comment: >
  
  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
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)