Tuna Sub on Floor

[ALawPoker]

Let's say you drop half of your tuna sub on the floor. It's basically fine, but knowing it was on the floor, you can't enjoy it. You don't really want to waste it. Give it to your Mom, or throw it out? Assume that the sub poses no health risk and that it tastes fine, but if your Mom knew it was on the floor she would have the same reaction as you and wouldn't eat it.

This sounds like a dumb question, and I guess maybe it is one, but it might spark interesting philosophical discussion. I think the underlying theme of the question is clear enough.

[LuckOfTheDraw]

I'd just eat it.

[ALawPoker]

lol

[ALawPoker]

I guess I should say, if you knew someone to have an irrational phobia, where they'd be better off not knowing about something, are you morally correct to disclose this info or keep it a secret?

[madnak]

Throw it out.

[Lestat]

give it to the dog. that's what i do with tuna subs that aren't even dropped on the floor.

[Kimbell175113]

Eat the dog.

[gull]

Eat it, you pussy.

[J_V]

11/28/06 04:36 PM

Coincidence? I think not.

[hmkpoker]

This barely makes the OOT cut

[ALawPoker]

Like I said, maybe it was a dumb way to ask a question. Pardon me for using an every day hypothetical to try to get feedback on something. I forgot that when you're not a latent Nobel Prize talent or someone who forms his internet cult following through a simplistic and perpetual preaching of anarchy that you have to be direct with your question, lest people fail to take 30 seconds to think about what you may be getting at.


I'm pretty "Libertarian" in my outlook on life. Mostly though, I believe all humans "should" (and always will) simply do whatever maximizes their best interests. By extension, Libertarian ideals are basically just my preference. I can't possibly believe my views carry any sort of moral high ground over any others if I admit morality is subjective. And I can't possibly believe other people are "wrong" to believe in a different set of ideals when doing so may very well maximize their best interest. In other words, I had come to accept that my views are simply my preference, and not an innately worthwhile cause.

But, I don't think our instincts always guide us down the path that truly maximizes our utility; they just do the best they can. I truly believe people would be happier if the world lived in anarchy. I do. If anarchy could artificially be forced upon us, I think an overall higher satisfaction of life would be achieved (even though naturally we take a different path). So it occurred to me that maybe there is something inherently noble in promoting and defending my views. Is there?

People like government and people feel an instinctual need to form coalitions, so we make them. The truth, as I see it, is that humans no longer need coalitions to maximize our happiness. Our instincts tell us we do, but we don't. We have a lot of evolutionary leftovers. Tonsils, appendixes, and empathy are just a few. Most of us think that government is to our collective best interest, but I maintain that this is an irrational thought (similar to my mom fearing the dirty sub for no good reason), and that most of us would be happier in an anarchist state. This is, of course, nothing more than my unsubstantiated opinion. But it bodes an interesting philosophical thought. What is morally better: to give someone something they want or something they don't want, if you know (or at least firmly believe) what they don't want will truly make them happier?

If this still "doesn't make the cut" feel free to ignore it or better yet, ask a moderator to delete it. Didn't realize I was seeking your approval, Hmk.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, maybe it was a dumb way to ask a question. Pardon me for using an every day hypothetical to try to get feedback on something. I forgot that when you're not a latent Nobel Prize talent or someone who forms his internet cult following through a simplistic and perpetual preaching of anarchy that you have to be direct with your question, lest people fail to take 30 seconds to think about what you may be getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But, I don't think our instincts always guide us down the path that truly maximizes our utility; they just do the best they can. I truly believe people would be happier if the world lived in anarchy. I do. If anarchy could artificially be forced upon us, I think an overall higher satisfaction of life would be achieved (even though naturally we take a different path). So it occurred to me that maybe there is something inherently noble in promoting and defending my views. Is there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, but personally, I don't get how anarchy would be "stable". I don't think humanity is ready for it, if in fact it could theoretically make us happier in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a lot of evolutionary leftovers. Tonsils, appendixes, and empathy are just a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

Empathy is an evolutionary leftover???

[ QUOTE ]
What is morally better: to give someone something they want or something they don't want, if you know (or at least firmly believe) what they don't want will truly make them happier?


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between "know" and "firmly believe" is quite a slippery slope, I would say. I try to stick to doing what I would want done to me. So be sure you "know".

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Empathy is an evolutionary leftover???

[/ QUOTE ]

Well what I mean is you don't need it to survive anymore. Most of us, including me, still derive value from it. But when you consider morality subjective (as I do) the value that comes from it is arbitrary.