Philosophy Now Forum

Is it OK to fuck up their car - say by pouring honey or molasses into their gas tank?

In case anyone is concerned, no, I would not fuck up someone's car even if this were not a purely hypothetical question - although I would entertain the fantasy.

But the reasons for it have nothing to with Plato, Kant, J.S. Mill, Aristotle, whoever. Rather - and I apologize for the use of the somewhat inane phrase - "its just not me." I dislike violence, and hate to see useful things being damaged, its a distaste similar in nature to my dislike for wasting food.

What does this suggest concerning relevance of moral philosophy to everyday decision-making?

Also - I am somewhat surprised that no one has pointed out that the action contemplated in this - purely hypothetical I assure you - case would have effects on other people who are not parties to the dispute.

For instance, the target would have to take the car to a mechanic, which could lead to someone else having to wait longer for their car being repaired - and that person might need the car for something really important like picking up the kids from school or daycare or something.

This could also result in the target being crankier than usual, which could make life less pleasant for those who regularly associate with the target. And so forth.

In case anyone is concerned, no, I would not fuck up someone's car even if this were not a purely hypothetical question - although I would entertain the fantasy.

But the reasons for it have nothing to with Plato, Kant, J.S. Mill, Aristotle, whoever. Rather - and I apologize for the use of the somewhat inane phrase - "its just not me." I dislike violence, and hate to see useful things being damaged, its a distaste similar in nature to my dislike for wasting food.

What does this suggest concerning relevance of moral philosophy to everyday decision-making?

Also - I am somewhat surprised that no one has pointed out that the action contemplated in this - purely hypothetical I assure you - case would have effects on other people who are not parties to the dispute.

For instance, the target would have to take the car to a mechanic, which could lead to someone else having to wait longer for their car being repaired - and that person might need the car for something really important like picking up the kids from school or daycare or something.

This could also result in the target being crankier than usual, which could make life less pleasant for those who regularly associate with the target. And so forth.

In case anyone is concerned, no, I would not fuck up someone's car even if this were not a purely hypothetical question - although I would entertain the fantasy.

But the reasons for it have nothing to with Plato, Kant, J.S. Mill, Aristotle, whoever. Rather - and I apologize for the use of the somewhat inane phrase - "its just not me." I dislike violence, and hate to see useful things being damaged, its a distaste similar in nature to my dislike for wasting food.

What does this suggest concerning relevance of moral philosophy to everyday decision-making?

Also - I am somewhat surprised that no one has pointed out that the action contemplated in this - purely hypothetical I assure you - case would have effects on other people who are not parties to the dispute.

For instance, the target would have to take the car to a mechanic, which could lead to someone else having to wait longer for their car being repaired - and that person might need the car for something really important like picking up the kids from school or daycare or something.

This could also result in the target being crankier than usual, which could make life less pleasant for those who regularly associate with the target. And so forth.

It could also have given the car mechatronic just that money he needed to get his family thru the month.
Is the question of whether a situation is hypothetical or real relevant to a philosophical discussion?

In this case it is. Let's imagine that Gustaf bought a car of this woman that blew up the day after; OR lets say she just went ahead and stole the money from his child's school fund.
THe degree of culpability is vastly different. For the former I would just tell him to take it on the chin, for the latter I would say he had grounds for recompense. Was he actually"screwed"?

How does comparing two hypothetical situations corroborate that the philosophical discourse would proceed differently for real situations than it would for hypothetical ones? I disagree that he should take it on the chin. He should have the wreckage investigated to find out if there were any faults that should have been discovered during the last obligatory checkup. Or do they not have those in Canada (which is I think where Gustaf lives)?

So you do not think that selling a car, is different from stealing from a child?

Remind me never to buy from or sell to you!!

Having the wreckage examined would cost more than he paid for the car - are you serious?

I do think it's different. But those are both hypothetical situations. My question was why it is relevant for a philosophical discourse about some situation, whether the situation is real or hypothetical.

You asked that question before. It was stupid then and it is stupid now. How else can you assess 'what to do' if you feel screwed for a grand? The method by which you were screwed is important.
If Gustaf would tell us how he was screwed, and I have asked him twice, then the whole problem would be solved.
Maybe he was screwed for 5 years of lack of child support, and he had a million in the bank? Maybe he was not as screwed as he thinks he is?



No.
Would it? Wouldn't the police investigate a car that blew up for possible attempted murder?

He could also answer all these questions if the scenario he proposes is hypothetical. Let me break it down for you:
Person A: "Imagine hypothetical Situation 1. What philosophical advice would you give?"
Person 1: "Answer."

Person A: "Situation 1 has actually happened to me. What philosophical advice would you give?"
Person 1: "Answer."

My question is this: Would "Answer" be different in each case if you were Person 1?

But that is not the situation.
At the moment the situation is.

Situation 1
Person A: What consequences are fair to my (real) situation?
Person B: I dunno, what happened? What situation?

Situation 2

Person A: What consequences are fair to my (hypothetical) situation?
Person B: I dunno, what happened? What situation?

If situation 2 then he can make up whatever shit he wants, if situation 1 he ought to say what he thinks happened.
That is why I was asking.
So there is no valid answer at the moment, so your scenario is null and void.

If he had sufficiently elaborated it, Would your answer be the same?

If he had elaborated then that would condition the answer I would give, no.

Whatever his situation, hypothetical or not, would not mean that my answer would be different. What would be the point in NOT treating a hypothetical question as if it were real - there would be no point.

THe point was , I think - about 5 posting ago is that if it WAS hypothetical then rather than relating to a real story Gustaf might have been blowing hot air, that is what I asked if it was hypothetical. Without clarification no answer would be meaningful.
I'm starting to get a bit sick of this. Maybe you should have stated why you asked in the first place?