Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
A person perceives the world around him through the prism of his own “I”, based on personal attitudes and experience, analyzing the world around him. The experience and vision of another person are usually secondary to us, as we rely more on ourselves, because we see with our own eyes, and not with others'.
And so the argument is”would you like it if it were like this?” appeals specifically to your experience and assessment – you are asked to imagine yourself in a similar situation and evaluate it, as you would like what is happening. Usually, such a question is asked in case of any resentment/unpleasant situation, when the interlocutor tries to convey to you the degree of his dissatisfaction with what is happening, so that you, so to speak, take a look at the situation with your own eyes and evaluate it from your point of view. And, most likely (but not 100%), you will come to the conclusion that you would also not be very happy, and, thus, you will get into the feelings of the interlocutor, and, possibly, apologize (if the conversation is about your joint).
The technique is quite effective, so if you are asked to do this, evaluate what is happening sensibly and as objectively as possible. They say, yes, it would be unpleasant for me, but we are talking about something else now.
People are so built that they strive to be right. Being wrong is unpleasant, being right is pleasant. This is probably an evolutionary acquisition – after all, an animal that thought and acted correctly is alive and well-fed, and the one that made a mistake is hungry, or even dead.
But we can show this desire in a much larger number of ways than animals-in science, for example, or even test whether our understanding of what is right is correct.
Of course, since ancient times, people have been trying to figure out how to do the right thing and how to do the wrong thing. Although there is no definitive answer and is unlikely to be, much has been clarified.
For example, the “golden rule of morality” was found, the very one that you are asking why it works. It has different formulations, I like Kant's – ” you should act in such a way that your actions can be a universal law.”
It doesn't work on its own, it works if you accept a number of assumptions – but it just so happens that most people accept them, often unconsciously, on an intuitive level. That's how much you accepted them, that's how convincing the argument is.
The premise is something like this: a person is a social being and does not survive alone. He needs company. Society needs rules about what is allowed to be done in relation to other members of society, what is approved and what is frowned upon. These rules can not be any-not all rules allow society to exist. Suitable rules are just those that correspond to the golden rule of morality. Those that do not correspond make society unviable, and without it, every single person will perish.
Actually, parcels are accepted by those people who believe that a safe and stable path is better than a dangerous and short one.
So it turns out that a person who wants prosperity for himself and his offspring should want prosperity for society, and if he wants prosperity for society, he should strive to act in such a way that a society where everyone does this is possible. If a society where everyone does this is impossible, then it should not be done, because it leads to the disintegration of society.
Of course, life is somewhat more complicated. If we analyze the behavior of animals in populations through game theory, it turns out that there is usually a certain balance between strategies in the population. The more individuals in a population who adhere to strategies focused on long-term benefits (and cooperation, honesty, loyalty, altruism, and many other human qualities that are traditionally considered good are just such), the more profitable their owners become strategies that are aimed at short – term benefits-aggression, deception, theft, betrayal, and selfishness. In the chimpanzee population, there is always a small percentage of those who try to exploit strategies that allow you to get risky benefits here and now at the expense of other members of the team, instead of those that give a stable safe and beneficial result for everyone.
But monkeys are hostages of evolution, and its algorithms are so designed that they don't know what's good and what's bad, but only support what makes it possible to reproduce better. We have intelligence and can be better than monkeys.