1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Philosophy

Discussion in 'Fun and Games' started by Secrets5, Jun 18, 2016.

  1. Secrets5

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,964
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    UK
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
  2. iiimee

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2014
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    In my imagination.
    I'm doing the "Would You Eat Your Cat?" one. Here's my results:

    Situation 1:
    You responded that Carl Bianchi did no moral wrong in failing to keep the promise he made to his mother on her deathbed. This certainly fits with your view that there was no harm associated with his dishonesty. Moreover, you also responded that it would not have bothered you to have watched Carl lying to his mother in this circumstance. These responses together add up to a clear and consistent moral stance, which most likely is rooted in consequentialist reasoning. Nobody was harmed by Carl's lie, therefore, on this particular occasion at least, there was no moral wrong.

    Situation 2:
    You responded that Betty Slocombe did no moral wrong in eating her cat, Fopsy. This certainly fits with your view that there was no harm associated with Betty snacking on her cat. Moreover, you also responded - perhaps a little surprisingly - that it would not bother or disgust you to watch somebody eating their pet cat. These responses together add up to a clear and consistent moral stance, which most likely is rooted in consequentialist reasoning. Nobody was harmed by Betty's munching on her cat, therefore, on this particular occasion at least, there was no moral wrong.

    Situation 3:
    You responded that siblings, Robert and Mary, did no moral wrong in having sex with each other. This certainly fits with your view that there was no harm associated with Robert and Mary getting it on together. Moreover, you also responded that it would not bother or disgust you if found out that a brother and sister known to you were having an on-going sexual relationship. These responses together add up to a clear and consistent moral stance, which most likely is rooted in consequentialist reasoning. Nobody was harmed by Robert and Mary getting it on together, therefore, on this particular occasion at least, there was no moral wrong.


    So, I am consistently immoral... That's nice to know...
     
  3. AlgebraicUchiha

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2015
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States of America
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Straight but curious
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Thank you...

    "Would You Eat Your Cat?"

    Scenario One:
    You responded that Carl Bianchi behaved immorally in not keeping the promise he made to his mother on her deathbed. You also responded that no harm occurred here, which means it isn't entirely clear why you believe Carl behaved badly in this situation. Probably the most likely explanation is that you think there is a moral prohibition against lying, which applies even if no harm flows from the lie. However, there is the slight worry that what's really going on here is that the idea of someone lying to their mother makes you feel uncomfortable, and you're translating this feeling into a moral claim. However, since there is no inconsistency in your responses, it would be churlish to suggest that it is this rather than a principled stance that explains your moral judgement here. All in all, then, your responses to this particular scenario fit together pretty well.

    Scenario Two:
    You responded that it was morally wrong for Betty Slocombe to eat her cat, Fopsy. You also responded that no harm occurred as a result of her culinary experiment, which means it isn't entirely clear why you believe Betty was wrong to eat her cat. Probably the most likely explanation is that you think there is a moral prohibition against eating one's pet, or perhaps cat meat, which applies even if no harm flows from the behaviour. However, there is the slight worry that what's really going on here is that you find the idea of a cat being eaten repugnant, and you're translating this feeling into a moral claim. However, since there is no inconsistency in your responses, it would be unwarranted to suggest that it is this rather than a principled stance that explains your moral judgement here. All in all, then, your responses to this particular scenario stack up well together.

    Scenario Three:
    You responded that siblings, Robert and Mary, did no moral wrong in having sex with each other. Although there is no logical inconsistency in your responses, there are puzzling aspects. Consider, for example, that you claimed that there was harm associated with them getting it on together. If that's true, then why don't you think their behaviour was morally wrong? Perhaps your thought here is that the only people harmed by their frolicking were Robert and Mary themselves, and that this was not sufficient to make their behaviour immoral. However, there are a couple of problems with this line of argument. First, it's in tension with your earlier claim that an action can be morally wrong if the only people harmed by it are those undertaking the action. And second, if Robert and Mary's behaviour wasn't immoral, then it isn't clear how they were harmed by it. Certainly, we don't normally think there is any harm associated with doing something that isn't morally wrong and which causes no discernible ill effcts.

    The other interesting thing here is that even though you don't think there was anything morally wrong with Robert and Mary frolicking with each other, you claimed it would nevertheless bother or disgust you if found out that a brother and sister known to you were having an on-going sexual relationship. The most likely reason for this is what might be termed the "yuk factor": certainly most people are not comfortable with the idea of a brother and sister having sex with each other.

    These analyses are interesting....

    Thank you for sharing this. :slight_smile:
     
  4. Alder

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Wandering
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Thank you for sharing this - I have a feeling I might end up spending a lot of time doing all of the experiments sooner or later :lol: I'm not complaining though.