Deep-thinkers, come (worldview discussion)

I'm bored, let's yap.

Have you ever heard of a logical conclusion and have you ever tested if you would agree with the logical conclusion of your worldview? Here's how it works:

We all have a set of values and beliefs. These are all justified by some kind of source/logic. A logical conclusion tests whether you would agree with something else that used the same source/logic to get there. If you wouldn't, then you should reflect upon your worldview before it comes back to bite you in the ass. That's the idea, at least.

For example, I believe there is nothing wrong with A because it is legal. Someone then asks, am I also okay with B, which is also legal. If my answer is no, then my worldview is illogical because it can't be used to justify two different things that use the same source/logic.

-To explain this example better, the problem isn't the fact I believe B is bad and A is okay even though they're both legal. The problem is the fact I am using "legal" as the justification for why A is good but I won't give B the same level of respect. It means that "legal" isn't my real justification and there is another reason as to why I think A is okay but B is not.-

There's nothing I hate more than people who laugh in your face when you apply logic from a more extreme scenario to a less extreme scenario, where the logic tracks the same.

They always exclaim "you're really comparing those two things??"

The majority of people are reactionary; that is to say they have no baseline beliefs or fundamental moral standards--they just base their morals on what feels the most 'right' when confronted with a scenario, without fully thinking it out. Everyone's a hypocrite to some degree, but only a few people are willing to admit it--especially in matters that are murky to talk about

What I was taught by my parents and school is the right thing to do is not always the good thing to do. This is because depending on the situation, you may or may not do the good thing but it is always the good thing to do.

I know eventually all ideals will be hypocritical in some way or another so I kinda just say fuck it, I'm staying with my ideals.

but what if, following your example, you don’t believe B should be legal even though it technically is? You’re thinking too binary here and it really feels like an excuse to defend whataboutism ngl

Speaking of worldviews, have you guys ever been reluctant to tell anyone what your worldview is out of fear of being isolated or it will simply invalidate whatever arguments you have about something?

On what subject specifically ?

-cut to turn into reply-

Finally. This is my kind of conversation.

I do agree that in most cases, when someone believes A is justified while B is not, there is at least a little bit of inherent bias. However, as Nachtel may have pointed out, it's not very fair to be comparing any two things to each other, as A could be justified for a reason that, if used for B, wouldn't make any sense.

For example, let's say there's no law indicated you must stay off of quiet, secluded neighbourhood roads.

If you are jaywalking on a secluded arterial road, you could argue that it's legal, and that would be justified since residents of the area have as much right to these quiet roads as vehicles do, there's not much risk or harm that can come from simply crossing that road, and frankly there's not really a better alternative when you consider the distance to the crosswalk, the time it takes to get there, and the amount of risk you're mitigating.

On the other hand, let's say you are sitting down, cross-legged, right in the middle of that same road. You could argue that it's legal—and you'd be right, because there's no law set in place telling you to stay off that road—but logically you can understand that this argument isn't enough to validate the action. In other words, it's still wrong. He's sitting right in the middle of the road. There's danger of injury from the cars wanting to pass through every several minutes; there's danger of infection from cuts they could get from the uneven paving; and it's just a stupid thing to be doing, no matter how you look at it. Sure, it's legal, but context matters. You're not quickly crossing the road, you're meditating in the middle of it. These are two very different contexts that require very different explanations as to why you think they're justified.

I understand the point you're trying to make—and I agree with that point, for the most part; if you want to back up what you're doing, you need to be open-minded and ready to accept others that are doing different things for the same reason. But there's a context to everything that we as humans do, and that context couldn't be more important in situations like these.

(Also this may not have been the most relevant example, but it was the first one to come to mind. Let me know if this example doesn't really make sense with what you're talking about)

reported for politics

Good logic but ur argument implies that legal = good at all times or that legal = bad at all times.

Legality and morality cannot be used interchangeably

Can't be bothered to elaborate unless you want me to

more times than not a thorough analysis of the relationships between premises is not conducted, and what you end up with is a bunch of motte and bailey's masquerading as accurate deductions.

Applying the largely inflexible laws of logic onto nuanced irl issues is a craft of its own

I think your set of values and beliefs is strongly influenced by the environment in which you are raised/grow up and the values and beliefs of individuals that you view as being either accomplished or successful in one way or another, therefore you attribute their opinions and beliefs with greater weight than those of people you may deem to be less accomplished by social standards, similar to how a lot of people assume that politicians need to fulfill a number of prerequisites in order to be able to lead a party or governmental body effectively.

Also,, as I believe was mentioned earlier, everybody is a hypocrite to a certain extent, predominantly because in today's society, there are very set beliefs and fundamentally established approaches to situations that most people won't be willing to stray from out of fear that they'll be ostracised for it, regardless of whether those norms coincide with their own beliefs or not. Humans are very social beings, thus having opinions and beliefs that differ too far from the norm would be opposing that desire.
Just recently had an extensive conversation regarding the upcoming presidential election, heard a lot of opinions, most of which I personally agreed with but some that I didn't, chose not to voice those opinions on account of trying to avoid a debate :)

Assuming we had a scenario where we were to take a bunch of children with little to no contact to other individuals, being provided with literature that serves no other purpose than to educate them on how the world is functioning (an objective, unopinionated display of how things are done), I think it would be interesting to hear what their opinions would be if confronted with various socially challenging scenarios (issues concerning race, gender, substance use, etc.), because I think its quite difficult for an individual, who grew up the "normal" way to stay perfectly objective (if there is such a thing) when it comes to making decisions on any topic really.

Obviously that will never happen due to that being highly unethical by social standards, as well as quite unfeasible to pull off anyway, considering the investments and logistics of it all. Still an interesting thought experiment. Just talking out of my ass here, but would be interesting.

I’m tryna find a compromise between Sience and Christanity