Re: morality's half twists
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:53 pm
Conventional morality doesn't deal well with relativity.
Suppose you're the parent of a suicidal teen:
Would you suggest she take up an addictive, illegal drug?
(Probably not.)
Yet, that could be just the thing to give a depressed young person a reason to stay alive. And though it might be effective for a limited time, it could also get them through a rough patch that might otherwise kill them. After a while, you can concentrate on getting them off the drug. At least they're alive. But drugs are bad, m'kay?
Similarly, knowing that the best counselors and motivational speakers have been through addiction and incarceration, why wouldn't a guidance counselor in high school, when advising a student that wants to become a counselor, suggest that he take up a life of petty crime and drug addiction...to get the ball rolling.
For that matter, when we meet the type of person i'm referring to, they'll try to save you from the thing that made them great. "Kids, don't do what I did!" ...."why not? you're cool as hell and make a decent living being helpful."
Instead, we tend to use the 'lever' of influence with an unrealistic fulcrum. We can't admit what the likely outcome is. We aren't supposed to do cold analyses when morality is involved. When the young writer hits a wall, who will suggest he take up the bottle? Knowing how many great writers were drunks makes it awkward. Our reference points tend to be non-existent optimal outcomes.
We don't set out to be married several times. Instead, we look for the lasting possibility right off. Even if the stats suggest the 2nd or third will be best. What if we planned mistakes instead, knowing that we'll need to make a bunch of them? Sought the rejection? Get the accidents out of the way; pre-empt failure; emulate the path of the human(s) you most admire?
logic isn't rational
Suppose you're the parent of a suicidal teen:
Would you suggest she take up an addictive, illegal drug?
(Probably not.)
Yet, that could be just the thing to give a depressed young person a reason to stay alive. And though it might be effective for a limited time, it could also get them through a rough patch that might otherwise kill them. After a while, you can concentrate on getting them off the drug. At least they're alive. But drugs are bad, m'kay?
Similarly, knowing that the best counselors and motivational speakers have been through addiction and incarceration, why wouldn't a guidance counselor in high school, when advising a student that wants to become a counselor, suggest that he take up a life of petty crime and drug addiction...to get the ball rolling.
For that matter, when we meet the type of person i'm referring to, they'll try to save you from the thing that made them great. "Kids, don't do what I did!" ...."why not? you're cool as hell and make a decent living being helpful."
Instead, we tend to use the 'lever' of influence with an unrealistic fulcrum. We can't admit what the likely outcome is. We aren't supposed to do cold analyses when morality is involved. When the young writer hits a wall, who will suggest he take up the bottle? Knowing how many great writers were drunks makes it awkward. Our reference points tend to be non-existent optimal outcomes.
We don't set out to be married several times. Instead, we look for the lasting possibility right off. Even if the stats suggest the 2nd or third will be best. What if we planned mistakes instead, knowing that we'll need to make a bunch of them? Sought the rejection? Get the accidents out of the way; pre-empt failure; emulate the path of the human(s) you most admire?
logic isn't rational
