Why "Axiom" Questions -Plus 3 More

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what the next step should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as you find yourself engaged in arguing the rightness of an axiom you are in deep trouble. By definition, logic and consistency tests do not apply. Rather one has to look at the value or meaning of the various answers. What are costs and benefits of adopting certain answers as opposed to others.

Let's take a non-controversial axiom, do parallel lines meet at infinity? To be simple-minded, if not, you get Euclidean space, if so, you get Lobchevskian space. What are the benefits of each approach to a geometric construct? Does one provide more powerful tools than the other. Etc. Discussing which answer is correct is simply wrong-headed. Does it today make sense to take a stand on this question based on logic, consistency or "common sense"? To appeal to logic, consistency or, worse, "common sense" is pointless tribalism ("I'm a Euclidean, damnit!"). Each of these appeals presupposes a correct answer and, of course, there isn't one. And that is what makes the answer to those more fraught axiom questions so controversial. Is there a god or not? Is the universe designed or not?

I hold that these questions do not admit of correct answers. That one needs to assess the value of the various answers proposed and understand what one's answer entails. I would further hold that you are not really thinking until you recognize your own heretofore unacknowledged answers to underlying axiomatic questions. Hence, proposing deism as an answer, for example, to the origin of the universe problem just postpones thinking, in my view, because you are still trapped in the mistaken belief that there is a correct answer to this misguided question.

One could say that it comes down to a question of taste, and, of course, we like to say there's no arguing about taste when, in fact, taste is in the end all you can argue about because all the other stuff can be tested or demonstrated in one way or another.

Cui bono? This is the indispensible question. Who benefits from the intelligent design controversy, for example? Resolution of the controversary simply will not take place on the field of logic or thought, per se.

[ALLEN CONRAD]

1. Sure. I might knock him after I got the money.

2. I would say....flip a coin. Does not really matter. Happiness just a chemical reaction. Just don't care. If I wanna be 20% happier I will smoke a joint.

3. Give me the million.

[daryn]

i would take the 100k AND say thanks after.

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a friend 20 some odd years ago who loved these. His favorite was would you give a guy a blow job or take it up the ass?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your friend was gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL

My friend is now married with 2 kids to a gorgeous woman. For many years he was a screenwriter for TV shows. Probably kids shows...

My guess was that as soon as I answered he was going to rag on me for the rest of my life that I was gay.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[George Rice]

Your quote reminded me of a guy I went to high school with who developed a habit of drawing penises on desks and inside of notebooks, etc. He even would notice if someone had a "woody" in a photograph. Found out years later that he was gay, although he may not have realized it at the time.

So, you say your friend is a screenwriter . . . ? For children's shows . . . ? lol

[PLOlover]

sidenote- about inflation and stuff, just change money to x$ worth of stuff, and the problem goes away when you talk about real goods instead of abstractions like money. I mean its magic or aliens who will give mankind gifts or whatever anyway, right?

Main point- case #1 I submit is not an axiom or not in axiomatic form or rather I submit it can be generalized to a more basic axiom, that of absolute versus relative morality.

Let me transform it into an equivalent question to demonstrate. Would a woman commit adultery for a million dollars if she was convinced she would never be found out and the adultery consisted of a one time mutual masterbation session where she was never touched, thus guaranteeing no disease. Well, if she has absolute morality, she would say no, or at least say it is wrong. But if she has relative morallity, then she would say that there is *some price* at which it becomes ok.

Therefore, I submit that the underlying axiomatic question is a basic one of whether you have absolute or relative morality. And the case #1 question can take more than this into account, for example it may depend on the price for a relative moralist, while a true axiomatic abs/rel question should soley concentrate on the abs/rel morality quesiton.

[LeadbellyDan]

Surely almost all questions are "axiom questions." The only exceptions would be questions about logical truths like:
"Are all bachelors unmarried men?"

Can any clarify whether Bill Gates distibuting his money evenly to every1 in the world would just create inflation? Would be interested to know.

[VarlosZ]

1) Yes, AINEC.
2) The world, AINEC. (This one's easy for us Utilitarians.)
3) $1M to my family, but it's more difficult. Probably just a selfish decision.


[ QUOTE ]
No.

It might have been a consideration if I was dying from some disease, and not looking forward to many more times of having to look at myself in the mirror.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that just because of some psychological "ick factor"? If so, it's really that strong?

[ QUOTE ]
If letting, for $$$ money, someone spit at you for him to get sexual satisfaction does not bother you, where do you draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to imagine anything non-painful or penetrative that I'd say no to, assuming it was just me and the millionare, and that whatever it was didn't take too long.

Anything involving family, friends, or coworkers would cost considerably more. This isn't because I'd be ashamed, per se, but because I imagine the "couldn't look at myself in the mirror" crowd would judge me harshly and make life difficult.

[Albert Moulton]

1. I would not take the money. First, I don't need the money. I'm actually living pretty close to the person's means in the example, and I just don't need more money badly enough to degrade myself in a way that would make me feel ashamed or humiliated. This act would make me feel exactly like that, and no money would wash that feeling away for me.

FWIW, I'd take most "benefits" in a larger does for my own country instead of the world if I thought those benefits would actually help. In this case, I don't think artificial happiness would be beneficial, so I would feel like I was actually helping my country by preventing it from getting an overdoes of happy dust compared to the rest of the world.

2. If not spreading the dust was an option, then I'd spread not dust at all. I don't think making people feel "happier" would necessarily be good for them or anybody else. Many scientific and social innovations spring from feelings of dissatisfaction and I wouldn't want to stifle "unhappy" people's urge to improve their own situation through innovation and hard work by sprinkling pixie dust on them. However, if I had to chose one of the two options given, I'd spread it evenly over the whole world because I wouldn't want to put my own country at a disadvantage by making them artificially more "happy" than the rest of the people around the world struggling to make things better for themselves and their families because they're "unhappy."

3. No. I don't think giving people money that they didn't earn necessarily makes their lives better. So, I wouldn't take the money. I live well enough. Getting a nicer house would be nice, but not worth my dignity in my own eyes. My house is just fine. And even for 100 million I probably wouldn't do it for fear of what that kind of combination of unearned money and personal humiliation might do to my relationships with my kids and wife. It would change our lives a little too much, too fast, and I don't think the net change in our relationships would be positive. As for the money for other people, I've never believed that giving people a bunch of unearned money is necessarily going to be good for them. Some might be helped. Some hurt by the money. I'd just as soon keep my dignity, and let the wealthy pervert find another target. If I want more money, I should start a business, get a better job, or learn to play better poker.

[darom03]

1 Yes (and I would donate 1/2 of it to people more needing than I)
2 The World
3 I am amazed that so few would choose the option of distributing 3 million to 100 people of own choice... I would take that option and give to people who really need money or to young prodigys who might be able to use the money for the good of mankind.

Yes I am very unselfish [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]