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

[Dryas]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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?

I don’t agree that it is immoral though. It seems like in the most basic sense morality is constructed out of whatever we care about. I can care about some things and not other things. 

[Carl-Richard]

35 minutes ago, Dryas said:

I don’t agree that it is immoral though. It seems like in the most basic sense morality is constructed out of whatever we care about. I can care about some things and not other things. 

Yet you would also agree that people are prone to a lack of introspection, self-deception and inner conflict (and external pressures) which could obscure the ideal expression of their values. For example, if I was angry one day and hit somebody I love, that doesn't mean hitting people is something I particularly value. Same with answering questions like these.

Edited January 13 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

42 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

I don't think you can split these pursuits into more left- or right-brained ones. In philosophy it's just more obvious and explicit than in music. 

Funny enough, Nietzsche actually talks about these different "artistic impulses" quite explicity and likens them to the Greek Gods Dionysus and Apollo, whereby Dionysus roughly represents the raw and unbound version of creativity and Apollo the cultured and refined version of creativity. 

The juxtaposition of both, he argued, was the highest form of art and hadn't been properly achieved since the Greek Tragedy.

In this sense, I would simply call the guitar player in your example a bad player, failing to integrate these principles properly,- the same way I call John Vervaeke a bad (and painfully uninspired) philosopher.

I think Nazi Germany is actually an interesting case study of an attempt to pull something like this off,- although it ultimately just created a giant schism between the overly irrational and romantic Hitler and the impressive larger-than-life (neo-classical) art and architecture it produced. 

Edited January 13 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I don't think you can split these pursuits into more left- or right-brained ones. In philosophy it's just more obvious and explicit than in music. 

By saying "more" vs. "less", I'm implying a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

 

11 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

In this sense, I would simply call the guitar player in your example a bad player, failing to integrate these principles properly,- the same way I call John Vervaeke a bad (and painfully uninspired) philosopher.

I was making the point that he is exactly that brilliant combination of inspiration and culture. He made one video where he imitated some guitarists, but he is known for his improvisation.

 

 

[Nilsi]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

By saying "more" vs. "less", I'm implying a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

 

I was making the point that he is exactly that brilliant combination of inspiration and culture. He made one video where he imitated some guitarists, but he is known for his improvisation.

 

 

I was making the point that playing the guitar probably lies on the outer end of this spectrum, as far as sophistication (or a lack thereof) goes.

[Yimpa]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

By saying "more" vs. "less", I'm implying a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

Reminds me of the autism spectrum.

I feel that people with “milder forms” of autism actually struggle a ton, since back then the focus was only on those with severe manifestations of it. I personally was diagnosed at 16 (11 years ago) and would still gaslight myself into believing that I wasn’t worthy enough to receive support for it, due to the oversimplification and stereotyping of what autism is and isn’t (which is still a challenge today).

I’m glad that these rigid systems are being challenged, opening up the doors to more flexibility in our understanding.

[Schizophonia]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

🤢

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

Just trying to restore my faith in humanity.

 

Observe how you act unconsciously and selfishly literally all the time, and when you try to escape selfishness, it's always selfishness.
I assume I am an asshole. 

[Nilsi]

48 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I don't think you can split these pursuits into more left- or right-brained ones. In philosophy it's just more obvious and explicit than in music. 

Funny enough, Nietzsche actually talks about these different "artistic impulses" quite explicity and likens them to the Greek Gods Dionysus and Apollo, whereby Dionysus roughly represents the raw and unbound version of creativity and Apollo the cultured and refined version of creativity. 

The juxtaposition of both, he argued, was the highest form of art and hadn't been properly achieved since the Greek Tragedy.

In this sense, I would simply call the guitar player in your example a bad player, failing to integrate these principles properly,- the same way I call John Vervaeke a bad (and painfully uninspired) philosopher.

I think Nazi Germany is actually an interesting case study of an attempt to pull something like this off,- although it ultimately just created a giant schism between the overly irrational and romantic Hitler and the impressive larger-than-life (neo-classical) art and architecture it produced. 

Anyways... lets take this back to the initial discussion.

Nietzsche ended up transcending this binary framework of dionysus-apollo in his later works in favor of the notion of Dionysus (with a capital 'D') as a symbol encompassing the entirety of the creative process and, by extension, life itself. In Nietzsche's view, this expanded idea of Dionysus represents a fusion of both apollonian and dionysian elements, suggesting that true creativity and life's vitality arise from the interplay and tension between order (apollo) and chaos (dionysus). Thus, in Nietzsche's later thought, Dionysus becomes a more complex and inclusive symbol, representing the dynamic and holistic nature of life and creativity, where these opposing forces are not just in conflict, but are essential and complementary components of existence.

He would then create his final pairing in Dionysus and "The Crucified" aka. Christ (I don't think I need to elaborate what he represents) -- the perfect analogy for our little thought experiment (100.000$ vs. compassion).

“Have I been understood?―Dionysus against the crucified one...”

I'll let Nietzsche conclude:

“The god on the cross is a curse on life, a signpost to seek redemption from life; Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: it will be eternally reborn and return from destruction.”

So, if you want to serve life, the only logically consistent choice is to take the money.

Edited January 13 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I was making the point that playing the guitar probably lies on the outer end of this spectrum, as far as sophistication (or a lack thereof) goes.

About the Western canon, why an arbitrarily defined period like that should represent the development of music seems a bit reductionistic. String instruments have existed longer than keyboard instruments  Besides, cross-pollination is a thing: Yngwie Malmsteen was heavily inspired by classical music, Allan Holdsworth wanted his guitar to sound like a saxophone (and Malmsteen adores Holdsworth; secondary cross-pollination 😊).

Edited January 13 by Carl-Richard

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

String instruments have existed longer than keyboard instruments

I may no longer own a piano, but my electronic keyboard functions using strings of code.

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

About the Western canon, why an arbitrarily defined period like that should represent the development of music seems a bit reductionistic. String instruments have existed longer than keyboard instruments

The Western canon is to high-culture what the Paleolithic era is to culture.

[numbersinarow]

The argument works perfectly "against" people who think that either there is an objective metric to decide their family is more valuable, or are truly philosophically attached to it.

What about subjective attachment? Well it's subjective so this argument doesn't work, their subjectivity isn't compelled or shares values with your argument which makes them rationally see a type of objectivity. Their subjectivity is there and self-consistent. Let's take an example, let's say you said "Your subjectivity, such as impulses and desires, truly is aligned with not pressing the button." then there is the ultimate counter-argument waiting, which is that both you and them know they would press the button, which is why you made the argument in the first place in order to dissuade them from it.

And remember, if you have chosen the "I am moral in relation to this person therefore I will be actually moral by being consistent and being moral towards everyone." route, you have to remember that "everyone" includes the plants you eat and the bacteria your body kills.

[DocWatts]

Aside from the fact that there's obviously a huge difference between someone's stated and revealed preferences (ie what someone says that they'll do, vs what they actually do when you observe them), I wonder what the percentage would Push the button if they were given the person's (who selected at random) name and picture, along with a short biography about their life. My intuition is the percentage would be drastically lower for the same reason that it's psychologically much easier to kill someone by pushing a button that causes a drone to launch a missile, than it is to look someone in the eye as you're stabbing them through the chest.

Edited January 14 by DocWatts

[integral]

We already kill people every day for convenience. But we've taken it one step further by having someone else press the button for us. We're way too lazy for that.

Edited January 14 by integral

[Devin]

6 minutes ago, integral said:

We already kill people every day for convenience. But we've taken it one step further by having someone else press the button for us. We're way too lazy for that.

It seems as if oil is the reason behind the deaths of all the middle eastern conflict for the last 50 years, everytime you press the fuel grade button at the pump you're killing Palestinian children.

[Carl-Richard]

13 minutes ago, integral said:

We already kill people every day for convenience. But we've taken it one step further by having someone else press the button for us. We're way too lazy for that.

Yes, as long as you want to survive at a baseline level (eating food, buying clothes, polluting, consuming electricity), you will probably contribute to the death of something or someone, and much of that is unavoidable, but it's indirect, statistical, butterfly effect type stuff. Now, pushing the button is something you can avoid, it is direct, not merely statistical, not butterfly effect type stuff. By actively making that choice, you're not aiming to rise above and improve the things that are currently unavoidable and harmful, but you're actively making it worse, which is a sin.

Edited January 15 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Aside from the fact that there's obviously a huge difference between someone's stated and revealed preferences (ie what someone says that they'll do, vs what they actually do when you observe them), I wonder what the percentage would Push the button if they were given the person's (who selected at random) name and picture, along with a short biography about their life. My intuition is the percentage would be drastically lower for the same reason that it's psychologically much easier to kill someone by pushing a button that causes a drone to launch a missile, than it is to look someone in the eye as you're stabbing them through the chest.

Which is why Western society, individualism and the nuclear family is so toxic, because it places almost all people at a distance and withdraws the things that compel you to care for them (physical proximity, emotional attunement, etc.). Of course, it's not only the worldview that is to blame for that, but also the world that has become so big and interconnected. Back during pre-modern tribal societies, presumably all the people in the tribe were cared for, but at the same time, anything outside wasn't even considered "people", but it was less of a problem because the world was smaller and less interconnected (less clashing between people who don't care about the other).

And you can't put the genie back in the bottle: the world will keep growing and keep getting more interconnected, unless of course there is some collective effort to perturb that growth in some way. Either way you look at it, unless you want a collective organism that is divided against itself, like millions of cancerous tumors leeching on its host until the host dies and everybody dies, you have to evolve your circle of concern to the whole organism.

Edited January 15 by Carl-Richard

[integral]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

you're not aiming to rise above and improve the things that are currently unavoidable but harmful, but you're actively making it worse, which is a sin.

That's one way of looking at it. But maybe if we press it enough times morality will end entirely. so the right thing to do morally is to selflessly kill everyone. Morality solved.  

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

 Back during pre-modern tribal societies, presumably all the people in the tribe were cared for, but at the same time, anything outside wasn't even considered "people", but it was less of a problem because the world was smaller and less interconnected.

Yeah thats why the Dunbar's number is important ,and we should probably create something that can scale that number up. The problem of an individual or a group being able to do a harmful action (whether intentionally or not) against a person or against another group of people and then not get any clear feedback back for his/their action and then get away with it (without suffering any negative consequence for their action) is a main problem.

I guess, as long as whats important for one person is not directly interlinked or more like directly depended on (in a way where there is almost no time delay between an action and the effects of that action) with whats important for all other people - we will continue to have this problem.

[Devin]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes, as long as you want to survive at a baseline level (eating food, buying clothes, polluting, consuming electricity), you will probably contribute to the death of something or someone, and much of that is unavoidable, but it's indirect, statistical, butterfly effect type stuff. Now, pushing the button is something you can avoid, it is direct, not merely statistical, not butterfly effect type stuff. By actively making that choice, you're not aiming to rise above and improve the things that are currently unavoidable and harmful, but you're actively making it worse, which is a sin.

I think you may be overlooking the value hierarchy illustrated, we value things more than people. Consider how slavery was accepted in the past compared to how it is viewed today, future generations will lump the current exploitation of people right along with slavery, they'll just reference all of it together with slavery under the umbrella term "employment".

 I think you're overlooking how poorly we regularly treat people, especially when the relationship is faceless, we all know how poorly Chinese goods workers are treated, we all know chemical industry and microchip workers die horrendous deaths from cancer, and yet all of us on this forum are here via Chinese devices, microchips, and using electricity paid for by someone with cancer. Another example is the climate crisis, it's over consumption at the detriment of future generations. The existence of money itself shows you this value system.

Edited January 15 by Devin