However, if it is unclear why fallacies could be considered ethical problems, let us define ethics, and explain how fallacies are ethical problems. Kant defined good as that which is beneficial to the self, that is, an individual; and good as that which is harmful to oneself. Whereas right is that which is helpful to others, and wrong is that which is harmful to others. Morality is a question of what is good, versus what is bad. Ethicality is a question of what is right, versus what is wrong. Of course, what is right might not always be good, and what is bad might not always be wrong. Questions of what is sacred or profane are not considered in these dichotomies, as it is obvious that to be selfish is good for the individual, and to be selfless
…show more content…
Rather than attempting to define whether it is more proper to be good, or whether it is more proper to be right, we will attempt to define whether it is more useful to be good, or whether it is more useful to be right. If one is by oneself, it is always more useful to be good. However, to the degree that one is expected to live among other sapient organisms, in terms of frequency of encounter, the more useful it is to be right. Ergo, to the degree that one behaves good, rather than right, the greater they will be spurned from society at large. This is the principal contributor to the erosion of social cohesion. Yet, it is such a simple argument one must wonder why everyone would not act selflessly. The obvious answer has already been explained in our discussion of the social mechanics of dunbar’s number. In the process of social constructionism, whereby individuals attempt to form social topographies, the possibility of making fallacious deductions is probable. Thus, the resolution of fallacies would allow individuals to act to a higher degree of utility, and for that reason, we may consider it to be an ethical challenge, and i would further suggest, one of the greatest ethical challenges of our contemporary global society, along with the problem of communicational utility. Yet, to conclude, it is my belief that neuralink should be able to amend both of these by allowing for incidental telepathic bonds to be formed, regardless of distance or circumstantial, that is to say a priori,
Rather than attempting to define whether it is more proper to be good, or whether it is more proper to be right, we will attempt to define whether it is more useful to be good, or whether it is more useful to be right. If one is by oneself, it is always more useful to be good. However, to the degree that one is expected to live among other sapient organisms, in terms of frequency of encounter, the more useful it is to be right. Ergo, to the degree that one behaves good, rather than right, the greater they will be spurned from society at large. This is the principal contributor to the erosion of social cohesion. Yet, it is such a simple argument one must wonder why everyone would not act selflessly. The obvious answer has already been explained in our discussion of the social mechanics of dunbar’s number. In the process of social constructionism, whereby individuals attempt to form social topographies, the possibility of making fallacious deductions is probable. Thus, the resolution of fallacies would allow individuals to act to a higher degree of utility, and for that reason, we may consider it to be an ethical challenge, and i would further suggest, one of the greatest ethical challenges of our contemporary global society, along with the problem of communicational utility. Yet, to conclude, it is my belief that neuralink should be able to amend both of these by allowing for incidental telepathic bonds to be formed, regardless of distance or circumstantial, that is to say a priori,