immoral (objectively). Even if they agreed on proceeding with the action, I don’t think that means the action itself is always moral (will enhance/further/promote their lives).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't mean immoral objectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it makes sense to think of it as you are. Because nobody
>>>>>>> is omniscient. So there's no way to omnisciently check if something is
>>>>>>> morally ok or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Say the idea is that they both agree (they both *prefer*) to get married and each promise to devote the rest of their lives to each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s a cp,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you demonstrated that it's a cp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did they have objections that they didn't address and just ignored in
>>>>> favor of the idea?
>>>>
>>>> lots of ppl get married because they prefer to get married. both sides prefer it and want it, when they choose to get married.
>>>>
>>>> it’s a preference, which they have in common.
>>>
>>> if they have objections when they do it, and ignore those objections,
>>> then it's not a cp.
>
> they don’t have objections, but they didn’t go searching for them either. they slammed their minds shut to any glimpses of them.
> On Aug 15, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Erin Minter erinminter@icloud.com [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.
>
>> This was sent to me offlist and I am forwarding it to FI with permission.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Rami Rustom <rombomb@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FI] Morality Test
>> Date: August 15, 2015 at 8:56:11 AM EDT
>> To: E Mint <erinminter@icloud.com>
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Rami Rustom <rombomb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:39 PM, Rami Rustom <rombomb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://ramirustom.blogspot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know if something is morally good or not? What’s the check? What’s your test?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Say 2 people are thinking about doing something together.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Say one of them has an idea that is being considered as a common preference (cp). A cp is an idea about how to proceed that they both have no criticisms of.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And say one of them has an objection to that idea. Then it’s not a cp. So it’s not morally ok to act on this idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If nobody has any objections, then it’s a cp. So it is morally ok to act on this idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the "something" could still be immoral (objectively). Even if they agreed on proceeding with the action, I don’t think that means the action itself is always moral (will enhance/further/promote their lives).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't mean immoral objectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it makes sense to think of it as you are. Because nobody
>>>>>>> is omniscient. So there's no way to omnisciently check if something is
>>>>>>> morally ok or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Say the idea is that they both agree (they both *prefer*) to get married and each promise to devote the rest of their lives to each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s a cp,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you demonstrated that it's a cp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did they have objections that they didn't address and just ignored in
>>>>> favor of the idea?
>>>>
>>>> lots of ppl get married because they prefer to get married. both sides prefer it and want it, when they choose to get married.
>>>>
>>>> it’s a preference, which they have in common.
>>>
>>> if they have objections when they do it, and ignore those objections,
>>> then it's not a cp.
>
> they don’t have objections, but they didn’t go searching for them either. they slammed their minds shut to any glimpses of them.
>>>>>> but isn’t it immoral? Just because they both prefer it, it doesn’t mean they’ve passed a morality test and what they are doing is moral.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's not clear to me that they don't have any objections.
>>>>
>>>> i think lots of ppl really want to get married. so much so that it bothers them to NOT be married.
>>>
>>> that seems off topic. being bothered to not be married doesn't say
>>> anything about other objections they have.
>
> they don’t have objections. some ppl whole-heartedly prefer to get married and don’t want to even consider any criticisms of it.
how do you know they are whole-heartedly preferring it? i say more
about this below.
>>>>> So let's say they didn't have any objections. So it's a cp. Is it immoral?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well what are you thinking makes it immoral?
>>>>
>>>> it hinders one’s individuality / growth / learning / life / sense of self.
>>>
>>> i'm starting to think we should take a step back.
>>>
>>> the question that started this discussion was somebody asking me this:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you know if something is morally good or not? What’s the check? What’s your test?
>>>
>>> What was meant by it is this:
>>>
>>>> If I have a choice to make, and I have an idea about what to choose. How do I know if that's the idea I should choose or not?
>>>
>>> So, what I'm focussed on is how to choose. more below.
>
> ok. I’ve always thought of a common preference as just what is says - a preference 2+ ppl have in common. I don’t think “cp" means you have to use 100% good methods, like specifically seeking external crit of your preferences, not evading or lying to yourself, etc.
>
> So I don’t see it as like THE test that you are making a moral choice. It’s important. And if something is not a cp (and one person coerces the other), then it’s (usually) immoral.
>
> But just because it is a cp, I don’t think that necessarily means its a moral choice.
I think it does. I explain below.
//TRIM//
>>>> If it’s a CP, there would be an aspect of their method which is moral. However:
>>>>
>>>> - there could other aspects of their methods which are immoral. Like how much have they really thought it thru and looked for flaws / crits with their plan. Is it a whim-based preference? A static meme based preference?
>>>
>>> Even if those things are the case, I think what's important is what
>>> knowledge the people interacting have.
>>>
>>> Like, if one of them has some knowledge about that marriage is bad.
>>> And if he ignores that and chooses marriage. Then it's not a cp. So
>>> choosing marriage in this case is immoral.
>
> ppl are really really good at evading and lying to themselves about stuff, tho. They don’t find their wedding day TCS-coercive. They get really good at convincing themselves that they whole-heartedly prefer certain things (even if they do have tiny doubts or fears or whatever in there. they effectively ignore them to the point where they don’t exist).
The thing is, just because they are convinced that they are
whole-heartedly preferring something, that doesn't mean that they
actually are whole-heartedly preferring something.
> And they don’t SEEK external crit. They don’t want to hear about ideas which would criticize what they think they want. So without any criticism and lots of evasion, their preference remains the same.
>
> If you ask them if they have any doubts, they’d say “No”. they’d say the prefer to get married.
>
> so what then? if both ppl believe it’s their preference, isn’t that a cp?
i don't think that's a cp. i try to explain why below.
> yet, at the same time, seems immoral. they’ve lied to themselves and evaded opportunities to get crit.
>
> it's hard for me to believe that someone is *moral* when they evade, just because they don’t know that evasion is bad or that they’ve evaded the fact that evasion is bad.
Maybe the original question is misleading. Here's the question I had
in mind that began this discussion.
Question: Say 2 people are considering doing a joint project. And one
of them has an idea for what to do. How do you check if an idea should
not be acted on?
Answer: If either of them has any objections/doubts about acting on
the idea, then that idea shouldn't be acted on. And if you're evading
your doubts, to the point that you don't have any of your doubts
conscious in your mind at the moment, then you're cheating. That
doesn't pass the test. Evaded doubts are still doubts.
So about cps. Let's talk about 1 person finding a cp with himself. He
has a conflict and he's resolving it. When he finds the resolution,
that's a cp. But how could a resolution be found when there are evaded
doubts? I mean, the conflict is still there. So it's not a resolution.
So it's not a cp.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment