English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why do some people feel a need to modify hypotheticals presented to them, as if they were always entitled to interpose their sense of what is fair? Unless the hypothetical is too implausible to be answered, what objective basis is there to alter a person's hypothetical?

2006-11-28 22:22:57 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

5 answers

They're not interested in discussing: they're interested in "winning" the argument. There is no basis for altering a hypothetical example. I would say not even if its too implausible to be answered: its best just to say that it is too implausible and, perhaps, explain why that is so.

There is, naturally, an innocent explanation in that they might not have misunderstood the hypothetical or you are misunderstanding their answer to it.

2006-11-28 22:33:14 · answer #1 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 1 0

I think people modify hypotheticals so it can seem more realistic to them in order to comprehend the situation and if it's a hypothetical, how can they justify what is fair to you. Only you can justify what is fair to you and another person can only justify what is fair to them. I guess that is why a person asks another person a hypothetical question, to get their opinion on what they would do if they were in that situation although it isn't right for them to interpose on what they think is fair.A person is always in charge of what he thinks, does, says, or feels amongst other things.
I agree 100% that there shouldn't be any altering of a hypethetical but I don't think people can see themselves in certain situations but I think that they shouldn't answer if they can't participate.

2006-11-29 09:06:02 · answer #2 · answered by Dimples 6 · 0 0

Often the hypothetical is too unspecific to judge properly.

If someone asks me the question "is it proper to steal?" I respond by asking "under what circumstance?" and "by what motivation?"

The pure thief who works for his own gain acting for his own gain seems always to act improperly, but the man who steals for his family, in circumstances beyond his control without alternative options, in an attempt to preserve health and general good, seems to be acting justly. It requires proper manipulation of the general hypothetical to make the distinction.

Thus, in this way a hypothetical may require manipulation.

2006-11-29 06:34:46 · answer #3 · answered by iwpoe 2 · 0 0

Sometimes it's hard for people to think of things from a point of view that is alien to them, so they adjust the hypothetical to something they can imagine.

2006-11-29 07:14:39 · answer #4 · answered by The Gadfly 5 · 0 0

Wow, it's too early in the morning for me to comprehend so many big words all at once...I better head on over tothe "celebrities" section til i have plenty of caffeine in my system...

2006-11-29 07:11:36 · answer #5 · answered by ~LAX Mom~ 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers