Ethics with regard to tulpa creation.

[Drakaina]

I might be speaking in slightly too general terms, but, like I said, you're defeatist. "Different circumstances" are things to be abstracted away, to be defeated. You should be like Judas and notice your biases, but the point of noticing them is so you can obviate them! Likewise for anything else.

 

Not really on topic but this is something I had to address. Different circumstances is not something to be quoted as a concept, and cannot be "abstracted away". Our circumstances are a (if not the) determinate factor in who we are and how we see the world.

A rich person will never know the struggle to get by that a poor person has, a religious person cannot know what it's like to believe in nothing (spiritually), a female can never know what it's like to be kicked in the grapes.

 

Sure we can say that we can pull back from them and approach things objectively, and to a point that's true. However just like how J.Iscariot has said before that there's no such thing as a tulpa with true free will, or freedom from the host's influence; there's no such thing as a person free from the influences of their circumstances. A person's experiences and life circumstances will always be present in how an individual sees the world and the beliefs or situations of others.

 

I'm convinced that is why world peace is no closer to happening now than it ever was in the past. People cannot come to a perfect understanding because we are different people. You may not like to say "Everyone is different, agreement is impossible." but it's an unfortunate fact of the world, and it's something you'll eventually need to accept.

 

---

 

On the topic of the thread, it dawned on me that I was probably making more sub-categories of ethical and unethical in my mind than what's probably needed. By virtue of the words there are two categories, ethical and unethical, so anything that isn't the latter must be the former.

 

I am not as hard on myself as many here seem to be, what with supposing free will doesn't exist, the host unintentionally restricting personality, a "be my friend or be dissolved" kind of blackmail life of a tulpa.

I think the word I want here isn't "selfish", but "self indulgent". Technically every reason anyone could ever think of to make a tulpa is selfish, but I don't believe selfish = bad/unethical. Humans are still just animals, and like every animal on the planet what we do is fueled by a selfish desire to survive and live comfortably. I think what makes a reason unethical is that it is dictated by a baser instinct and/or without serious thought and consideration given for a decent length of time. So like the examples I listed above, romantic reasons and an eager jump into tulpamancy because it's "cool" or to create a character you may be obsessing over. (I've done it enough times to know you always come out of it, and your thoughts/actions are always very embarrassing when you do.)

 

I think we tend to carry the ethics for reason further into the tulpa/mancer's life as well. If a tulpa was made for a reasonable reason, say as a friend, but the tulpamancer takes it too far and recluses into their own mind, shuns the physical world, it taints the reason. Same if a tulpa is created to help the host balance out their rational/emotional balance. The reason becomes harmful to both parties, and is then interpreted as "unethical".

[waffles]

Anyways, yes, that first two paragraphs' point makes sense. I understand your point of view there. But then I think, "Humans aren't objective by nature though. We don't have extremely precise beliefs, we have blurry subjective ones that are influenced by misconceptions as much as they are fact. Only some humans hold objective truth as one of their highest values, many others draw the line somewhere before that point."

 

They're blurry, somewhat, but, well, that's something that can be resolved. Actually, any science is very much in the business of making these blurry statements precise; it's not a prerequisite for discussion but it sure helps. I can't really speak for those who don't value objective truth (which is just truth), but I do care about being right, anyway. That's why I want to argue, because I don't like the fact that I may have misconceptions, and it's the best way to get rid of them.

 

 

there's a difference in how I and most others think that entails more neutrality/unbiased thinking, although obviously not purely so. I don't remember why this was relevant. But inversely that implies that others are less neutral/unbiased in creating their beliefs, meaning they're not objective at all. Right?

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think everyone likes to think that they're more unbiased than most, to the point where humility should be the order of the day, I reckon. But, well, no, other people being more biased just means that they're more biased; you said like two lines before that it was a sliding scale, there's no "at all" about it.

 

And I'll take the compliment, I guess. I think it has more to do with communication than anything else. Like, I see "arguments" on the forum here sometimes that are mostly long strings of misunderstandings. If you understand and have counterpoints, and I do too, then what we're really doing is learning more about what each other actually believe, which is the point of the exercise, in effect.

 

 

---

 

 

A rich person will never know the struggle to get by that a poor person has, a religious person cannot know what it's like to believe in nothing (spiritually), a female can never know what it's like to be kicked in the grapes.

[...]

there's no such thing as a person free from the influences of their circumstances. A person's experiences and life circumstances will always be present in how an individual sees the world and the beliefs or situations of others.

 

I basically disagree. There are two things here. Firstly, like Lumi you're pretty defeatist. Like, "WE CAN NEVER WIN". Great. Meanwhile, I actually want to try and, you know, try to abstract these things away as far as possible.

 

Secondly, consider the case of the rich person. Say they're biased on some beliefs because of it, maybe towards being more politically conservative. Now, with the knowledge that wealth biases towards conservatism, our rational rich person can look at themselves and say, "Okay, so I feel pretty conservative, but I'm biased towards that by my economic status. How can I eliminate this bias?" And this is a very answerable question. Hell, at this point you can start citing studies. Sociology studies maybe, but studies nonetheless, and that's where you want to be. It becomes a game of trying to establish the truth of the matter, if you want. You can definitely overcorrect and become a communist. Or undercorrect (trivially by not correcting at all). The truth lies somewhere in between, but given that you can end up on either side, once you correct for bias you're no longer biased, only inaccurate. Kind of.

 

Do you get what I mean here? It's a somewhat subtle point about statistics - technical definitions of bias versus variance, I guess. Bias is how much you're systematically more likely to be on one side than the other. Variance is just how far away you're likely to be. If you know that you're a priori biased to one side, you want to guess at the magnitude of that bias and correct for it. There are subtleties here, but my basic claim is that if you're doing it right, you're not going to systematically underestimate your own bias - that in itself is often referred to as "bias blind spot":

The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of recognizing the impact of biases on the judgement of others, while failing to see the impact of biases on one's own judgement. [...] In a sample of more than 600 residents of the United States, more than 85% believed they were less biased than the average American.

I quote this to say, "Don't worry, we can take care of it". When you make a serious and concerted effort at figuring out biases, you can. And if, like I said, you're also aware of bias-judging biases, you can make a guess at your actual biases that are on average correct.

 

Maybe I'm getting a little carried away about this. My point is that you're not supposed to give up when you realise that you have biases. You're supposed to try to correct them. ... I mean if you think world peace rests on the ability to do this then you seem genocidally defeatist. I know it seems all wise and whatever to talk about acceptance and stuff but frankly such talk is rationalising away trying to, you know, fix things that are bad. Like, just the line "it's an unfortunate fact of the world" sends alarm bells ringing, because things like polio used to be unfortunate facts of the world, and now they're fortunate unfacts. You're making strong claims about what is and isn't possible, and even stronger ones about what will and won't be possible in the future.

 

TL;DR: don't do too much disservice to exactly what careful study can achieve. There are unfixable problems but I don't think that this is one of them.

 

 

---

 

 

I think what makes a reason unethical is that it is dictated by a baser instinct and/or without serious thought and consideration given for a decent length of time.

 

Does that really square with what ethics are supposed to achieve? I think what you said here:

The reason becomes harmful to both parties, and is then interpreted as "unethical".

Is what I'd agree with. Just don't conflate reason with outcome. "The reason becomes tainted" in more clear terms means "the outcome was bad". The thing becomes clearer when you don't try to cut "reasons" into ethical and unethical categories, because like you said, the consequences matter to whether the action was ethical. In that sense while serious thought and consideration might make a bad outcome less likely, it's only that, and not what bears the ethical burden in and of itself.

 

It seems funny to stick such a short on-topic comment on the end of the long off-topic one, but then again questions about how much we can discuss the topic at hand are tangentially relevant anyway I guess.

[Luminesce]

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

 

Me neither, I was really tired last night. I somehow got into discussing that subject and then couldn't remember how or why it was relevant, so I tried to bridge the gap.

 

But, well, no, other people being more biased just means that they're more biased; you said like two lines before that it was a sliding scale, there's no "at all" about it.

 

You can't be "kind of objective". Heck, my entire argument is relying on the fact that everyones' beliefs and experiences are subjective because they can only get close to objectivity. All I said was I was further to the logic side than some people, I wouldn't in a thousand years say my beliefs were objective. [hidden]And even though they all seem logical to me (the ones I've consciously chosen, not all of them of course), I found in trying to share these ways of thinking that lessened the suffering in my life with others that it didn't matter. Perhaps it's to be expected for implying my beliefs were any less subjective than others', but I've met very few people who cared that their beliefs were biased. I've met very few people willing to try and change how they see things to improve their livelihoods, so many that I eventually stopped trying to help people in that way. You can't make somebody change, you can only show them that they have the option to do so. I used to be extremely empathetic and so tried to show people why they felt bad and how they could absolve the beliefs and perspectives they had that caused the negativity, but yeah, no one cared. Well, I found one person, but by that point I'd decided to only help people who asked for help.[/hidden] Oops did it again, don't know how I got here..

 

 

Anyways, you seem to be arguing something different than I. I'm not saying it's impossible to use objectivity to come to understandings, I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, and despite the "you will only ever experience subjective reality" thing I still fully respect the sciences and what they do.

 

What I'm saying is that objectivity is not how people work. It can be used, sure, can be the basis for subjective beliefs too. But the way you're responding to my points is like saying that people are subjective by nature but through productive debate and discussion can become objective. In any given aspect of the mind. Like.. No, they definitely can't. So I'm sure that's not what you're implying, it's just what I got out of it. I think you're arguing that objectivity can be used to bridge subjective-belief gaps and that that is optimal, while I'm saying that not everyone wants to. Which I'm pretty sure ends at your "it would be optimal/preferable if it were that way and we should strive towards it". My argument wasn't that it was impossible, it was that an unfortunate number of people don't care, or don't know any better. And that that's just the way it is. You can try and change that on a case by case basis, but "an unfortunate number" refers to the greater majority of all humans.

 

I don't even know what exactly your goal is for a person following that ideal. Just to get as close as possible to objective truth as possible for optimal mutual understanding? (Also, subjective truth means true to one person but not necessarily to others. It's not real truth, but that's why it's called subjective, it can be flawed and biased as heck but for the working moment it is "true" to them).

 

 

Anything I didn't just respond to I'm completely checked out on, sorry. As for the bias blind spot thing, I've got two thoughts on that. I'm basically certain that I am less "biased" in general than the average person, because I help opposing sides in an argument understand each other much more often than I argue myself, so that would imply I was less "biased" than any of the people in said arguments (and there are a LOT of people who like to argue, just look at politics).

 

That being said, that's not how I really feel myself, just felt like putting it out there because it's probably still true in a way. In reality my beliefs are again very meta, and I don't actually believe anyone can be more or less biased than anyone else on anything. Similar to the concept of selflessness still being selfishness. OhgodIwroteanotheronesaveyourselfstophere [hidden]The basis of my humanitarianism/love of all humans came from that belief - it's really too difficult for me to explain to someone who doesn't already understand, but basically I see every single thing a human can do or think as the culmination of everything in the universe that happened before it. Strangely enough it's a perspective related to the belief that free will doesn't exist for the same reason (it's not really a belief, it's just a perspective, though it's purely theoretical and certainly has no basis in a living creature's experience). It's not a "truth" or anything, just a choice in the perspective you subscribe to. But because I do, it means I can't "blame" any human for anything. Hitler is no different from Gandhi from that perspective, they both simply did what was predetermined to happen exactly as it did. That's only one of many perspectives I use in my filter of perceiving the world of course, there's a multitude of different value systems that still differentiate those two very distinctly. But it's somewhere among my morality/judgement ones, and affects how I really feel about things if not always how I react to them, though that may also be affected.

 

I got distracted three lines up and tried to pick up where I left off but ohgod I've created a monster here. It's really hard to talk about stuff related to... thinking... when your ways of thinking are as complicated as my own. My beliefs are like a frankenstein of arbitrary/confusing concepts to anyone other than myself.[/hidden]

[Drakaina]

[lots of text]

This is where I think your opinion is detrimental. You seem to lack the ability to "agree to disagree" and move on from an issue. You are stuck in a loop because you can't see beyond your own beliefs that everything can be abstracted and seen "objectively", whether that's even true or not. Peace can never be attained as long as one person continues to force (which is what you're starting to do) their way of seeing things on others.

 

It's very clear that you have no intention of seeing beyond your own perceptions, let alone acknowledging the other side, so I won't debate this further with you.

It seems funny to stick such a short on-topic comment on the end of the long off-topic one, but then again questions about how much we can discuss the topic at hand are tangentially relevant anyway I guess.

Really, the were about the same length, it's just how I broke up the off topic response that makes it seem longer.

 

I'll be upfront, as a therian I operate on my instincts and simple associations. The concepts of ethics feels forced to me, and over-complicates something that should be simple. Living a peaceful life, making as few waves as you need to, and acting with force only when you or your kids are threatened/in danger.

I have the capacity to do the human thing and abstract concepts, deep thinking, ect. But to me it ultimately serves no purpose. It doesn't benefit my mental or physical health, more often it has the opposite because it brings about stressful debates like the ones on objectivity, free will, the nature of reality. It does no good to question things that cannot be confirmed, and are based on subjective beliefs and experience.

[waffles]

What I'm saying is that objectivity is not how people work. It can be used, sure, can be the basis for subjective beliefs too. [...] My argument wasn't that it was impossible, it was that an unfortunate number of people don't care, or don't know any better. And that that's just the way it is.

 

I wanna echo my original wording and say, "I find it weird." I don't viscerally understand not wanting to be right, in general. You spent a lot of time philosophising about subjectivity and objectivity but if in the end what you really mean is that people don't really care about getting things right then I don't really know. We apparently agree that people can only approximate objectivity, and only then if they try.

 

 

subjective truth means true to one person but not necessarily to others. It's not real truth, but that's why it's called subjective, it can be flawed and biased as heck but for the working moment it is "true" to them

 

That is vacuous. A truth is true, OK. It leaves me wondering in what capacity something is "true" for one person and not for others. If it's "true to them", do you just mean that they think it's true, i.e., it's their belief?

 

 

I'm basically certain that I am less "biased" in general than the average person, because I help opposing sides in an argument understand each other much more often than I argue myself, so that would imply I was less "biased" than any of the people in said arguments

 

I don't see the reasoning at all. How inclined you are, and how good you are, as a moderator in discussions might have something to do with your own ability to set aside your own beliefs but not necessarily how un/biased those beliefs are. Rather, that might be conflating it with when you call someone a "biased referee" - their bias is in a professional context; what's really meant is that they're not impartial.

 

 

basically I see every single thing a human can do or think as the culmination of everything in the universe that happened before it. Strangely enough it's a perspective related to the belief that free will doesn't exist for the same reason [...] it means I can't "blame" any human for anything. Hitler is no different from Gandhi from that perspective, they both simply did what was predetermined to happen exactly as it did.

 

At least this is actually ethics. Well, determinism as applied to ethics is slightly thorny but definitely familiar ground. Yes, you can cut it like that. Actually what that really does is tell you that "blame" as such isn't really a state or quality of something. It's a policy. Or to put it somewhat facetiously, your ethics are fucked if you can't tell the difference between anything. Like, you're just doing it wrong. My answer is this: blame is a policy we apply to stop people from mass murdering. In a sense. Determinism as applied to decision theory is itself a "solved" problem: you shouldn't let it get in the way of making good decisions. I think this is a somewhat technical point about ethics but, as I like to say, there's a literature on it.

 

 

---

 

 

This is where I think your opinion is detrimental. You seem to lack the ability to "agree to disagree" and move on from an issue. You are stuck in a loop because you can't see beyond your own beliefs that everything can be abstracted and seen "objectively", whether that's even true or not. Peace can never be attained as long as one person continues to force (which is what you're starting to do) their way of seeing things on others.

 

It's very clear that you have no intention of seeing beyond your own perceptions, let alone acknowledging the other side, so I won't debate this further with you.

 

I'm not going to be able to "see beyond my beliefs" if you offer a non-answer, no. I'm happy to "acknowledge the other side" by telling you why I think it's wrong, and then ideally you'd be telling me why it's not wrong and why you think I'm wrong. But, "clearly you have no intention of doing this". You really should not be acting like this when someone takes up a disagreement with you. You are not getting any closer to world peace, anyway.

 

I have no particular desire to agree to disagree, for exactly the reasons that I've already said a few times. One or both of us are wrong if we're disagreeing. Half the time it's me, and I'd quite like to resolve that. I'm not trying to "force" my beliefs on you. I'm telling you about them, just like you told yours. That's discussion. I can't fathom what I'm doing that you aren't. What do you want to happen here? That everyone post their own beliefs, and then we kind of sit around in mutual love and acceptance for a while and then go home? Or what, that I can't see that you're right, so I should just quit it already?

 

 

Really, the were about the same length, it's just how I broke up the off topic response that makes it seem longer.

 

I was referring to my own post. I guess that was badly formatted, sorry.

 

 

I'll be upfront, as a therian I operate on my instincts and simple associations. The concepts of ethics feels forced to me, and over-complicates something that should be simple. Living a peaceful life, making as few waves as you need to, and acting with force only when you or your kids are threatened/in danger.

 

We live in a modern world with technology and tanks and bioengineering. As a therian you may not be suited to tackle ethical problems that are not simple. We don't really live in a simple world. Besides which, that is ethics, just simplistic; you're still giving moral imperatives.

[Luminesce]

People don't not care about being "right" per se, but they may not care about being "objectively right", which to us means purely logical or scientific. Their "right" and your "right" and objective truth can all be different things.

 

You're being picky again IMO, but yes, truth is a poor word to use there. The way I was using the word "true" was referring to peoples' beliefs in relation to subjective (ie emotional, biased, or otherwise) matters. Someone may think going to war is the answer in response to a terrorist attack, others not. Of course neither is likely going to outright say that their belief is objectively correct, but they sure believe it enough they'll argue for it. I called that a "subjective truth", but belief is probably a better word. I guess. Why do people have to be so picky about the words I use? Do you think I'm actually misunderstanding something because of how literally you took the words? If so, fair enough. But I'll warn you that there's going to be lots more posts like this one in the future explaining how I meant something as opposed to how you read it, because apparently I'm unable to express myself with literal perfection. (See, nobody expects that, but we tend to ignore lesser issues, and I feel like you and many others don't. But I'm sure that's simply how you are and not a conscious choice.)

 

 

Impartial may be a better word, I dunno. I suppose the blame is on me for attempting to argue with poor personal definitions for words. Whether it was your intention or not you made me think of something though, perhaps one of the aspects to being "unbiased" is your expression of what you believe after you've got your own beliefs in order. That would make sense with what I said before, that nobody is any more or less biased than another. But, in any given scenario, there is a concept of "being unbiased". Often on tulpa.info (constantly) I teach and write in a more "unbiased" fashion than I think. Now I don't mean that I believe my beliefs are all more correct than everyone elses', but I do believe that at least for me they work better than others'. (If and when they don't, I modify them with what I learned) They aren't however what I write, what I use to directly inform others on the phenomenon. I take into account all I know of others' beliefs and balance them with mine based on my understanding of their understanding of the matter at hand, and I try to give both a general "correct answer" from those plus the more prominent single viewpoints, sometimes including my own. That is what we'd call being unbiased here, defined as not refusing views that don't completely coincide with your own if they seem likely to work well for others. Something like that anyway. Yet my biases remain the same as anyone else's.

 

I like how little actual point all this discussion has, but it's fun to think about at least. For me. Pretty sure most others gave up reading these by now, understandably so.

 

 

I actually ran into a wall when I started talking about determinism - as you read, determinism is the root of my belief that all humans are perfectly equal, among other relatively peace-inducing beliefs about life. The love/positive aspects came from Reisen though, love simply seems to generate itself, perpetuate itself. Logically speaking I saw no reason not to pick up all of the positive beliefs she had, because they only seemed to benefit everyone.

 

But uh, determinism doesn't apply to humans at all. Like I said, it's a theoretical perspective. It can be said to be objective in nature, but we ourselves can't hold it. In fact it's not even correct should a human hold it - they aren't above determinism, and allowing themselves to believe they have no free will would just be.. stupid? Incorrect? Then they use their free will to pretend they don't have any. From a human perspective free will most certainly does exist. So when I was explaining my beliefs relating to what is effectively determinism and how I use it, I actually couldn't explain why it was relevant at all, couldn't justify it. So don't get me wrong, I've no delusions of human beings lacking free will.

 

I think the reason I used that perspective was to enable myself to adopt Reisen's seemingly illogical beliefs and logically explain them. How could I justify loving every human being, not hating any human being, all this senseless positivity? Well, if everything is so subjective anyways due to determinism then there's really no reason not to choose the beliefs that will benefit me and others. Something like that. That's pretty insightful, I'm going to pretend it's true.

 

 

 

And with that, we're so incredibly away from the subject of tulpamancy that I don't feel much desire to keep up the conversation. People act like long discussions of philosophy and morality in a thread hurt them, even though logically unwanted text in that manner should be equivalent to no text at all. We only got this far off topic because there didn't seem to be anything left to talk about on-topic, lol.

 

But as always, if you've got more to say then I will see if there's anything more to respond with. Just remember that even though I called this fun it's really more stressful than not. Philosophizing myself or with my tulpas is easier than talking to another person because there's so much more effort involved in just attempting to make them understand, before you can actually start being productive. Not to mention all the potential people watching. Someone's gonna see this textwall and ignore it, but still think that you and I are writing about a bunch of boring unnecessary stuff, and I'd rather avoid giving off that impression.

[ableddistress]

Not touching this with a six foot stick.

[Guest Anonymous]

People do life altering things every day without a single thought to ethics, how it affects others around them, or the ultimate consequences or further ramifications or philosophical considerations. Along comes people who "live" only in your head and it turns into a textwall battle of epic proportions. My host and I have said it before, if you take a step back from this website and look at it from some distance, the ridiculousness of it all it becomes abundantly clear. How much time did each person waste on responding to this muddled blather babble today instead of doing something productive?

 

OH c'mon relax, I am just having a little fun with you guys. I am being facetious. (mostly)

 

[waffles]

You're being picky again IMO, but yes, truth is a poor word to use there. The way I was using the word "true" was referring to peoples' beliefs in relation to subjective (ie emotional, biased, or otherwise) matters. [...] Why do people have to be so picky about the words I use? Do you think I'm actually misunderstanding something because of how literally you took the words?

 

Well, I didn't know what you meant so I asked for clarification. On the point, though, I'd say that what I said earlier still applies. Your example, and I think more generally what you call "subjective matters", is merely ambiguous. What does it mean for war to be or not be the answer to a terrorist attack, or, stripping away any turns of phrase, whether a country should go to war in response to a terrorist attack? It's an ethical and empirical matter; what do we want to achieve, in general, and how do we achieve it? The first is "subjective" in a sense, the second isn't. Personally I wouldn't even extend the term "belief" to talk about ethical preferences insofar as they're subjective, but I realise that's not really important.

 

 

That is what we'd call being unbiased here, defined as not refusing views that don't completely coincide with your own if they seem likely to work well for others. Something like that anyway.

 

I think this point is an interesting one. It's not what I understand by bias, but it's definitely something that we should be doing, if I'm reading you right. Maybe the context, and the "use" of beliefs skews things a bit, but more generally you can and should be weighting your own "beliefs" with those of others as far as you can't really reconcile them. Because if you don't know why you disagree, either one of you could be wrong, right, and that means that, if you value their empiricism as equal to your own, they're just as likely to be right as you. Of course, your "belief" then becomes the aggregate.

 

 

I think the reason I used that perspective was to enable myself to adopt Reisen's seemingly illogical beliefs and logically explain them. How could I justify loving every human being, not hating any human being, all this senseless positivity? Well, if everything is so subjective anyways due to determinism then there's really no reason not to choose the beliefs that will benefit me and others. Something like that. That's pretty insightful, I'm going to pretend it's true.

 

This whole line of thought just leaves me in the dust honestly. I mean, I get wanting to have positive beliefs, and on a meta level that's fine, but it doesn't make any sense to then talk about why the thing you don't really think is true justifies your beliefs. Moreover I'm not sure if you mixed things up here but how does determinism justify choosing beliefs? I thought it was determinism justifying being happy and everything, and choosing determinism. That's aside from what you actually said about determinism somehow not applying to humans despite applying to nature, on which I can't really think of a way in.

 

 

Not to mention all the potential people watching. Someone's gonna see this textwall and ignore it, but still think that you and I are writing about a bunch of boring unnecessary stuff, and I'd rather avoid giving off that impression.

 

I don't really want to stress you. Though in a certain sense I think it's, maybe, good practice to try to get others to understand. Actually I think it goes a bit further, that you need to make someone else understand something at least once, as a fair guarantee of that thing actually making sense at all. Still, if anyone is watching, then, hi. This is unnecessary but so is most stuff, like the original thread and every other thread and so on.

 

 

---

 

 

People do life altering things every day without a single thought to ethics, how it affects others around them, or the ultimate consequences or further ramifications or philosophical considerations.

 

Can we just not do that? How is that a good idea? "People do things without thinking about their consequences all the time, ethics are useless." Like what the fuck. What the fuck. No, of course we care about the consequences, dear God.

[Guest Anonymous]

Mistgod and I really don't put a lot of weight on the ethical consequences of others creating imaginary peoples in their own minds. But, by all means, carry on. The conversation is amusingly pointless.