Thought experiments are easy to create and easy to mislead people with, leading them down paths that may appear logical and rational but by having a fundamentally fictional basis, it leads to a false certainty.
It’s to provoke thought and discussion.
What If I had said:
“Empathy is not logical.”?
What kind of response would I get?
Empathy is not logical is the prevailing, common view. It is an assumption we all hold.
But what about challenging it to see if we are missing connections?
We are missing connections because empathy is certainly sometimes logical and logic is certainly sometimes empathetic.
Yet we carry around an assumption (bias) that “empathy is not logical” and can spend a lifetime never questioning it for a moment.
Its a topic worth exploring. We ALREADY have a fallacious absolute. I’m challenging it and the results (going by our discussion and others in the thread) are pragmatic proof of its worth.
If my goal was to be agreeable? That’s easy.
I can construct statements that would generate a lot of likes and zero discussion. But what growth comes from that?
I do agree with my own statement in the OP. I also know it’s controversial and will spawn discussion.
Logic and empathy was involved in every stage of the decision.
Harambe or the kid? [not enough info]
Was it logical to kill the ape over the kid because of empathy? [yes]
[The unspoken opposite: Would it have been logical to kill the kid over the ape because of empathy? Yes ]
Cases can be made for both.
Why was the child chosen? Empathy and logic together.
Could a case have been made for the ape to be chosen over the child in the same manner? Yes. Many people on the internet have done so in that hypothetical alternative universe.
Harambe or the kid? Was it logical to kill the ape over the child, because of empathy? Why was it not empathetic to save the ape over the child? Because the latter is human? Why is that arbitrary standard objectively more logical or empathetic than the former? Is the human child on a higher hierarchy of importance, who decides so and why? Is it biased? if so, then is it truly empathetic/logical?
Its entirely logical that humans would show more concern for a fellow human than a non-human.
For an answer we’d have to play “what if?”
If they shot the kid, what are the logical consequences that follow? Lawsuit? Outrage? Shutting down of the zoo? People put in jail? Even executed perhaps?
Are these not objective probabilities?
Vacuum. There is the problem right there.
What is the grounding of your argument?
What is your goal? Absolutes for morality? You may find some. I’ve seen some decent arguments from moral realists who use a statistical basis for their “core human moral” stance, although I’m not entirely convinced by their arguments.
Yet, morality does not appear to be ENTIRELY relativistic either.