I am sure you have more than one value—for example, the best way to prevent even slightest possibility of suffering is suicide, but as you are alive, you care to be alive. Moreover, I think that claims about values are not values—they are just good claims.
The real case of “one value person” are maniacs: that is a human version of a paperclipper. Typical examples of such maniacs are people obsessed with sex, money, or collecting of some random things; also drug addicts. Some of them are psychopaths: they look normal and are very effective, but do everything just for one goal.
Thanks for your comment—I will update the conclusion, so the bullet points will be linked with parts of the text which will explains them.
Terminal value monism is possible with impersonal compassion as the common motivation to resolve all conflicts. This means that every thus aligned small self lives primarily to prevent hellish states wherever they may arise, and that personal euthanasia is never a primary option, especially considering that survivors of suffering may later be in a good position to understand and help it in others (as well as contributing themselves as examples for our collective wisdom of life narratives that do/don’t get stuck in hellish ways).
Are you speaking from personal experience here, Teo? This seems like a plausible interpretation of self experience under certain conditions based on your mention of “impersonal compassion” (I’m being vague to avoid biasing your response), but it’s also contradictory to what we theorize to be possible based on the biological constructs on which the mind is manifested. I’m curious because it might point to a way to better understand the different viewpoints in this thread.
A good description why any one value may be not good is in https://www.academia.edu/173502/A_plurality_of_values
I am sure you have more than one value—for example, the best way to prevent even slightest possibility of suffering is suicide, but as you are alive, you care to be alive. Moreover, I think that claims about values are not values—they are just good claims.
The real case of “one value person” are maniacs: that is a human version of a paperclipper. Typical examples of such maniacs are people obsessed with sex, money, or collecting of some random things; also drug addicts. Some of them are psychopaths: they look normal and are very effective, but do everything just for one goal.
Thanks for your comment—I will update the conclusion, so the bullet points will be linked with parts of the text which will explains them.
Terminal value monism is possible with impersonal compassion as the common motivation to resolve all conflicts. This means that every thus aligned small self lives primarily to prevent hellish states wherever they may arise, and that personal euthanasia is never a primary option, especially considering that survivors of suffering may later be in a good position to understand and help it in others (as well as contributing themselves as examples for our collective wisdom of life narratives that do/don’t get stuck in hellish ways).
Terminal value monism may be possible as a pure philosophical model, but real biological humans have more complex motivational systems.
Are you speaking from personal experience here, Teo? This seems like a plausible interpretation of self experience under certain conditions based on your mention of “impersonal compassion” (I’m being vague to avoid biasing your response), but it’s also contradictory to what we theorize to be possible based on the biological constructs on which the mind is manifested. I’m curious because it might point to a way to better understand the different viewpoints in this thread.