Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Philosophy Coffee - Two moral dilemmas! [Exclusive] (Patreon)

Published:
2021-03-05 09:58:04
Edited:
2024-05-06 01:20:01
Imported:
2021-03
Tags:

Downloads

Content

tw / mentions of rape Hi there all!I've wanted to create more sfw talks and chats that can invite some conversation between us. My priorities will always have my interactions with you as high up as possible, and from my recent streams it seems like you guys enjoy when I talk about ethics and moral dilemmas. So here are two moral dilemmas from  a book by Julian Baggini "The pig that wants to be eaten". They both happen to mention rape, so the tw is just a little warning for those of you who are not comfortable hearing about that.No editting, so bear over with my mis-reading, stuttering and stammering. Background noises might also be apparent as I shift around, but hopefully it's quite bearable! Raw crunchy, recorded right into my microphone, haha.I hope you have a lovely day, I'm excited to hear what you think 💚(And maybe why you think I'm wrong! I love learning.)

Files

Comments

enbyaoi

I just finished my ethics class a few days ago so I have Thoughts™️ and they will probably culminate into essays, I’ll come back after my nap. Thanks Crunchy 💜

Nadya

Hmm I am of the opinion that one shouldn’t separate the art and the artist as well as the impact and the intent. Wrt to allowing a fascist movie to be screened, I don’t necessarily think restricting distribution or viewership is inherently stifling expression. You are right in being cautious about such a movie existing in a precarious society where ideas or themes in the movie can lead to attitudes and even behaviour that could harm real people tho. I’d like to lean away from centralised bodies having _the_ authority to decide what people should or should not watch since that feels like a double-edged sword (banning fascism today, but whose to say they won’t bar a movie with a queer love scene because they think its ‘immoral’). In a society that is more empathetic, I suppose all members will look out for each other and talk about such important and heavy topics with respect and nuance that there’s no need for a beautifully made movie of bad intentions necessary to teach a lesson of fascism. But since we are not likely to live in such a society just yet, I do think there is a moral importance as a community to avoid a movie, no matter how high of an artistic merit it has, if it has a significant risk of reproducing harm or danger towards vulnerable people or at risk of inflaming tensions in a community. This doesn’t have to look like a complete ban, but it can be theatres refusing to screen the film or people having open discussions and critiques on why such movies can be harmful without necessarily having to watch it etc. etc. Sorry for the v long comment but this was a fun little thing to do! I enjoyed thinking about these situations over dinner and articulating my thoughts.

(no longer here.)

Just woke up so apologies if this is a little incoherent. I am essentially of the same mind as you with the first scenario. The very act of forcing a decision and the situation in general means that either action is morally reprehensible and the prisoner will suffer immensely regardless. Like in all honesty both options end with the prisoner's murder (unless I misheard), so it's very much a 'which option makes the terrible *captor* feel better?' and not much else to me. For the second scenario, I believe I disagree (and do I definitely disagree with Oscar Wilde lol). I think it would be quite lovely if people heard news of an offensive movie and en masse refused to go see it and didn't want to resulting in $0 in the box office and a huge monetary loss for the studio and director. I think it would be amazing if, with the example given, not a single person would walk away from that film either consciously or subconsciously agreeing (or lowkey embolden) by the framing of the movie which *could* mean that an individual goes around treating non-Hispanics with contempt from microaggressions to outright racism for maybe "just" a few hours after the movie to influencing that behavior (likely along with other things) for years to come. Either way, it's a film bound to bring harm into the world and just--the aesthetics or cinematic achievements of a work being more important than human beings...just nah lol. I'll definitely get to the aspects of banning because I'm with Nadya here, but the author's example made me think of an irl one. There's a 1915 film called The Birth of a Nation (this is quite an American-centric example so I don't want to assume everyone knows about it) originally called 'The Clansman.' I studied it for the filmmaking aspects of my degree (journalism with a focus on documentary filmmaking) for it being a huge pioneer with battle scenes/choreo in film, longer takes, close-ups, etc. It was basically the first in American cinema to accomplish a lot of those (and many more) feats. It's also a film that paints Black American men as predators, KKK leaders as noble heroes, and was a huge box-office hit. It also unfortunately was the instigator to the rebirth of the KKK in real life which led to many deaths and acts of terrorism (though not the direct cause of those tragedies 'cause it's those members' actions, but it did spark membership). I bring it up because I studied it and Triumph of the Will. I got to see the artistic merit of both works in class and didn't watch the entirety of either. I got to see the "beauty" of each work and have a professor explain before and after, at length, the dehumanizing and harmful framing of both. And I think with Nadya's point that it's a decent example of another way to 'ban' a film and still see its artistic merit (though both examples are historic firsts and the author's example is just 'a pretty film' it seems so like lol...especially who cares about places banning it when another film which just as much beauty in that same artistic vein could come along and not have that immense amount of potential for harm). Anyway, anymore from me and it would be more of a pedantic version of what Nadya said (especially with how enacting full-on bans--not the examples we gave--by centralized bodies would eventually harm the marginalized which I agree absolutely with them). I think I just wanted to include examples. Is there something to be said about what do you do about art that might cause harm but to way, way less of a degree than the author's example? Maybe (but lol hey, the author is the one over here giving a super extreme example lol). Do I maybe need to have more faith people in this day and age? Eh, maybe. *I'm* sorry for the length, but if I can write essays about audios then a novel from me about an ethics question should be a liiiiittle expected hee. Thanks for the discussion, Crunchy!

Abbie

I think that really there is no way out of that situation that would do anything to help anyone else besides himself. He’s doing it because if he “makes it a little nicer” somewhat of a scewed hero complex. the prisoner suffers immensly either way, the only thing he is really protecting is his “conciounse” That is interesting though cause in real world life your talking about the greater good, if he stayed alive and did that horrible thing, a little less horribly. could he then prevent things in the future. This might not be correct I don’t know much about this but if we were to look at this and say that if this was an undercover cop. cause I know they have to do horrible things sometimes. then your doing a immoral thing for the moral good. Just a thought. So like it’s awful, and it’s all wrong…but it’s an unfortunate situation. oh the film question... In my opinon the Artistic way something is made especially in film is very specific to those indiviuals. The way they are able to put things together, the way they say the words, or film the shots, or edit it together. There are so many questionable films that have highly immoral stories, things that are just “wrong” beautiful pieces of art but the message/plot of the film is still very questionable. I remeber in 2016 when the film “Raw” which is about a 16 year old that grew up veagan and went to veternarian school and is forced to eat raw meat for the first time… and it just spirals out of control. it’s very graphic and bloody. Yet It won best first feature film at the cannes film festival and film internet lost there minds. there were petitions to get it banned and a lot of slander not only against the film but against the director. And it did not get banned, becuase it was Artisticly great. Another One would be “The House That Jack Built', which is a film were the protagonist is a serial killer. You here all of his reasoning and inner monologue of why he does. It too got a lot of heat when it came out. And it’s quite dark and graphic and unapooligetic in the way it shows everything. Had a lot of reiews saying that it was too graphic. Or even recently “new order” that premiered this last TIFF. Which is a classist society that crumbles quiet fast and the government takes over. And start kidnapping people and ransoming them to the rich families. I remember having to take a few monitors after this movie and like collect myself. Cause they really held nothing back. Which if your talking about Immoral films, you could go back a little farther and say that Stanley Kubriks eyes wide shut should be banned, and yet here we are. But becuase Kubrik is a great filmmaker it’s okay. So I think that the Art and the message of the movie may not be morally correct. I don’t think it should be banned, art is suggestive and with film I feel like it’s easier to get away with things. Cause you can just genre it as a dystopian thriller and have it be more okay then if you told people it was a documentary. Typically it seems if you have enough artistic credibility that for some reason seems to make these moral screwed plot films... I mean there is a whole section for films that are meant to shock you and gross you out and make you question everything. There hole thing is too see how long you last in the movie theatre with out walking out. Like this one film I don’t remember the name but they used the specific sounds and lights and colours. And the film angles that were meant to make you physically ill...you where supposed to feel the trauma and the pain that the main character felt. I believe the main character of this film was rapped. But again no I don’t think it should be banned...warning maybe. I believe it was Margret Wolfe that said “Art is in the eye of the beholder” it’s really up to the audience to decide. I agree with you crunch It to allows people the opportunity to see the world a different way. Might not be the right way but it’s a different way. This was a long one...but ‘twas fun to think about Thanks Crunch 😊

Jelly

For the first scenario I agree with you that it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, but I would also argue in this situation there is not one that could be construed as better than the other in any way. On the one hand, if he doesn’t go through with it and dies, he can maintain his outward sense of honor, but the suffering caused to the victim and surely with other victims will be far worse, as the order will be carried out by someone either lacking his morality or perhaps too cowardly to die for such a thing. On the other hand, if he goes through with it, he saves his own skin, inflicts as little collateral damage as possible, but still commits a heinous act. He has to live with this act for the rest of his life, and whatever ethical reasons he had for trying to be merciful may not matter at all to those around him later on, his family, friends, community, even his government, or the opposing one should his country lose whatever conflict they are in. He still did what he did. I think the most important aspect of this scenario is the fact that it’s in a war, correct? As far as blame goes, in a military setting there are usually concessions made for war crimes committed under duress, but this is not always the case, and of course less likely to be made for members of the losing side by the court that tries them in the aftermath. All this being said, I do not know how to make such an impossible choice, but if you don’t mind me getting a bit existential about it, as a soldier the common, bleak thought is “none of it matters.” There will always be terrible people willing to do terrible things, and scared people who will do them for fear of the alternative. Soldiers can do what they’re told to do, or not, and the war eventually ends, but gives way to another. From a soldier’s point of view, either one and neither one are the answer. In the second scenario, I agree with you completely. I had a few ideas go through my head as you were reading, the first of which was the movie Mother! by Darren Aronofsky. It takes religious allegory into the realm of psychological horror/black “comedy”, and it received quite a lot of controversy for that, but was considered well done in directing, acting, and effects. So, in sparking controversy, it did exactly what Aronofsky had intended, and opened a conversation. Several books came to mind too, such as Lord of the Flies and The Great Gatsby, which are often on high school reading lists in America. These books present moral and ethical dilemmas, and although usually students are guided through these books to show them what to focus on, they are encouraged to decide for themselves what they find the dilemma to be and how they might handle the situation. Even though these examples are a bit tame by comparison to the movie in the scenario, censorship closes these conversations outright. Better to be shown the worst parts of humanity and choose not to be the same, rather than hiding it and having the rose-colored glasses inevitably ripped away, I think. None of this is to say that there aren’t beautiful, wonderful things about life, as you mention for your own part at the end. In fact, I think the ugly parts of life make the beautiful parts all the more bright, and all the more precious. This was very thought provoking! Thank you for sharing with us 💕

Amarys

Most people I know aren’t very interested in Philosophy so I’m rarely able to have these types of conversations. With that said, I really enjoyed this ramble and I found it very interesting. I hope you plan on doing more of these in the future.

Mrs. Dubose

Hi from the future. Listening to old audios while I get ready for work and I have some thoughts on the first scenario. Rather than black and white moral correctness and preserving outward honor, I think the more important issue in the first scenario is empathy. If I put myself in the position of the prisoner, it would be much more bearable for me to realize I have a teammate of sorts. Someone else who is also trapped in a horrible situation against their will. The guy is a prisoner in his own right because he doesn't want to make either choice. I would much rather someone have mercy on me and carry out a terrible act with as much gentleness and kindness as they could than to refuse to participate at all and leave me to suffer alone because of "morality." Where is the moral value in abandoning someone to brutally suffer when you could have had the chance to improve the outcome even just a little bit? When you have the chance to comfort (in a perverse sort of way) a fellow human? I think there are a lot of gray areas in life, but to repeat a stupid pando cliche, "We're all in this together." If forces beyond our control have put us into a horrible situation together, isn't the right choice to band together and make it as bearable as possible? To be kind (as much as we're able) to each other? Choosing to rape and kill is certainly not correct according to the rule book, but it's certainly the more kind, compassionate, and merciful choice in this case, sparing the prisoner from brutality. And in my mind that is the better choice.