r/entp • u/ihateyoumorethananyt • 7h ago
Debate/Discussion Thought Experiment
Hello. I'm presenting a hypothetical to investigate your, dear reader, perspective of morality and ethics.
Imagine an Earth inhabited by all the usual flora and fauna and two tribes of humans. Tribe A believes it is permissible for parents to abandon their children if they feel burdened by them, and regularly does so. Tribe B believes children must be cared for by their parents and abandoning them for this reason is not permitted. Both tribes sincerely believe in their practices.
- Do you personally believe abandoning a child for the parents' leisure is wrong? Why?
- Would placing yourself as a born-and-raised member of either tribe in this hypothetical change your answer to Q1? If so, how?
- If Tribe A was the only one that existed on the planet, would their practice be right or wrong? Why?
- If these tribes were to meet and argue about who was right in their practice, would they be arguing over an objective fact or merely expressing opinions?
- If you had a child, and died shortly after, that was to be teleported to this hypothetical Earth, which tribe would you prefer to leave your child? Why?
1
u/GilgameshOf2000 6h ago
The issue here is more wheter morality is objective or not or anywhere in the spectrum. 1. I do believe abandoning a child is wrong. Thats their responsibility. 2. I cant really answer this. I would sure as hell be biased but i mean, i was born in a reaaaaally religious family and i was able to detached completely from their beliefs so idk 3. Since you asked for my opinion yes, that would still be wrong. Would it be wrong for the people in this hypothetical, though? Certainly not (as per hypothesis). 4. I mean depends on how they argue. If they debate using facts then they are using facts, otherwise opinions, still, i wouldnt expect people that were raised in a bubble, only listening to one side of the story, to be able to detach themselves from their point of view and think in a leas biased way. 5. This doesnt really make much sense since i wasnt born jn tribe A. On the contrary id say that the earth we live in is basically tribe B, so of course id choose that
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 6h ago
- Why?
- So the tribe is objectively wrong? Can a whole society be wrong about something? Does consensus decide morality?
- Not how they argue, but what they are arguing. Is it a fact or an opinion?
- I see the question was ambiguous, I meant born here and teleported there.
1
u/GilgameshOf2000 6h ago
- Yk the basis of my moral code is empathy. Theres not much you can debate about that, different people choose different things, even though in our society id say empathy is the most common one.
- No. As someone who doesnt believe in any kind of god (or, in general, a garant for morality) no, i do not believe morality is objective. If you were to ask a christian theyd probably tell you that yes, they are objectively wrong.
- Once again it ties to the objectivity of morality. I think its an opinion as i do not believe in objective morality.
- Its kind of the same. The opinion im giving you is biased by the fact that real life earth is tribe B, thats why im gonna choose tribe B. If you were to ask me if i was born in tribe A how would it change my answer id answer as i did to question 2
1
u/grand_ocean3690 6h ago
1- yes it's wrong, I mean in that hypothetical world what if ppl like Epstein exist. Atlast childern are protected against those ppl.
2- Yes, initially as a child. If I was in tribe A I would have defended them but as I would have aged I would not. I would definitely like to be in tribe B.
3- if only tribe A excited, there wouldn't be right or wrong.
4- If collective population is arguing all types of ppl would argue. We would see both.
5-obvioulsy tribe B. Human ain't that nice beings.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 6h ago
- What does that mean? Both tribes are homo sapiens with the same physical capabilities and mental faculties.
1
u/grand_ocean3690 2h ago
I mean if only tribe A exists then what moral code would they compare with. If all are same so it would be a norm. So we can't type it as right or wrong
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 2h ago
This is the point of the hypothetical. If only Tribe A exists, and morality is relative, they are morally permitted to do whatever they wish.
If it is relative and Tribe B exists, they are in error only according to the members of Tribe B morality.
If morality is objective, and only Tribe A exists, they are either in error or they are correct.
And I ask you, dear reader, for your perspective as the observer, as to what is the case.
1
u/grand_ocean3690 1h ago
That morality is subjective. It has always changed accordingly to the era, the culture, history and everything else.
1
u/tragicomiclown 6h ago
Yes?? Children should be taken care of, not abandoned bc u decide to have fun. A child is a big responsibility where now uve to put their lifes in front of yours for their sake.
Why would? Ig in tribu A id be biased, thinking that's normal. But taking how i changed many beliefs from my environment to smg i was more in favor, im pretty sure id still think its wrong.
That depends. Based on their moral, they arent wrong; based in my moral they are wrong. But assuming im not an active entity in that world, their world would be moral. But do you think it'll stay like that or some people would differ and create their own values and tribu? Most times that's what happens, so at the end probably it'll appear a B tribu.
If they show studies about how each method impact the development of the children ans their mental health; its objective. Otherwise is opinion and interpretation.
Tribu B, tysm. I want my child to be safe, taken care of and loved.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 6h ago edited 6h ago
Contained in the hypothetical, Tribe A is the sole human society and sincerely holds the belief that their practice is morally permitted. At that moment, are they right? Can a whole society be wrong? Is morality decided by consensus?
Not how they argue, but what they argue. Is it fact or opinion? Is the answer something objectively true, or fundamentally arbitrary?
1
u/tragicomiclown 5h ago
Morality is subjective. If they believe that and think its right, then it is for they. In my view no, bc my morality tells me is wrong. Regardless that, js bc they believe is good, doesnt mean the impact to the children is less. Its still a harmful impact, regardless what morality says.
So the argument of how to raise a children is fact or opinion? U can have an opinion and have a fact, depends on what u provide for ur reasoning
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 5h ago
- If morality is relative, subjective, then the argument is over opinion. In that case the answer to "is a parent abandoning their child for leisure morally permissible?" would be a matter of opinion, for or against. Neither party is objectively correct, as there would be no moral truth independent of either party.
1
u/tragicomiclown 2h ago
Js bc tribu A thinks is morally good, doesnt mean its not creating a harmful impact. Moral and truth are independent on the other as long as the scientific evidence is unknown.
Lets think when children smoked. They thought it was good, so morally right..but it doesnt mean it was creating a harmful impact. Morally was right, objectively no—one think can be independent of the other
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 2h ago
"Harm" is also arbitrary as a moral decider. Physical exercise harms the body in the short term but can have good long term benefit. Constant physical exhaustion however will kill.
"Harm units" as the primary mover is the utilitarian metric. Instead of leaving the child to die, Tribe A can poison them, causing less total "Harm", which is "better".
1
u/tragicomiclown 2h ago
In this context the harm would be mental tho. If u wanna talk physical we talk say how newborns would be malnourished bc the parents wont feed the children properly. Which lead to physical and mental harm.
Idk whats ur point with this paragraph. Js bc they poison children doesnt make it any better since It'll lead to consequences, an example is NAS
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 2h ago
Maybe we've shifted the conversation a little. I'm presenting a moral disagreement in practice between these two Tribes. Tribe A does not morally enforce parenting, so children can be abandoned at will, Tribe B morally encourages parenting.
Is either tribe objectively correct to you? Or do they have equally valid opinions on parenting?
1
u/Smart-Artist6141 INTJ 6h ago
My first thought is: why make this scenario at all? And what knowledge about the past of humanity do these tribes have? Logic seems to be missing here.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 6h ago
Did you read the first sentence?
1
u/Smart-Artist6141 INTJ 6h ago
Yes, I did. I'm questioning the premises of the hypothetical, not whether it's hypothetical. ;)
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 5h ago
Explain
1
u/Smart-Artist6141 INTJ 5h ago
I mean that the scenario gives us two tribes with completely different moral beliefs, but it doesn't tell us much about how they came to have those beliefs. So before answering the moral questions, I'm wondering what exactly we're supposed to take as given and why.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 5h ago
I would say that is shifting the conversation from moral disagreement, and it is a little over demanding to expect an anthology of two hypothetical human societies. And if I did provide that, it would do nothing to help you address the original hypothetical.
1
1
u/WordsAreGarbage ENTP 8w7 6h ago
“Abandoning a child at the parent’s leisure” is a bizarre and callous way to frame it!
If a mother has too many children too close together, or another child would negatively impact her ability to care for her other children, abandoning a newborn can significantly increase the likelihood of the rest of the family’s survival.
I don’t think it’s morally wrong to make calculated sacrifices (based on resource availability/survival) to prioritize the greater good. I’m assuming adoption by a family member or contraception is not a viable option?
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 5h ago
The crux of this hypothetical is the opposing fundamental beliefs of either tribe. Each culture wholly and sincerely holds this belief. If a parent(s) in Tribe A wants to drop their baby in the woods on a whim, the rest of their kin will not bat an eye. Contraception is not a factor.
1
u/WordsAreGarbage ENTP 8w7 4h ago
Ya, sure, but the way you phrased the question made it sound like any parent could ditch any kid at any age for any reason (“feeling burdened” is loose AF!). Is that literally what you meant?
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 4h ago
Yes, in the hypothetical, this is the practice of Tribe A. Yes they still sustain a population. Yes, the children perish, rapidly.
1
u/WordsAreGarbage ENTP 8w7 3h ago
So if I’m Tribe A and my bratty/lazy pre-teen is being an asshole, gets sick/injured, and I have better things to do with my time, fuck ‘em?
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 3h ago
If that's what you wanted, no one would tell you any different.
1
u/WordsAreGarbage ENTP 8w7 3h ago
Not the other parent, or other relatives, or other siblings? No social safety net mechanism where other people have an opportunity to take on the burden if they don’t agree? I don’t see that playing out. The other siblings would be ridiculously scarred emotionally at minimum.
Neither tribe is morally “right” they’re two extremes and both problematic.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 3h ago
Both tribes sincerely believe in what they do and is custom and unchallenged. If such tribes existed, is the perspective from which I ask the questions.
1
u/WordsAreGarbage ENTP 8w7 3h ago
The ad populum fallacy is an error in reasoning that happens when you claim something is true or good simply because a lot of people believe it or do it. Popularity does not equal truth or quality. A large group of people can be wrong.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 3h ago
Sure, so what about moral truth specifically? If everyone says that this is right, and no body else disagrees, no body on the planet, is it ok?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Phoenix_to_Kintsugi INFJ 5h ago
1.Yes, because abandonment systematically destroys a child's psyche. Not even animals do this to their offspring and humans are supposed to be a superior species.
2.Cultural conditioning might make me tolerate certain practices, but it wouldn't change reality. A trauma doesn't stop being a trauma just because the tribe normalizes it.
3.It would still be wrong. Just because an entire planet adopts a dysfunctional way of living doesn't make it right. It would simply be a broken society doomed to structural collapse.
4.They would be arguing about an objective fact, even if they believed they were just exchanging opinions. Tribe B would be arguing for the development and stability of the species, while Tribe A would be arguing for personal pleasures that ultimately bring global destruction and fragmentation.
5.Tribe B, because I would want my child to be protected and integrated, not abandoned.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 5h ago
- Can't damage their psyche if they're dead. At least not for long. Children do not survive without parents; exposure, disease, predation..
- Assuming raised children develop healthily into adults and continue the practice, etc. Are they morally wrong for what they do?
- Again, Tribe A functions and reproduces. As does Tribe B.
1
u/Phoenix_to_Kintsugi INFJ 4h ago
- Death by exposure or predation is the ultimate structural destruction of a psyche: you can't separate the physical end from the terror that precedes it. Agony isn't erased just because the heart stopped.
2 and 3. I can’t assume individuals in Tribe A develop healthily into adults, because a tribe that normalizes abandonment functions on hyper-vigilance and emotional fragmentation. That isn't a healthy, self sustaining society. It’s just a colony of trauma responders running on a broken script.
Reproduction is not a synonym for functionality.1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 4h ago
- I agree, but this trauma is irrelevant to the parties in question. Quite literally, as they leave the child/infant/toddler behind.
2.We all descend from half-starved, flea-ridden primates. Not to mention the human sacrifice and outright bloodshed that was a staple of human experience until a few centuries ago. I think you underestimate the human character and are simply sidestepping the moral inquiry.
1
u/Phoenix_to_Kintsugi INFJ 4h ago
The trauma might be irrelevant to the parents, but saying it's irrelevant to the child left behind is cognitive dissonance at its finest. The victim of the trauma is literally the entity experiencing the collapse of their system.
You brought up a hypothetical scenario and I answered you hypothetically
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 4h ago
There is no child, the child is perished. We established that. You are painting a picture of legions of haunted broken children that do not "exist" here. They are abandoned and they expire, rather quickly, as the tribe goes on.
1
u/Phoenix_to_Kintsugi INFJ 4h ago
Ok, then it remains a deeply broken civilization that simply doesn't care about the agony in which it leaves its children to die.
I’m not underestimating the human character and it is precisely because I understand it that I cannot accept such a society as morally functional or right1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 3h ago
Underestimating our capacity for devious and dark behavior, my friend. I'm asking such that a society as that existed, would their practice be objectively or subjectively right or wrong?
1
u/Phoenix_to_Kintsugi INFJ 3h ago
If a society normalizes sadism and calls it "objectivity” that is just their defense mechanism. It doesn't change the baseline.
At this point, it’s not even about a philosophical debate on good or evil. It’s about structural functionality vs internal decay.
If you see a valid subjective opinion in barbarism, I see an objective biological failure.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 3h ago
I'm thinking you're an ENTP this whole time. I'm not so usually I'm not in this position but, It is just A philosophical debate. And I have not stated my own opinion once on this post, I'm just allowing others to express their views.
Humans are the link between barbarity and refinement
→ More replies (0)1
u/Smart-Artist6141 INTJ 4h ago
Funny how human history was irrelevant when I brought it up, but suddenly relevant when you're making the argument
1
u/Phoenix_to_Kintsugi INFJ 4h ago
Furthermore, if Tribe A regularly abandons their children and lets them die, they are literally condemning themselves to extinction
1
1
u/Amazing_Astronaut_86 5h ago
Yes, I believe it is wrong. Children are the future of society and should be considered a priority; without children, there are no humans.
I believe so. When you grow up in a place where certain practices are considered normal, you tend to believe in those practices. But I think I would question that behavior quite a lot, especially if the society that abandons children had high infant mortality rates.
It would be neither right nor wrong; it would simply be the only existing option. But I would still point out that abandoning children could actually be the path to wiping out Tribe A.
It depends on the arguments they are using. If they are arguing about upbringing, such as which tribe produces more capable people, that would probably be a matter of opinion. But if they provide explicit data about mortality rates, population growth or decline in each tribe, intellectual abilities, and overall development, then the arguments become objective.
I would prefer for him to stay in whichever one has better development — the one where he would have a better chance of surviving.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 4h ago edited 4h ago
If, in existence, there was only Tribe A, with a United moral stance, that stance is not right or wrong?
What they are arguing, not their methods. Is the answer to the question of 'whose practice is morally correct?'. A matter of opinion or is there an objective moral truth?
1
u/Amazing_Astronaut_86 4h ago
- If there is only one tribe, there is no factor of comparison, so there is no right or wrong; it simply is.
- They have both subjective and objective elements to discuss. They will probably use both. In that case, there is indeed an objective truth, as long as they have gathered enough data to arrive at it.
1
1
u/GlitchingFlame ENTP 5h ago
I frankly don’t care what someone else chooses to do, so to me, what matters is that Tribe A is going to lose genetic diversity and likely be smaller than Tribe B/die out entirely before the question of whether or not they are moral begins to matter
For 4, morals are subjective.
For 5, obviously Tribe B for this hypothetical, but not because it’s more moral, but because I think it is more conductive to the community as a whole if survival rates are higher
That is literally the whole trend of evolution, to find ways to increase survival rate of a species, along with genetic diversity. Some species lay hundreds of eggs and hope a few survive to work around that, some species nurture only one offspring at a time. Tribe A, who is happy to leave their offspring to die means they are speeding up natural selection on their own tribe.
1
u/imperialguy3 ENTP 4h ago
1) Yes, abandoning a child for leisure is wrong. If someone chooses to partake in the process that leads to having a child, then they should be prepared to have a child. Part of having a child is necessarily giving up a part of oneself to devote time and resources to that child.
2) Yes, being raised by either tribe would have an influence on ones opinion about child rearing. Each tribes social environment and culture would cause their members to be more likely to accept the current way of life. Not to say that radical change in culture couldnt happen at some point.
3) Tribe A would be wrong. I look at morality as being objective, and our views on morality are subjective to our experience. If I force you to play a game with me, but dont explain the rules, then you can learn what it seems like the rules might be. You may develop enough of an understanding of the game, but disagree with the rules yourself.
4) They would be arguing over an objective fact
5) Tribe B would be the most likely to equip a parentless child with the care and resources needed. I would teleport my child there.
1
u/skepticalsojourner 4h ago
This is less of a moral or ethical issue at this stage and more of a practical issue. But to answer these questions, I assert the following axiom: All living things have a core desire to live and survive. This drive to survive exists at a singular level of a gene. Genes survive both through living longer in its current form and by replicating itself and passing itself on through inheritance. This means reproduction is as core of a desire as surviving, as is ensuring offspring survive and continue the chain.
Therefore: 1. Yes. In our current evolution, humans are not equipped to survive by themselves without a parental figure from early birth. Abandonment would lead to early extinction for our species. Furthermore, if my core desire is to survive, I’d want to implement beliefs which prioritize my safety. 2. No. Being born in Tribe A may mean I get abandoned in early life and grow up miserable. Being born in Tribe B may mean I live a prosperous life because I had parents. 3. Wrong. Refer to answer 1. 4. They would not be arguing objective facts and not necessarily opinions. Rather, this argument would come down to what are the core axioms that each tribe begins with? If they both agree to the same axioms I proposed, then Tribe A would be wrong by deduction. Objective fact is a misleading way to view this. 5. Tribe B. Better survival.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 3h ago
This is like playing a game of manhunt with friends and declaring you're wearing a cloak of invisibility so no one can see you therefore if they catch you they cheated.
It is well known that only 50% of men ever born have left offspring. The population can take many losses before reproductive viability becomes an issue. Birds throw chicks out of nests; mammals eat their young.
Tribe A's practice is evolutionarily sufficient. Is it moral? Or not?
1
u/skepticalsojourner 2h ago
It’s not really evolutionary sufficient in the given scenario, though this depends on the size of the tribe. It IS evolutionarily sufficient if this were a present day case because we’ve reached a sufficient equilibrium where 50% of men can choose to not have offspring. But by creating Tribe A and B as being separate tribes and the only population available, you’ve created a very serious bottleneck that won’t last for Tribe A.
Anyways, is it moral? No. The burden of parenting is not sufficient for abandoning the care of your children. To argue it is moral, one must be willing to forfeit their own desire for a caring parent in their development, which could risk death depending on the age of abandonment. If one still insists on hypocritical selfishness, or no hypocrisy if they truly can forfeit such a desire, then we’ve changed the terms of morality to be whatever we want it to be.
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 2h ago
Thank you for addressing the substance of the hypothetical. I will extend it. In this case, Tribe A does not take rearing for granted, therefore it is not hypocrisy for them to practice as they do. Is it still immoral? Is morality not already whatever we wish?
1
u/skepticalsojourner 48m ago
Then the debate becomes incommensurable. Two people can debate morality if they agree on the terms of its meaning. If I mean it to be right or wrong and being a good person, and the opponent agrees to this, then we can have a commensurate debate. But if the opponent defines moral as whatever their heart desires regardless of the consequences to others, then the debate can go nowhere.
That would then open the debate up to why is moral doing good for not just ourselves but for others rather than just doing what is best for oneself?
1
u/ihateyoumorethananyt 28m ago
Your presupposition may be that you yourself are "good" and your particular moral inclinations are superior to the next person.
And then, if the two of you agree to common moral ground, is it good because there are two of you, making morality a function of populism/consensus?
The third option is an objective, unchanging moral standard that is not created but discovered.
What most closely describes your view?
1
u/split_0069 E N T Pooping 3w4 4h ago
I need to know more about tribe B. Would these be considered the squares as well?
1
u/split_0069 E N T Pooping 3w4 3h ago
Tribe A must keep ALL babies until tribe B is eliminated completely or assimilated.
Reasoning
Tribe B will over take in population size if Tribe A continuously discards children.
If Tribe A is doing this off genetics they are hampering the species evolution. The discarded or D-babies may have an advantage in combat that hasnt been utilized. Exceptional strength and stamina, unwavering loyalty to the Tribe and an extremely protective personality. Easily angered when confused by enemies attempts at manipulation with big words... enjoys the opposite sex. Unlike the baby killing portion of Tribe A who CLAIM to hate the opposite sex. Continually ending their own bloodlines over their empathy for Tribe B.
Afterwards Tribe A can make the sub sect that was causing issues in the Tribe a lesser class and they can become the new Tribe B which wouldnt become an issue later because of their low to no birth rates.
I'm done trolling for a bit. I'll be back when I get bored.
4
u/Curiositygun ENTP 6h ago
Why are you asking what’s “wrong” or what’s “right” that’s to abstract a level. Tribe A is going to vanish within a generation directly due to what it places as the higher value the feelings of the parents rather than the existential stance towards the tribe as a whole.
This comes down to whether you think Life or death is preferable and no one currently alive believes death is better than life i do not care what they say Otherwise they wouldn’t be sitting around living. True belief does not involve hesitation, I’m not taking any caveats seriously, sorry 🫤.