That’s what Chomsky said too, I don’t buy it. In my country there are 10+ parties, 6 of which in government, and people are still playing the lesser evil game in the deluded hope they can shift the window.
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
Even breathing has downsides.
True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all.
This, however, I’m having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a “family” really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?
Thanks! To your last point, I see any meaningful choice as fundamentally deliberative. If courses of action have no discriminating features (over which to deliberate), e.g., by being equally bad or good, then your decision would be arbitrary, right? Acting at random isn’t a deliberative action (evaluative, judgment-oriented, rule-bounded, normative, moral, or praiseworthy), etc.
Hate it all you want, but until you can establish a viable third party (who isn’t also awful), “lesser of two evils” is the only choice you have.
Isn’t that literally life?
It’s every single choice these people have ever made and they still don’t get it.
That’s what Chomsky said too, I don’t buy it. In my country there are 10+ parties, 6 of which in government, and people are still playing the lesser evil game in the deluded hope they can shift the window.
That’s… life. You’ve never not made a lesser-of-two-evils choice. It’s metaphysically impossible.
Very interesting viewpoint but it doesn’t quite seem to apply when choosing flavors at an ice cream parlor.
It does, actually. Ice cream can put you at grave risk of brain freeze.
If you want to be philosophical about it, consider this: If there weren’t pros and cons, you wouldn’t be making a choice at all.
And even breathing has downsides. For instance, it means I must continue sharing the planet with you. This is terrible news. (Also my nose is cold.)
Good point! Then again, I don’t think some flavors result in less brain freeze than others.
True as well, every breath destroys lung cells.
This, however, I’m having a hard time to agree with. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure choice is something natural, but that will require some deeper investigation to ascertain. In a fictional natural state, when looking for a place to sleep, would a “family” really (have to) make a conscious choice between this cave and that one?
Thanks! To your last point, I see any meaningful choice as fundamentally deliberative. If courses of action have no discriminating features (over which to deliberate), e.g., by being equally bad or good, then your decision would be arbitrary, right? Acting at random isn’t a deliberative action (evaluative, judgment-oriented, rule-bounded, normative, moral, or praiseworthy), etc.