Ethics Q2: The Evil World

[FreshlyMinted]

I liked my baby & boticelli post even if no one else did, so I thought I'd start another ethical dilemma post

You are a deity and are given the option of creating two worlds:

(1) This world has absolutely no sentient life in it whatsoever. Maybe some plants or something, but nothing that can think or experience happiness. Furthermore, nothing will ever evolve that could do so

(2) This world has only one thing living in it, a sociopathic, evil being that is immortal and doesn't need anything to live. This being is constantly hallucinating and imagining the suffering of others. His visions are filled with murder, rape, genocide and he is experiencing extreme happiness because he believes he is doing those things. No evil acts are being committed, however


Which world would you prefer. Which would be considered to be "better"


Special Note: This is a Thought Experiment meaning you have to take the situation as presented. Logically sidestepping the issue doesn't answer the underlying question and isn't really a response. Imagine whatever convoluted situations you need to in order to fulfill the specified scenario

 

[Arch Enemy]

I liked my baby & boticelli post even if no one else did, so I thought I'd start another ethical dilemma post

You are a deity and are given the option of creating two worlds:

(1) This world has absolutely no sentient life in it whatsoever. Maybe some plants or something, but nothing that can think or experience happiness. Furthermore, nothing will ever evolve that could do so

(2) This world has only one thing living in it, a sociopathic, evil being that is immortal and doesn't need anything to live. This being is constantly hallucinating and imagining the suffering of others. His visions are filled with murder, rape, genocide and he is experiencing extreme happiness because he believes he is doing those things. No evil acts are being committed, however


Which world would you prefer. Which would be considered to be "better"

I'll apply my answer like the other thread.

Number two is impossible because if there is only one living thing, then it would not know what genocide, rape, or murder was.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

I'll apply my answer like the other thread.

Number two is impossible because if there is only one living thing, then it would not know what genocide, rape, or murder was.

Okay, I made a special clarification. This is a thought experiment. You aren't allowed to sidestep the issue. If you don't want to answer the question based in its own parameters then just don't answer the question

 

[digsbe]

I guess I would choose the first world, I could live/enjoy it's beauty.

If I were a deity that created 1 psychopathic person that would make me worse then the psychopath and his desires, sense I created him originally like that and confined him to a living lonely hell.

 

[jallman]

Okay, I made a special clarification. This is a thought experiment. You aren't allowed to sidestep the issue. If you don't want to answer the question based in its own parameters then just don't answer the question

I think he did answer the question. I think you just didn't like the answer. :lol:

I jest.

I would choose the first simply on the fact that I cannot stomach the idea of sharing a world with only a psychopath. I would find a world untouched by evil more pleasing to experience if alone than I would a world that is populated by evil only.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Okay, I made a special clarification. This is a thought experiment. You aren't allowed to sidestep the issue. If you don't want to answer the question based in its own parameters then just don't answer the question

Then your thought experiment is illogical to start off with, thus the result is going to be meaningless.

It's like asking a person a "what if" scenario and then taking his response as some diagnosis of his rationality.
When you screw with lines of reality, then you screw with the array of responses. Meaning that it's a loaded question.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Then your thought experiment is illogical to start off with, thus the result is going to be meaningless.

It's like asking a person a "what if" scenario and then taking his response as some diagnosis of his rationality.
When you screw with lines of reality, then you screw with the array of responses. Meaning that it's a loaded question.

Alright, well I think a thought experiment discussion is more interesting

How would you propose to accomplish the goal set out by thought experiments in a way that was appropriate to you?

 

[Mach]

1. It would be my quiet get-away from lording over the known universe. It will be called "The Hapmtons-world".

 

[spud_meister]

number 2, it'd be interesting, the only problem being the smell, number 2 would smell alot worse than number 1

 

[other]

can I, as a deity, torment my own creation on world #2 when I get bored?

 

[liblady]

I liked my baby & boticelli post even if no one else did, so I thought I'd start another ethical dilemma post

You are a deity and are given the option of creating two worlds:

(1) This world has absolutely no sentient life in it whatsoever. Maybe some plants or something, but nothing that can think or experience happiness. Furthermore, nothing will ever evolve that could do so

(2) This world has only one thing living in it, a sociopathic, evil being that is immortal and doesn't need anything to live. This being is constantly hallucinating and imagining the suffering of others. His visions are filled with murder, rape, genocide and he is experiencing extreme happiness because he believes he is doing those things. No evil acts are being committed, however


Which world would you prefer. Which would be considered to be "better"


Special Note: This is a Thought Experiment meaning you have to take the situation as presented. Logically sidestepping the issue doesn't answer the underlying question and isn't really a response. Imagine whatever convoluted situations you need to in order to fulfill the specified scenario

number 2, of course. nothing like making people happy.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Alright, well I think a thought experiment discussion is more interesting

How would you propose to accomplish the goal set out by thought experiments in a way that was appropriate to you?

It is and your topics, in a simple regard, are interesting, but you attach parameters (such as a painting that guarantees happiness) and it no longer becomes interesting.

You can easily ask the Ethics Q1 question as

"Would you rather save a painting or a baby? Why would you choose one over the other?"

Then you could follow up with

"30 years after you saved either the baby or the painting (from question one) your choice haunts you. The baby, or the painting, brings great suffering and sorrow to you and your people. If given the opportunity, would you have preferred the other now that you know the outcome of your original choice?"

This will make the responder think about the rationale behind choosing, whether or not they did it out of ethics, personal attachment, or a duty.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

It is and your topics, in a simple regard, are interesting, but you attach parameters (such as a painting that guarantees happiness) and it no longer becomes interesting.

You can easily ask the Ethics Q1 question as

"Would you rather save a painting or a baby? Why would you choose one over the other?"

Then you could follow up with

"30 years after you saved either the baby or the painting (from question one) your choice haunts you. The baby, or the painting, brings great suffering and sorrow to you and your people. If given the opportunity, would you have preferred the other now that you know the outcome of your original choice?"

This will make the responder think about the rationale behind choosing, whether or not they did it out of ethics, personal attachment, or a duty.

That is quite a good question, but it doesn't speak about the question behind the question which is what to you value more: life or happiness? I understand your point about not being able to "get into character" as it were, but that is a problem with thought experiments

 

[rivrrat]

Number one. Don't even have to think about it. Why the **** would I want an evil person to be happy? Why would I want them to even exist? In short, I wouldn't. Therefore, he wouldn't.

 

[Arch Enemy]

That is quite a good question, but it doesn't speak about the question behind the question which is what to you value more: life or happiness? I understand your point about not being able to "get into character" as it were, but that is a problem with thought experiments

If you ask about happiness then more often than not you are going to receive an answer that reflects less on the person's feelings about happiness and more of the cultural prescription; believe me, I've done ethnographic research on this very issue.

You can draw inferences from the answer of a choice, especially if they fulfill the "why" criteria, or answer the follow-up.

If the subject saves the painting in the first scenario and then chooses the baby after the painting brings sorrow, then you can estimate that their choice is based upon what doesn't bring them sorrow.
contra, if they choose the baby, and then they get rid of baby for the painting then you can make the inference that for the responder life and happiness are separate and not correlating-- so far as that life should be sacrificed for happiness.

If they select one and keep their choice and answer the why portion of the follow up, then you can understand (based on their choice) what they value more.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

can I, as a deity, torment my own creation on world #2 when I get bored?

Haha, sure

 

[FreshlyMinted]

If you ask about happiness then more often than not you are going to receive an answer that reflects less on the person's feelings about happiness and more of the cultural prescription; believe me, I've done ethnographic research on this very issue.

REALLY! That's awesome. I'm an Anth student that is (obviously) very interested in philosophy. But philosophy as a purely cultural construction seems very contrary to the standard right now. I'd love to learn more about his study.

You can draw inferences from the answer of a choice, especially if they fulfill the "why" criteria, or answer the follow-up.

If the subject saves the painting in the first scenario and then chooses the baby after the painting brings sorrow, then you can estimate that their choice is based upon what doesn't bring them sorrow.
contra, if they choose the baby, and then they get rid of baby for the painting then you can make the inference that for the responder life and happiness are separate and not correlating-- so far as that life should be sacrificed for happiness.

If they select one and keep their choice and answer the why portion of the follow up, then you can understand (based on their choice) what they value more.

Your question is far superior than the one made up by whatever philosopher made the first one up.

 

[Arch Enemy]

REALLY! That's awesome. I'm an Anth student that is (obviously) very interested in philosophy. But philosophy as a purely cultural construction seems very contrary to the standard right now. I'd love to learn more about his study.



Your question is far superior than the one made up by whatever philosopher made the first one up.

The issue you had was that you were trying to coalesce ethnographic data (happiness in relation to people on this forum) through philosophical means. I would not say that your task was impossible, but philosophy often draws upon abstractions that bend the rules of reality where the answer does not help with understanding cognitive functions of a group, but leads to understanding of ideals.

Ideals are inherently non-human, or fantasy.

 

[molten_dragon]

You are a deity and are given the option of creating two worlds:

If I am a deity, who or what exactly is giving me these two options and only those two options. Doesn't omnipotence kind of go hand in hand with being a deity? Shouldn't I be able to create anything I want?

(1) This world has absolutely no sentient life in it whatsoever. Maybe some plants or something, but nothing that can think or experience happiness. Furthermore, nothing will ever evolve that could do so

(2) This world has only one thing living in it, a sociopathic, evil being that is immortal and doesn't need anything to live. This being is constantly hallucinating and imagining the suffering of others. His visions are filled with murder, rape, genocide and he is experiencing extreme happiness because he believes he is doing those things. No evil acts are being committed, however


Which world would you prefer. Which would be considered to be "better"

Exactly what do you mean when you say world? As in the actual definition of a world (i.e. a planet) which is part of a larger universe? Or do you actually mean creating a universe with only those things in it. If the world is part of a larger universe what else is out there? Other worlds, some with life on them maybe?

How could a single being that had never have any contact with anyone or anything else even know what murder, rape, and genocide are?

Your thought experiment doesn't seem too well thought out. There are holes in your logic that I could ride an elephant through.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Both universes seem terribly boring to me. I can't see any point in creating either-- and thus no reason to favor one over the other.

 

[WI Crippler]

If I had to pick, I'd take number 2. What good is being a god if you can't smite somebody every now and then?

 

[jallman]

If I had to pick, I'd take number 2. What good is being a god if you can't smite somebody every now and then?

Reminds me of a GWAR song...

"But what good is all the violence in the world unless it is tempered with limitless sex. Bring on the limitless sex objects..."

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

GWAR speaks much wisdom.

 

[jallman]

GWAR speaks much wisdom.

You know the sad thing is, it does. "Father Knows Less", anyone?

Although, "Sick of You" is the greatest song EVER.