Please help me see my way around a contradiction inherent in your request. Stripping away the labels you have chosen to use, you appear to be asking for arguments in favor of an amoral lifestyle over a moral lifestyle. Almost by definition, I can’t give consequentialist reasons why you should choose to let go of consequentialist reasoning. I can point out that “vagabonding” might be really fun and you could gain some life experience, or something.
If you accept the reality of happiness setpoints, it is probably already clear to you that you will probably end up just as happy no matter what you actually end up doing. You could choose to see that as a reason to go ahead and take the “moral” path. Or not. If you’re actually asking which set of values are “right,” well, welcome to the human condition.
I find that whenever I’m in a crisis, I almost always end up doing the thing which it was my first impulse to do. The real content of a crisis is in formulating the arguments which justify to myself and my important people that my gut feeling is the “correct” choice.
Yes, thanks for noticing the seeming contradiction.
The argument you mentioned based on happiness is the only one that occured to me so far. And It was part of my reasoning for the past choice towards consequentialism anyway.
I was looking for a “third alternative” for someone who could do what Quine did when he created a way of discussion ontology by setting at least language as ground in “On What There Is”.
I wanted someone to give me an argument which didn’t depend on any moral view, which would open a whole new field of inquiry, orthogonal to current morality. My wishes, or standards, it seems, are highly demanding.
Please help me see my way around a contradiction inherent in your request. Stripping away the labels you have chosen to use, you appear to be asking for arguments in favor of an amoral lifestyle over a moral lifestyle. Almost by definition, I can’t give consequentialist reasons why you should choose to let go of consequentialist reasoning. I can point out that “vagabonding” might be really fun and you could gain some life experience, or something.
If you accept the reality of happiness setpoints, it is probably already clear to you that you will probably end up just as happy no matter what you actually end up doing. You could choose to see that as a reason to go ahead and take the “moral” path. Or not. If you’re actually asking which set of values are “right,” well, welcome to the human condition.
I find that whenever I’m in a crisis, I almost always end up doing the thing which it was my first impulse to do. The real content of a crisis is in formulating the arguments which justify to myself and my important people that my gut feeling is the “correct” choice.
Yes, thanks for noticing the seeming contradiction. The argument you mentioned based on happiness is the only one that occured to me so far. And It was part of my reasoning for the past choice towards consequentialism anyway. I was looking for a “third alternative” for someone who could do what Quine did when he created a way of discussion ontology by setting at least language as ground in “On What There Is”. I wanted someone to give me an argument which didn’t depend on any moral view, which would open a whole new field of inquiry, orthogonal to current morality.
My wishes, or standards, it seems, are highly demanding.