Thread: If ignorance is bliss, would depriving knowledge be a moral solution?

I don't get it. If the algae tastes better, why would they even care?

Interesting discussion between Dawkins and Harris I was just watching, where he coincidentally suggests that some knowledge is best left unknown. It can be found at 57:50 in.
YouTube - Sam_Harris_2011_1.mp4

And yes, I agree with Xei: if the algae is better why would anyone care about missing out on a sub-par virtual experience?

If ignorance is bliss, would depriving knowledge be a moral solution?

Possibly in certain cases, depending on the nature and level of the suffering that comes along with that knowledge. However I think there are also moral issues that need to be tackled over the right to decide to withhold knowledge from someone and prevent them from making their own informed choice.

As the situation here seems rather flawed, why not borrow a better example from fiction? Imagine we're part of a Matrix-like world, where we live inside a fairly comfortable VR world, whilst the real world is pretty crappy and humanity is enslaved to a bunch of machines (as nonsensical as the reasoning is in the series). Is it moral to wake someone up and reveal the truth to them that their comfortable life is a fiction, and bring them into a harsh reality of suffering?

interesting context. from the title of the thread, I would give a snap-no.

however, in this post-apocalyptic world with no change of being saved, I'd say yes. die happy.

this is of course the negative approach, as the idealist would say that without the VR humanity might be able to dig himself out of this grave, and create a better civilization for himself, somehow.

Yeah photolysis' example is a lot better.
The OP's example is about a person personally deciding whether to try it or not.
The second question is irrelevant as there is no real hamburger out there anyway to compare it with.

A better example with your basis would be if you had real hamburgers, would it be right to give these people one hamburger each, even though from then on, all they can have is the VR hamburgers.

Anyway.

I think it doesn't matter. People suffer regardless of what they know. It is somehow imbedded in us that we think of some reason to suffer, feel bad etc.

I've thought about this a bit. "Ditsy" people seem to be a lot happier than anyone else. But they aren't, I've befriended some of these types of people to get an insight in to what they actually think about etc. People seem to open up to me a lot for some reason and I've found that they are just as miserable and happy as most other people.

I think the key might be to gain a lot of knowledge and experience, and then sort of regress in to ignorance. I think this would bring "bliss".

Unfortunately it's hard to let go of knowledge once you get it. It is also hard to stop thinking about things.

It's like all these people who are paranoid of germs now. Because we figured out there are all these teeny tiny things everywhere, all over us all the time that could kill us at any moment.
They were always there, but now that people know it, they are paranoid about it.
Before that they were probably paranoid about something else though.

Similar mechanism with your hamburger scenario. The people would probably be frustrated that all they could eat is algae (assuming there was knowledge of previous foods, but they had never eaten them). Just the same crap day in, day out. Then you show them the hamburger and they would be in ecastasy, then they would get bored with that too.

Unless they never knew there was anything else; Which may be what you were trying to say in your second example, I realise now. Although you said it quite incorrectly.

But that would be impossible, all other options would have to be eliminated. Theoretically, though, if nothing is left alive, just some humans, and they never knew anything else, I suppose it would be better to never tell them that any other food existed besides algae. They might be okay with that. Since there are no other options. They don't know what they're missing out on.

It would require a great change in mindset to be able to tell them and not have them suffer. You would have to teach them to imagine things, but not want them IRL, to be satisfied with imagining in great detail what other things would be like that they have never experienced.

I'll post more tomorrow. This is a great topic and I've been thinking about this for a while now on and off. Should be good to talk about.

Originally Posted by Lseadragon

A hypothetical situation, put together by reading altogether too much James Tiptree Jr. Go check him out.

It's 2200, and the sixth extinction has come to pass, along with a substantial loss in technology. Humanity is now subsisting on ocean-grown algae concoctions. Caivar, mint ice cream, the cheeseburger; such delicacies no longer exist, and cannot be acquired ever again, through natural means or artificial. The technology does not now exist for growing meat, or reengineering cows.

However, limited virtual reality -does- exist, a holdover from the Fall; and within it are programmed all these delights, tasteable through the scent and flavour depositors of the VR suits. But it is limited; everything within it is a mere shadow of reality, including the hamburger, which although accurate to taste within VR limits (as it was programmed by somebody who knew its delights) is actually less pleasant than most of the algae, and doesn't come close to the real thing.

So my question is this. Given that all who experience the VR hamburger will know that there is a real hamburger out there that they can never taste, would it be better never to try the hamburger at all? A minor experience would be lost, but the eternal dissatisfaction would not occur.

Furthermore, would it be morally correct to never reveal that this VR hamburger exists at all, if it would only seem to inflict a misery upon the population?

I may edit details of this scenario as they are picked at, in case I didn't state things properly.

So wait...humanity has lost technology because of a mass extinction? What is a wave of killer nano-robots that eat metal?

Okay, just ignore my initial scenario. Photolysis's is much more clear. I expected I'd durp out on what I was trying to say if I had all these conditions in it, as it didn't seem it should be that hard to express.

Restart.

(Incidentally to answer Xei's question the point was not that it was better but that it was something novel. Say you were locked in a room and you only had A: Toast and B: Pineapple squares that made you feel sick to eat. If you never had the pineapple squares you wouldn't try them out of boredom, but having them there and nothing else besides the toast you'd probably try them a couple of times with the consequences. So would it be better to be deprived of the pineapple? But it's not the most clear thing.)

As the situation here seems rather flawed, why not borrow a better example from fiction? Imagine we're part of a Matrix-like world, where we live inside a fairly comfortable VR world, whilst the real world is pretty crappy and humanity is enslaved to a bunch of machines (as nonsensical as the reasoning is in the series). Is it moral to wake someone up and reveal the truth to them that their comfortable life is a fiction, and bring them into a harsh reality of suffering?

A better example with your basis would be if you had real hamburgers, would it be right to give these people one hamburger each, even though from then on, all they can have is the VR hamburgers.

These two, anyway.

The Matrix one is a much better example, as it...hm. I just thought of something. Did anybody ever think that when they defeated the machines they might've just been plugged back into a Matrix scenario where it appears that they won? It'd keep them happy.

But anyway, tommo, could you talk more about your insights into the mindsets of "ditsy" people? I'm going to think over my reply a bit again.

Originally Posted by Lseadragon

Okay, just ignore my initial scenario. Photolysis's is much more clear. I expected I'd durp out on what I was trying to say if I had all these conditions in it, as it didn't seem it should be that hard to express.

Restart.

(Incidentally to answer Xei's question the point was not that it was better but that it was something novel. Say you were locked in a room and you only had A: Toast and B: Pineapple squares that made you feel sick to eat. If you never had the pineapple squares you wouldn't try them out of boredom, but having them there and nothing else besides the toast you'd probably try them a couple of times with the consequences. So would it be better to be deprived of the pineapple? But it's not the most clear thing.)





These two, anyway.

The Matrix one is a much better example, as it...hm. I just thought of something. Did anybody ever think that when they defeated the machines they might've just been plugged back into a Matrix scenario where it appears that they won? It'd keep them happy.
But anyway, tommo, could you talk more about your insights into the mindsets of "ditsy" people? I'm going to think over my reply a bit again.

Well if we're talking about the Matrix example, all the people who woke up from the Matrix were given a choice to wake up through the selection of pills. So the movie already answered your example.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if we're talking about the Matrix example, all the people who woke up from the Matrix were given a choice to wake up through the selection of pills. So the movie already answered your example.

But was it the right thing to offer this choice, if it only makes the recievers of these pills unhappy? What makes freedom an implicitly better thing in this case?

Originally Posted by Lseadragon

But anyway, tommo, could you talk more about your insights into the mindsets of "ditsy" people? I'm going to think over my reply a bit again.

Hm, not sure what else I could say.
I suppose that they are ignorant, as related to world issues and basically other people's problems etc.
But they still worry and suffer just as much. Generally when they are by themselves.
Whereas other smarter people will tend to think about stuff even when with other people. Ditsy people
just get lost in the moment, in the situation and don't think about anything else.

So the ditsy people generally worry about getting a partner or if a certain person likes them etc.
While more intelligent and knowledgeable people worry about all types of different things.
Not to say that intelligent people don't worry about whether someone loves them or whatever, but they
also think about other stuff.
But basically, almost everybody worries and suffers as much as the next person, it's just caused by different things.

I think that's probably as much as I could say about that. Except that you shouldn't befriend those people because
you start to think like them as well lol Which I guess is true of anybody you hang out with, you become more like
each other.

Originally Posted by Lseadragon

But was it the right thing to offer this choice, if it only makes the recievers of these pills unhappy? What makes freedom an implicitly better thing in this case?

Unhappy after the fact? Yes, it is the right thing to do because one cannot know the reaction of another after they made a choice. By making the choice an individual is attesting that they prefer one state of being over another. In the cause of the pill scene in Matrix, when Neo takes the red pill he is in fact stating that he desires to know the truth (state of being) about the Matrix rather then not knowing the truth about the Matrix ( the blue pill ). The consequences of this action are unknown to Neo, they can be speculated upon but never truly known, but regret over his choice is useless since he chose to do it in the first place.