GitHub/quartz
1
0
Fork 2
mirror of https://github.com/jackyzha0/quartz.git synced 2025-12-24 13:24:05 -06:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

vault backup: 2022-07-10 15:56:57

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Jet Hughes 2022-07-10 15:56:57 +12:00
parent e82ebe811a
commit 5921e1e0b5
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
content/notes/hypotheticals.md
View File

@ -7,4 +7,4 @@ tags:
# Is it immoral to keep free will from people if you had the power to grant it.
This is really two questions. Firstly, is free will a good thing? Secondly, if it is a good thing — is withholding it immoral? Before I answer these questions, Is deciding things for other people moral or immoral? There's no way to know what people want, and I don't think you have the right to decide for them. Thus, from a deontological perspective, I think each person wants different things and it would be immoral no matter what decision you make. The questions remains however, of whether it is immoral to not do a moral thing. I think that depends of the effort of the moral action and the amount of "goodness" that the actions creates. For example, it would not be immoral to not volunteer to pick up trash for 3 weeks nor to not pick trash on your walk home. But if you could remove all trash by clicking your fingers, it would be immoral to not do so. Thus the answer to your hypothetical, from a consequentialist perspective, depends on where you draw the line. In this hypothetical, since there is no effort required, the answer depends only on whether granting free will to everyone is a moral thing. Assuming by 'content' you mean neither happy nor unhappy. I think that granting people free will would create an equal amount of sadness and happiness,
This is really two questions. Firstly, is free will a good thing? Secondly, if it is a good thing — is withholding it immoral? Before I answer these questions, Is deciding things for other people moral or immoral? There's no way to know what people want, and I don't think you have the right to decide for them. Thus, from a deontological perspective, I think each person wants different things and it would be immoral no matter what decision you make. The questions remains however, of whether it is immoral to not do a moral thing. I think that depends of the effort of the moral action and the amount of "goodness" that the actions creates. For example, it would not be immoral to not volunteer to pick up trash for 3 weeks nor to not pick trash on your walk home. But if you could remove all trash by clicking your fingers, it would be immoral to not do so. Thus the answer to your hypothetical, from a consequentialist perspective, depends on where you draw the line. In this hypothetical, since there is no effort required, the answer depends only on whether granting free will to everyone is a moral thing. I'm gonig to assume by 'content' you mean neither happy nor unhappy. I think that granting people free will would create an equal amount of sadness and happiness and the net effect would be zero. So from a consequentialist perspective it is neither moral nor immoral. However, if free will wasn't a thing, humans might as well not exist. Therefore, by granting free will you are giving meaning to the entire human race — which must be a moral thing.