4 ms·

This same concept comes up frequently, when you have two opposing states of the same entity, which both oppose changing to the other. i.e. a sleepy kid who doe

This same concept comes up frequently, when you have two opposing states of the same entity, which both oppose changing to the other. i.e. a sleepy kid who doesn't want to go to bed vs that same kid, well-rested the next day. They both resist becoming each other, yet they're the same person. There doesn't seem to be a way to rectify this conflict without a unifying value system (or just letting nature decide). Parents frequently overrule one version of an entity and force it to another. There are more contentious examples like forcing an alcoholic to get sober, or putting a resistant kid through boot camp "for their own good". The general point is that there's an argument against always obeying an entity's local preferences. But, generally accepting the right to overrule someone's preferences opens the door to all kinds of exploitation, too. It doesn't seem clear how to resolve this, and there may not be a single answer. Some people argue as if all potential states are equally valid, and we should judge by the retroactive reward we would get from adjusting states.

hammock 4y ago
Plato said: “Good actions strengthen ourselves and inspire good actions in others.” I believe that is a tidy, principled way of resolving the conundrum of self-interest vs utilitarianism.
- epivosism 4y ago
  It also gets probabilistic. Resisting change is generally smart (to avoid exploitation) - there have always been charlatans and innate stubbornness seems to me to be valuable to resist them. Particularly when the cost of evaluating a claim is high, just dumbly resisting change can be beneficial. But change can also be good, obviously. So I'm trying to figure out what you meant! Are you pointing to 'strengthen' as the main value? i.e. to preserve your existence in the world as one of the primary values? That makes sense to me and would certainly often be selected for.
  - hammock 4y ago
    I sort of took your argument a level further before responding. Your line of reasoning begs the age-old ethical question of if and how we should compel behavior in others (whether “the other” is physically someone else or simply our future self) for some longer-term or greater benefit? The “strengthening” part of the answer is in essence a rejection of hedonism, as well. Hopefully that helps
crawfordcomeaux 4y ago
I offer up a solution may be to abandon cultures of preference-making/-sticking/-catering and help people notice the impact of their actions. This enables deeper learning.
kjkjadksj 4y ago
I was a former stay up all night kid. Honestly the reason was I had no time for myself at all unless it was the end of the day. From the morning until like 9pm you are tied up with school or homework and forced to do crap you hate, and you get in trouble for doing stuff you like. I was astounded at how much free time I ended up having in college, to the point it severely backfired and I had to relearn how to actually study and manage my time after a few bad semesters. Its like what was good for me as a student was always at odds with my mental health since the school system doesnt have a concept of “self care” that therapists speak of.

hammock 4y ago

Plato said: “Good actions strengthen ourselves and inspire good actions in others.” I believe that is a tidy, principled way of resolving the conundrum of self-interest vs utilitarianism.

epivosism 4y ago
It also gets probabilistic. Resisting change is generally smart (to avoid exploitation) - there have always been charlatans and innate stubbornness seems to me to be valuable to resist them. Particularly when the cost of evaluating a claim is high, just dumbly resisting change can be beneficial. But change can also be good, obviously. So I'm trying to figure out what you meant! Are you pointing to 'strengthen' as the main value? i.e. to preserve your existence in the world as one of the primary values? That makes sense to me and would certainly often be selected for.
- hammock 4y ago
  I sort of took your argument a level further before responding. Your line of reasoning begs the age-old ethical question of if and how we should compel behavior in others (whether “the other” is physically someone else or simply our future self) for some longer-term or greater benefit? The “strengthening” part of the answer is in essence a rejection of hedonism, as well. Hopefully that helps

crawfordcomeaux 4y ago

I offer up a solution may be to abandon cultures of preference-making/-sticking/-catering and help people notice the impact of their actions. This enables deeper learning.

kjkjadksj 4y ago

I was a former stay up all night kid. Honestly the reason was I had no time for myself at all unless it was the end of the day. From the morning until like 9pm you are tied up with school or homework and forced to do crap you hate, and you get in trouble for doing stuff you like. I was astounded at how much free time I ended up having in college, to the point it severely backfired and I had to relearn how to actually study and manage my time after a few bad semesters. Its like what was good for me as a student was always at odds with my mental health since the school system doesnt have a concept of “self care” that therapists speak of.