The psychological would also remain the same regardless of how many doors for the question remains the same. Should I switch or shouldn't I, and the same process would be taken into account.
, it would be of the same difficulty for me at least. The same thought process would take place since it would still be the question between those 2 doors just like the same question that started with 3 doors instead of 1000.
Quote:I am sorry, Thomas. But I believe if it's wrong to do it in one place, it's wrong to do it in another
I agree with your moral consistency!
It seems logical to me but I can only guess that there could be exceptions to the rule. I think that some times it may be OK to be rude if you think it could offer moral or other insights, but other than that I am not so sure!
It would be my last result and I would prefer not to use rudeness.
I'm not fond of talking about hypothetical situations (your situation with the doors) in forums because I tend to way over think them when they really don't need to be. I would like to continue a post that you placed on another thread here
I am speaking reality with you but to work it out in your head or on paper would be much easier than if you were to actually go and build 1000 doors and put a gift behind one of them and analyze the process!
I agree with you that morality should not change but the sad fact is that some people are in such a rut that they have no interest at all in thinking of such matters on their own so I think that it could be possible for you to come down to their level and befriend them and a little at a time share with them morality!
Do not get your hopes up because it seems that I may be very wrong but I will not give up on young people that I think may have a chance. I may need to keep trying different tactics and see what happens!
I'm not fond of talking about hypothetical situations (your situation with the doors) in forums because I tend to way over think them when they really don't need to be.
That's not really what I'm talking about. Your example implies that only one door is right and that there's only one prize, but I don't think that's the case in reality. There are thousands of doors to chose from that are just as right as another so every single door out of all the 1000 doors would have prizes, but it's a matter of which prize that we are looking for. We won't know what prizes there are unless we open the door. With your example, if we don't choose a door that we end up wanting after we see the prize that's there, then that option is lost to us forever and we must choose something else. There are many specific flaws in which I see such as this with the example of the doors which is why I don't really like hypothetic situations. As stated with your example though, the process would, of course, be the same regardless of how many doors that there were originally because the question afterwards would remain the same.
You statement doesn't make any sense to me. You think that morality shouldn't change, but it's bad for people to be in a "rut". I would think that being in a "rut" would then be a positive since that means that they would be unchangable. Unless you think that you're views on morality shouldn't change, and that everyone should adopt your idea's on what is to be considered "moral". With over 6 billion people on there planet, though, I think that there are enough people that think about such things. The people that don't think about such things and are "in a rut" are more like the control and help to keep our justifications in check and help us from losing ourselves in a sea of them. If you think that everyone should think and discuss morality then you agree that it should be subject to change without any control. That's a terrible idea because all that would be needed would be someone with a silver tongue and a whole lot of money and power, and they can get away with just about anything that may be remotely controversial.
I would think that being in a "rut" would then be a positive since that means that they would be unchangable.