comment: >
  
  You're basically saying there's no exceptions.
  
  
  "Don't commit murder" oh wait, but self defense is ok?
  
  
  Golden rule - what happens if I have a twisted mind and I like feeling pain, and I want others to hurt me. Does it mean that it's ok for me to hurt others?
  
  
  Population growth is good - but if it grows too much at a fast rate, then we'd run out of resources. That's why China had the 1 child policy. Then you have the opposite, if someone says population decline is good, then you'd end up with 0 population or having intercourse with your cousin.
  
  
  Water is good for you - but did you know if you drink too much water it's called water poisoning and you can die?
  
  
  Everything in life has to have moderation, and there's almost always exceptions.
context: /u/the_bollo (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  In reality, the world is such a vast, complex, nuanced, and multi-faceted place that I can't think of a single view that could be easily and universally applied to every single scenario without any forethought.
  Honestly, if you don't run into some level of contradictory nuance or complexity in your view, it might be a sign you're being short-sighted or dogmatic. >
  
  I think its mostly an issue for worldviews that are inflexible and dont account for nuace in found in the world. I can think of a worldview something like this: "Each individual should act in accordance with their individual prefferences. They should maximize their positive experiences, and minimze negative experience to the best of their ability". I think this can be universally applied and doesnt run into contradictions. You might critizie it for being vague, and not prescribing specific actions, but such is the reality for worldviews that are consistant and universal. >
  
  That very "worldview" can be caracterized in many ways: Do I prioritize my own positive experiences over the rest ? Do I avoid negative experiences even if others get more in return ? Do I favorize the least absolute negative/positive for everyone even if I take more negative myself ?
  In a single worldview there are countless nuances, sometimes conflicting opinions. You can't find any global idea that everyone views the same except maybe for basic survival instincts and even those fail in humans >
  
  
  Do I prioritize my own positive experiences over the rest ? Do I avoid negative experiences even if others get more in return ? Do I favorize the least absolute negative/positive for everyone even if I take more negative myself ?
  
  You answer those questions in accordance with your prefference, and your expected quality/intensity of experience. That may differ from person to person and situation to situation, but your still applying the same consistant worldview universally (for every person).
  I dont think there can be conflicting opinions in this sense, you cant prefer option A over B, while simultaniously prefering option B over A. Different people might simultaneosly preffer A or B, but i never argued that different people should come to the same conclusion on how it would be optimal to act. Claming such a thing would lead to an inconsistent worldview, imo. >
  
  I can see the use in having stronger penalties for traffic fraud because I don't want it while simultaneously worrying that those stronger penalties may fragilize poor people. In that case your worldview ("there shouldn't be traffic fraud") and ("Poor people shouldn't be penalized more") conflict.
  In this instance, you would probably opt for a compromise but that's not your "pure" worldview >
  
  Your right, a compromisie would probably be the correct approach. I dont really think its a contradictoin though, we make such decisions all the time (shuld i sleep more, or get up and work on my goals). I dont think that "there shouldnt be traffic fraud" or "poor people shoudnt be penalized more" are directly part of the worldview, but just factors withing it that influence your decision making.
  Immagining a situation where those 2 thughs are in direct opposion might be when voting for new laws on traffic fraud. You either prefer laws that veer toward one option or the other, or they might end up completly equal. But you could not prefer one over the other, and the other way around. I hope my explenation makes sense. >
  
  Which is better?
  A) Someone's worldview is "we should avoid harm X," which they apply inconsistently yet still influences their behavior such that there is less harm X in the world.
  B) Someone abandons the worldview "we should avoid harm X," which influences their behavior such that there is more harm X in the world.
  Like, I think people should reduce their carbon footprint. Because of this, I'll sometimes choose to bike instead of drive, buy products that use less packaging (or forego them altogether), choose a weekend trip destination I can drive to instead of fly to. However, I don't apply this consistently. I still order food delivery sometimes, which comes with lots of single use packaging. I still enjoy international travel and fly more than the average person.
  Under your view, the fact that I am inconsistent means I should abandon this view. If I abandon this view, my carbon footprint will be greater than it is now. Why is that a preferable outcome? Sometimes it's actually better for people to be a hypocrite who doesn't consistently apply their worldview. >
  
  I think your A/B scenario presupposes that John Q Debate is going to abandon a partially-applied, yet morally-positive worldview in favor of nothing. 
  My proposal is the opposite: A consistent commitment to reducing harm X is preferable to an inconsistent one, so inconsistent beliefs should be abandoned in pursuit of consistency. >
  
  
  My proposal is the opposite: A consistent commitment to reducing harm X is preferable to an inconsistent one, so inconsistent beliefs should be abandoned in pursuit of consistency.
  
  Wait, that's blatantly not true. In the anecdote you provided, your friend said they inconsistently reduce harm by refusing to support someone who supported bad things, and you responded by saying that's wrong because it's inconsistent. You didn't tell them "good! then please don't support Y either, they are also bad", you said " that that worldview was hard to live by consistently" >
  
  Which means OP is being... inconsistent. >
  
  I would posit that the problem with consistency is that humans are not consistent. Our views change, our moods change, our perspective on the world changes. Even looking at the golden rule this is a problem. 
  
  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
  
  Why are we assuming that others like the same things you like? Other people like a ton of different stuff, just treating everyone like you seems flawed. Also, what you want others to do unto you may change, either slowly or quickly. That makes it hard for this rule to actually be consistent, since some actions that are good on this rule now are going to be bad later.
  I would also argue that because people are inconsistent and flawed, it is better for them to sometimes do good things than for us to try and force them to either be consistently bad or consistently good. If someone learned a bad habit or unknowingly was doing something wrong, it can be hard for them to immediately fix their behavior completely, even if that would be better morally. To use a quote from a book I rather like, "Sometimes a hypocrite is just a man in the process of becoming better." We need to allow people that process. >
  
  Would you mind sharing what book that quote comes from? From that alone, the writing seems good enough to warrant a read. >
  
  It comes from Oathbringer by Brandon Sanderson. It's a huge fantasy epic, third in the Stormlight series. It's a real big commitment but I think it's worth it if you like fantasy with themes of mental health. The first book is the Way of Kings if you want to check it out. >
  
  I'm not sure I follow your initial anecdote. Did the individual in question claim to have the worldview that you should cut ties with anything remotely connected to controversy? If not, then why was it relevant for you to point out that this worldview would be hard to live by consistently? >
  
  I probably didn't tie off that anecdote cleanly. That person's point (greatly simplified) was "Society shouldn't support X art because its creator did bad things." My counter point was "If you applied that view more broadly it would be very difficult to live by consistently. Therefore, you should realign your views to a standard that can be equally applied to all creators. Otherwise you might find yourself holding hypocritical views." >
  
  And I’m asking what bad things? That’s too broad for a view. Bad things could mean “supports gay rights” to a Christian. A person only has to pick what is “bad enough” for them and stick to it. They don’t have to disavow any and all bad things. >
  
  I was trying to avoid the specifics of the initial debate since it's not the subject of this post directly. But if you're interested, it was with regard to the author Orson Scott Card and his religiously-inspired anti-gay views (and whether any of his works should receive further attention in light of those views). >
  
  In that case it seems a lot less like the person you were talking to actually endorses a worldview that artists in general shouldn't get further work because they espoused controversial views in the past. They were not making a general statement. They were refering to a specific artist and specific views (which are also O.S.C's current views, not past views) >
  
  Flexibility and embracing nuance keeps you from painting yourself into a moral corner. You don't want to be a rigid fundamentalist, do ya? Consistency is important, but so to is considering that there is more grey than black and white >
  
  Morality can be a complex thing.  Two different offenses that you see as being of equal severity or even being the same offense might look like two unrelated things of completely different severity to another person.  This is because the world itself is incredibly complex so it is hard to apply any rule universally.  In fact, many fields of science are filled with caveats and exceptions to rules.  Going through biology and psychology classes, almost every question can be answered with "it depends" (touch professors will want to to explain what it depends on).
  In the case of deciding to "cancel" an artist that you disapprove of.  There are two things to consider.  First, not everyone has the time or energy to thoroughly examine the entire personal history of every artist they engage with.  An average person might consume work produced by hundreds of different artists throughout the day and some of them are such small names that even figuring out who produced a particular form of art can be difficult.  Secondly, even when people do become aware of aspects of those artists personal lives, they might have different opinions on how those people have behaved.  We might both look at one artist and both agree that they did something bad but one of us says it is something so petty that it isn't worth considering but the other says it is severe.  We might look at an artist and one of us says they have done something terrible and unforgivable but the other says it wasn't even a bad thing.
  For example, let us say that someone is a vocal Satanist.  One person might think that they are a horrific person that needs to be removed from the public sphere.  One person might find it vaguely offensive but not see it as a big deal.  One person might see it as a positive thing.  One person might see it something that doesn't matter at all.  Even if all 4 people were consistently following the idea that terrible people should not get their art sponsored, only one out of the four would actually count this person as someone worth "canceling". >
  
  
  An example of a worldview that can be consistently applied is the "golden rule" (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). I don't believe there is a real-world scenario where this rule cannot rationally be applied.
  
  Is a masochist allowed to cause pain to someone because they would like to have pain caused to them?
  However any world view that accounts for context will always be consistent because it will adjust based on parameters, and will do so consistently. >
  
  Can you give me an example of a single worldview that shouldn't be abandoned according to you? >
  
  "It is important to critically examine cultural practices." >
  
  Do you examine every single cultural practice every time you do it? Like for example before you put on shoes, do you sit and think about whether you should go barefoot instead?
  Oh and please don't give a cop out answer like "i just said it's important, not that you have to do it" >
  
  Yesterday when I was taking a shit I briefly considered installing a bidet. That has to count for something. >
  
  Ok but that's just you doing the thing once, not applying it consistently as your view states. Like imagine if you objected to your friend's claim and they said they also applied it to a second artist yesterday. You wouldn't call that consistent, would you? To apply your view consistently would mean that every time you do any action at all, or interact with any object in any way, you consider whether a different culture might have a better way of doing it. Do you actually do that? >
  
  A person's worldview, in totality and in the singular, should be as consistent as possible or else their conduct will be self-defeating.
  However, a person's worldview as a whole is composed of a hierarchy of worldviews, plural.  These worldviews can contradict each other without a problem so long as the person has mechanisms for conflict resolution (e.g. hierarchies and priorities).  And holding conflicting worldviews in such a way is normal and healthy: for example, I do assume my physical intuitions apply to my day-to-day life, but I discard that assumption if I'm talking to a particle physicist.
  And the key is that a lot of people do that without realizing they're doing it: the resolution mechanism is present but implicit, and they won't be able to articulate it.  It's not out of the ordinary to retreat into "well then I don't have to be consistent!".
  So maybe their underlying explanation would be something like "pragmatic functioning is a higher priority, so I choose my battles", but they may not be able to explain that on the spot. >
  
  While their reply was… not so well thought out, you’re missing an enormous amount of nuance.
  The world is incredibly complex and no two situations are identical.
  Gandhi and Hitler both “espoused controversial views in the past” but they’re clearly very different and should be considered differently based on what those views were and how they applied them and a million other factors.
  I’ve espoused controversial views on Hawaiian pizza. Still not even remotely close to either Gandhi or Hitler.
  There are always spectrums and confounding factors. When you think someone is being inconsistent, they may be being consistent to a more complex and nuanced rule. We often can’t even articulate those rules because they’re formed by a complex array of neurons in a way EWR don’t understand. Think of your general sense of what’s “fair” and try to write down a set of rules someone could follow to know exactly what you find fair or unfair and you’ll quickly find it’s an incredibly difficult task.
  But does that mean you should abandon your beliefs on fairness?
  Sometimes a person is only inconsistent out of bias and that’s certainly problematic… but sometimes the answer isn’t to abandon the view but to simply apply it more consistently. If I think digging up dead bodies to carve the Bee Movie script into their bones is wrong but it’s okay when I do it, then my view is a reasonable one and I should start applying it to myself.
  Disclaimer: I made up something super weird to avoid incidence with real world events. I don’t do that. >
  
  Most worldviews cannot be applied consistently because real life isn't as simple as most worldviews. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' works fine...until you're a masochist, or have a higher tolerance for insults and bullying than most people, or you're fine with people hitting you if you've done something wrong. >
  
  This is a little too specific. Abstractly the phrase refers to outcomes not specific actions. >
  
  Says who? >
  
  Says any logical interpretation of the rule? If you enjoy surprises that doesn't mean you surprise everyone because not everyone enjoys that. 
  It means be considerate of what people like and do that for them if you'd enjoy them doing the same. Abstract. >
  
  I've never heard anyone interpret it that way. >
  
  When you interact with different cultures do you show respect by doing what is customary in your own culture or by doing what you think signifies respect in theirs?
  If your goal is to show respect you don't literally treat them the way you want to be treated with specific actions within your own culture. You zoom out a little bit and work from their perspective. >
  
  
  they espoused controversial views in the past. I pointed out that that worldview was hard to live by consistently, as you'd have to divorce yourself from a lot of media and products if you're willing to cut ties with anything remotely connected to controversy
  
  Was it vague controversial statements in general in question, or some specific statement that is rarely made by those in the public eye? If the latter, then consistency might be easy. How often to celebrities drop n-bombs for example? Kramer and that cooking show lady are all I can pull. >
  
  Newton's laws of motion cannot be applied consistently, because they fail for very high velocities or gravitational wells. 
  However, we shouldn't abandon Newton's laws, because they are very useful in non-relativistic situations. >
  
  
  Most people's worldviews are inconsistent.
  
  Difficult to prove, but I tend to agree. However, there's a difference between how things are and how things could (or should) be. For my part, I believe there's virtue in challenging your own views and striving for consistency, since it provides a reusable decision making framework and curtails possible favoritism or hypocrisy. In other words, just because people are failing a high bar doesn't mean it's a good thing. >
  
  So, I'm curious what you think. Is it better for someone to consistently ignore artist's flaws and give money to any and all morally bankrupt artists, or to sometimes stop paying bad artists and sometimes overlook those flaws?
  in other words, is it better to consistently do bad things or to sometimes do good things, even if you do not do them consistently? >
  
  But all situations are different, there are no 2 situations that are exactly the same. The proof is if 2 situations were exactly the same, people would react exactly the same to them.
  If I reuse your example
  
  You didn't tolerate X, so why do you tolerate Y?
  
  Well X and Y are 2 different things, so why not tolerating X force you to not tolerate Y ?
  
  An example of a worldview that can be consistently applied is the "golden rule" (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). I don't believe there is a real-world scenario where this rule cannot rationally be applied.
  
  Prison warden: he does not want to be held in captivity, but he held other in captivity, and the world is better with jails (or something similar) than if there were no jails. >
  
  People apply their world views all the time, no matter the result.  We can always attribute a bad result on some external factor.  For example a car accident - the person at fault will often blame the other person instead of take ownership themselves, so they won’t likely learn from their own bad driving.  
  You mention the golden rule- I argue the golden rule itself is flawed.  If we really lived out if respect for everyones individual rights and freedoms, we would treat others how they want to be treated, (Platinum Rule), not how we want to be treated.   Treating others how we want to be treated assumes that other people are like us, and that we don’t need to actually ask them how they want to be treated, or consider that other people could be different.  
  Furthermore, at least where I live, many people seem to abide by a third standard, which I call the Shit Rule, which is “Treat others how they treat you.”  So if someone is perceived to slight you, you slight them in a revengeful way.  This is by far the dumbest way to live, with no benefits, other than immediate gratification, but people still do it all the time. >
  
  I think the problem is this person’s worldview is more complicated than how you’re presenting it, and by simplifying it in this way you’re making it into a straw man argument. Controversy is a spectrum, and not all controversial opinions are equal. 
  It’s not inconsistent to say “I will accept some degree of author controversy, but there is a limit where I will stop supporting their work.”
  I think that’s actually really reasonable. Because you’re showing an openness to opposing ideas, but giving yourself range to set sensible limits. 
  I think your friends viewpoint is only ridiculous if you apply it broadly and dogmatically to everything. 
  All or nothing approaches can be foolish. Everything exists in its own context. 
  I think for me personally, an author being a notorious racist is a turn-off, especially if those themes are going to be present in their work. The author’s work is going to have to be really good or valuable in order for me to show interest in reading it. I don’t think this is me being wildly or irrationally inconsistent. >
  
  There isn't really merit in inconsistant worldviews (other than acknowledging how context affects them); however, it would be literally impossible to only indulge in flawlessness because flawlessness isn't real.
  So it seems more a matter of where someone draws their line in certain contexts rather than trying to live 100% 'by the book' >
  
  Yes there is merit in inconsistent worldviews, everyone has them. You are going to hold a groups of people to a different standards based on wealth, health, age, location... basically anything that makes a person different is going to be held to a different standard. >
  
  Have you ever heard of dialectics by chance? To simplify, dialectics are basically two seemingly contradictory things that are true at the same time. For example, if it was summer and snowing. These sound like two contradictory things, but in some places it is possible for it to snow in the summer. It isn't consistent to say it doesn't snow in the summer because technically it can, but the view that it doesn't snow in the summer shouldn't be entirely abandoned. >
  
  There is no merit in inconsistency — however, sometimes it's unavoidable simply because we don't have all the information, or we don't know how to process all of it.
  A great example of this is physics. In physics, we have two competing models of the universe — general relativity and quantum mechanics. These have some overlap and consistency with one another, but there are also places where they aren't really compatible, such as the unification of gravity with the other fundamental forces. This is a place where the models become somewhat inconsistent. However, no one has yet to come up with a better model that explains everything else consistently while unifying gravity with the other fundamental forces. We haven't found a solution to this inconsistency.
  So there are cases, at the limits of our knowledge and understanding, where inconsistency can't really be avoided without substituting in some kind of false consistency — being consistent for the sake of being consistent regardless of whether the rules you are applying consistently actually correspond to the real world you live in. Like, if physicists were to make up some explanation to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces, if that didn't correspond to the real world, it would be worthless. Many moral codes are guilty of this — including all deontological ethics, such as Kantian categorical imperatives. Following some set rule consistently, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to, can produce absurdities and even harmful actions. But utilitarian ethics can do this as well, which is actually one of the problems we run into when we try to compute what the most good is according to that system of ethics. Is it really good to sacrifice the well-being of a portion of the population because it will bring more happiness to a greater portion of the population?
  There is virtue in consistency, but that virtue is in striving for a consistent worldview, not in following a worldview consistently as if it were already perfect, or throwing it out entirely if any imperfection is found. It means that, when you find a conflict between your worldview and reality, reality must win, and your worldview must come under examination. However, this isn't necessarily a reason to throw out the worldview entirely — just like we don't throw out quantum physics and general relativity just because of their inconsistencies. If we can't find the solution to make things consistent, and our worldview is still usually functional as the best model we have of reality, then it behooves us to continue following that worldview even if it means sometimes being inconsistent with it. It's not good to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, we must look for ways to unify that worldview with those inconsistencies that we've discovered, and only when we find something that consistently addresses all the concerns in question do we alter that worldview.
  As per the example you give with your friend — it's clear to me that your friend sees that there is something different about certain situations, maybe a certain popular video game that funnels money to a certain problematic individual, that make it somehow different from certain other situations that might seem similar on the surface. Your friend may or may not be wrong about that, but at this point that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that at this point, they seem to perceive a difference. I believe your friend is totally wrong about abandoning consistency — however, it's probably not a good thing for them to throw out their entire worldview either. Instead, they should be carefully examining and trying to qualify/quantify what specifically the difference is — if they're even is one. if they are able to find that there is no difference, or if they are able to find a particular difference, then they may need to alter their worldview. However, if they aren't able to figure it out, which is a very reasonable thing for a normal human being with a finite mind to come short of, then they may simply be better off continuing with their current worldview and embracing a few inconsistencies, as long as they are honest about it and give others the same space to be mere mortals who lack omniscience and perfection. And while you are perfectly right to point out the inconsistencies in your friend's worldview, you would also do well to give them the same space and considerations when doing so.
  TLDR: You are only correct where there is a better and more consistent worldview attainable which addresses all of the relevant concerns consistently. Where this is absent, you are wrong. >
  
  As somewhat of a tangent, haven’t we decided that the way to unify relativity and quantum mechanics is to apply parts of the model as necessary? The way I recalled reading about it, it was described using the analogy of a map. 
  No map of the world is 100% perfect. In order to map a 3D object onto 2D, come compromises have to be made. Some things may look stretched, or appear further away than they would actually be. Or if we wanted to preserve size and distance, then the shape of the map would be jagged. The solution isn’t to keep searching for the perfect map— it’s to use whichever map provides the best picture for any given purpose. 
  Isn’t relativity something like that? One map used for a specific purpose, ready to be discarded when it does not apply?
  I’m not a scientist, nor do I study physics, so please let me know if I misunderstand >
  
  Applying parts of the model as necessary isn't unifying it, it's being inconsistent and selective. That's our stopgap solution for the current inconsistency — and it's exactly what I'm talking about in my comment. Ethically, sometimes we might have to do the same thing if we can't create a unified theory of ethics that holds consistently true with the real world we see around us.
  Any theory is going to be like your map example. Because any description of a thing is only going to be a shadow of the real thing it's describing. That shadow can be 100% accurate in the sense of it's particular level of sensitivity or detail, but unless it's very reductive, it will never be a perfect representation of the whole at every level of detail. This is also one of the main limits of logic and mathematics that don't get talked about enough.
  I think you're pretty close to the right track here. >
  
  My only argument to this is worldviews are like food, you can really hate the taste of eggs and flour separately but you can really enjoy bread, also you can make bread many different ways and some are faster than others It doesn't change the fact that the others are still bread. >
  
  As others have pointed out, the world is complicated. Generalised stances can't be applied in every case, but extremely nuanced stances are difficult to articulate.
  Yes, it's true that most people who reject certain art because of the artist probably also consume other art made by bad people, but the problem is that "an artist shouldn't get further work because they espoused controversial views in the past" is not a nuanced stance, and our complicated world requires nuance.
  A more nuanced stance would be "it can be helpful to society to refuse to reward bad people with further income, but there may be times when this would be impractical to enforce" or something along those lines. But that's complicated and a mouthful, so most people won't go around stating things like that as their world views.
  Personally, I regard most of the things I say I believe as rules of thumb. If someone questions my world views I can provide a more nuanced version, but fully articulating the nuanced version every time the topic comes up in conversation would be impractical.
  TL;DR most people's world views are more nuanced than just what they initially say the view is, but fully expressing that nuance is difficult so people tend to state their world views in simplistic terms. >
  
  I've always thought that hypocrisy can be an underrated virtue. Humans are fallible, lazy and sometimes deluded. A belief system isn't invalid just because some people struggle to adhere to it consistently, anymore than speed limits are a bad idea just because some people speed. And it is surely better to occasionally do good than never do good.
  The world is complicated. People's lives are shaped by complex, interrelated systems and forces over which they have little control. It can be difficult or even impossible to disentangle oneself from these practical realities. It seems totally unreasonable to insist on a binary in which people must either become self-sufficient recluses in order to disassociate themselves from any sort of injustice, or abandon their objections to injustice. >
  
  Be less concerned with ideologies and theories, systems that have been created by evolution/trial and error that have been proven to deliver in the real world are vastly superior.
  All encompassing world views are generally not a good idea. >
  
  Yes, it would be nice if we were all rational and consistent. But we’re not. We believe all kinds of crazy stuff, for all kinds of reasons. Including the fact that some of us would like to ban worldviews that we don’t find reasonable or acceptable, or that people don’t 100% follow, even though they claim to be adherents. 
  We have a desire for uniformity, maybe because we like predictability, maybe because we are tribal, write down through our brain stems, and we prefer the company of those who think as we do. That is not the world we live in, and it wouldn’t be a very interesting world, compared to the mess that we are in right now. Not that we have an option. Someday, perhaps, some genetic engineer will find a way to make us all like Spock. And even then there will be those who don’t like that state of affairs. What a world, huh? >
  
  Hello mate, have you been naughty and read Kant last your bed time? " >
  
  I love this topic tbh, but I think it's far too complex to be had on a CMV on Reddit. The first thought that came to my mind when I read your post was about the philosophy of Ethics. 
  I don't know how much you've looked into the study of ethics throughout the ages, but if you haven't I suggest you do, you'd likely love it 😂
  Sometimes you read something and think "yes! That's it!" and then some smart-ass philosopher comes along and you're back to zero.