1.8k votes: 66% would press a button to win $100,000 but kill one random person

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Devin said:

When you use plastics or chemicals, petrol, electricity even, do you consider your contribution to all the people that get cancer from the use of those things? The children worked to death to make your shoes?

No perfect moral agent exists, but things like that are difficult to think about and should only serve as motivation for seriously pursuing whatever you find most inspiring, beautiful and useful.

 

8 minutes ago, Devin said:

When you think of environmentalism, do you think of your great grandchildren, or the children of the rude woman at the grocery store?

Increasingly, yes, and probably yes. My current form is an absolute carebear, and it's only evolving.

[Devin]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Increasingly, yes, and probably yes. My current form is an absolute carebear, and it's only evolving.

Why do you think that is? In your original post you insinuated the money takers may not be capable of rational thought, are you sure your choice is the rational one?

[Dryas]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

When you're dead, what is the difference between your family members and a stranger? You don't see them, you don't feel them, and same with them. You're just a memory in their mind, like the stranger they saw on the street yesterday.

Okay and? When I'm alive I decide what's important to me and what's not. Or maybe I don't consciously decide it but just through a combination of experiences and biases - either way, I basically pick whatever is important.

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Devin said:

Why do you think that is? In your original post you insinuated the money takers may not be capable of rational thought, are you sure your choice is the rational one?

I was just suggesting they may not have thought through the question.

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Dryas said:

Okay and? When I'm alive I decide what's important to me and what's not. Or maybe I don't consciously decide it but just through a combination of experiences and biases - either way, I basically pick whatever is important.

Yup. At some level, we're all immoral, biased, egocentric. It's just how far will you go? What kind of reasoning will you use?

Edited January 13 by Carl-Richard

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I actually didn't understand anything you just said, again.

 

Would you help an old lady across the road, and would you nuke her for 100k?

I wouldn't do it because I might come across as untrustworthy or something.
I don't know if I can kill a human being just like that either.

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

I wouldn't do it because I might come across as untrustworthy or something.

But what if nobody would ever know you did it?

 

12 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

I don't know if I can kill a human being just like that either.

Why? It's with the button, same as the original question, only that you helped her across the road once.

Edited January 13 by Carl-Richard

[Schizophonia]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But what if nobody would ever know you did it?

 

Why? It's with the button, same as the original question, only that you helped her across the road once.

Well, i click on the button 

Mine is the cash.

Edited January 13 by Schizophonia

[Sincerity]

It'd be funny to press it 7.9B times, for the plot. 

For real though I wouldn't push it I deem, unless perhaps I was in a very low desperate state trying to keep my family alive or something. You never know what new lows You can reach. 

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Well, i click on the button 

Mine is the cash.

But you would also help her across the road? Why? 🤔

[Schizophonia]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But you would also help her across the road? Why? 🤔

To inflate my ego, my character of “the virtuous man who helps his neighbor”, and possibly satisfy his atavistic urge for empathy.

But it's still not "ethics" 

Edited January 13 by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

15 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

It'd be funny to press it 7.9B times, for the plot. 

For real though I wouldn't push it I deem, unless perhaps I was in a very low desperate state trying to keep my family alive or something. You never know what new lows You can reach. 

Even for 2000€ I could click. I might be apprehensive at first because of the cognitive dissonance, and then as my neuroplasticity is excellent I wouldn't even care a few days or weeks later.

Edited January 13 by Schizophonia

[Nilsi]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Increasingly, yes, and probably yes. My current form is an absolute carebear, and it's only evolving.

What exactly is it that you care about?

One could care about excellence and beauty so much, for example, that it would make them a ruthless asshole.

The teacher in this scenario obviously cares a lot about excellence.

Edited January 13 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

21 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

To inflate my ego, my character of “the virtuous man who helps his neighbor”, and possibly satisfy his atavistic urge for empathy.

But it's still not "ethics" 

🤢

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

What exactly is it that you care about?

Inspiration, which comes from within and can be negatively impacted by external pressures. When my guitar teacher got sick, we got a substitute teacher who was kind of like the teacher in Whiplash, and I quit going to lessons after that session. Another example: tell a musician to improvise under pressure.

This thread is just me asking questions and seeing if people discover some inconsistency to their first answer to the question. Notice that I always qualified with "most people", "most likely", "probably". I'm not suggesting some universal morality.

Edited January 13 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Inspiration, which comes from within and can be negatively impacted by external pressures. When my guitar teacher got sick, we got a substitute teacher who was kind of like the teacher in whiplash, and I quit going to lessons after that session. Another example: tell a musician to improvise under pressure.

This thread is just me asking questions and seeing if people discover some inconsistency to their first answer to the question. Notice that I always qualified with "most people", "most likely", "probably". I'm not suggesting some universal morality.

Give a sloppy musician the freedom to improvise… 

Obviously the apprentice is supposed to liberate themselves from their mentor at some point — which is when „inspiration from within“ can be properly translated into excellent work.

I’m not suggesting you suggested anything. I was just wondering what motivates you to ask such questions. It seems to me that you’re generally oriented towards something like balance and harmony, which obviously skews your thinking in a particular direction.

Edited January 13 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Give a sloppy musician the freedom to improvise… 

Obviously the apprentice is supposed to liberate themselves from their mentor at some point — which is when „inspiration from within“ can be properly translated into excellent work.

Yngwie Malmsteen, self-taught, never practiced (has explicitly said that). Guthrie Govan, self-taught, never "practiced" (has said it doesn't "feel" like practice). When you're truly inspired, the most amazing things flow out of you effortlessly.

 

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

I’m not suggesting you suggested anything. I was just wondering what motivates you to ask such questions. It seems to me that you’re generally oriented towards something like balance and harmony, which obviously skews your thinking in a particular direction.

Just trying to restore my faith in humanity.

Edited January 13 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yngvie Malmsteen, self-taught, never practiced (has explicitly said that). Guthrie Govan, self-taught, never "practiced" (has said it doesn't "feel" like practise). When you're truly inspired, the most amazing things flow out of you effortlessly.

Which is why they are destined to obscurity, although I have to admit the Malmsteen guy is pretty amazing.

Its just that playing the electric guitar is such a recent thing (and perhaps too limited of a medium) that there simply haven't been high enough standards established. In the world of pianists, this is an entirely different story and you will not find any celebrated pianist who hasn't undergone an extensive apprenticeship and studied the great works and composers of the Western canon.

My favorite example of this mentality is French haute cuisine:

This is what it looks like to pursue perfection and excellence down to the nitty gritty details (which is what makes all the difference in the end).

Homemade tacos may be great, but running a 3-Michelin-Star restaurant is simply a different league. 

Edited January 13 by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

21 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Which is why they are destined to obscurity, although I have to admit the Malmsteen guy is pretty amazing.

Its just that playing the electric guitar is such a recent thing (and perhaps to limited of a medium) that there simply haven't been high enough standards established. In the world of pianists, this is an entirely different story and you will not find any celebrated pianist who hasn't undergone an extensive apprenticeship and studied the great works and composers of the Western canon.

My favorite example of this mentality is French haute cuisine:

This is what it looks like to pursue perfection and excellence down to the nitty gritty details (which is what makes all the difference in the end).

Homemade tacos may be great, but running a 3-Michelin-Star restaurant is simply a different league. 

You can find all sorts of examples for mastery (see the playlist above), which nonetheless can not genuinley be considered in the same vein as Ludwig van Beethoven, Alexander the Great, Pablo Picasso, etc. 

I would say the highest forms of excellence require millenia of preparation from previous generations to truly reach these transcendent heights of sublimity -- which is where a transferral of this vast tradition requires serious apprenticeship.

This includes the discipline of psychology, if you ask me. If you're not seriously studying the works of masters like Nietzsche, Freud, Piaget, etc. what are you even doing? You will end up in obscurity, not contributing anything significant to larger society, just like Leo did (who generally has the necessary talent and character traits to achieve actual greatness, unlike someone as bland and unimaginative as John Vervaeke). 

Edited January 13 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

Which is why they are destined to obscurity, although I have to admit the Malmsteen guy is pretty amazing.

Imagine judging brilliance by obscurity 😂 I know of even more obscure players who measure up to them and beyond.

 

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

Its just that playing the electric guitar is such a recent thing (and perhaps too limited of a medium) that there simply haven't been high enough standards established. In the world of pianists, this is an entirely different story and you will not find any celebrated pianist who hasn't undergone an extensive apprenticeship and studied the great works and composers of the Western canon.

My favorite example of this mentality is French haute cuisine:

This is what it looks like to pursue perfection and excellence down to the nitty gritty details (which is what makes all the difference in the end).

Homemade tacos may be great, but running a 3-Michelin-Star restaurant is simply a different league. 

Are classical piano players who "study the Western canon" usually associated with improvisation? I think musical improvisation is just a particularly pure example of the type of inspiration I'm talking about. It can often work in tandem with structure and discipine quite brilliantly, and some of that is externally determined. But you have to be very careful to not let the external influences become too dominant, because that could kill the muse.

 

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

You can find all sorts of examples for mastery (see the playlist above), which nonetheless can not genuinley be considered in the same vein as Ludwig van Beethoven, Alexander the Great, Pablo Picasso, etc. 

I would say the highest forms of excellence require millenia of preparation from previous generations to truly reach these transcendent heights of sublimity -- which is where a transferral of this vast tradition requires serious apprenticeship.

This includes the discipline of psychology, if you ask me. If you're not seriously studying the works of masters like Nietzsche, Freud, Piaget, etc. what are you even doing? You will end up in obscurity, not contributing anything significant to larger society, just like Leo did (who generally has the necessary talent and character traits to achieve actual greatness, unlike someone as bland and unimaginative as John Vervaeke). 

That certainly applies more to less artistically creative pursuits (right-brained) and more intellectual pursuits (left-brained). You can notice when a guitar player has primarily "studied" themselves to learning the instrument vs. someone who has tapped into pure inspiration. Their playing becomes quite robotic, clumsy, unrefined, uninteresting (probably more the case for guitar than piano because of the differences in dynamics, e.g. bending). Still, it's always a balance, and it's actually possible to be highly inspired while also being highly cultured (Guthrie Govan has a video where he imitates like 20 guitar players almost identically). The trick is just to stay inspired.

Edited January 13 by Carl-Richard