Can hypotheticals prove true in ALL situations and change our pragmatic behaviors?

NakedNdAfraid

As the title implies, just wondering if say in this scenario

Timmy cherish the idea of reducing his amount of pain and suffering
Timmy is going to sit on a chair
Now realistically, Timmy is alone and nobody else is with Timmy
But hypothetically, there is someone with Timmy and Timmy can fall if someone removes the chair quick enough without Timmy noticing and not be able to react fast enough to NOT sit at all to avoid falling and hurt Timmy
Therefore Timmy should not sit on a chair because we can hypothetically conclude Timmy wouldn't want to fall and hurt himself if someone removes the chair quick enough without Timmy noticing and react to NOT sit at all in a timely fashion to avoid falling

So what do you guys think? Did we just successfully and logically made Timmy second guess his sitting actions from now on throughout his life because hypothetically we can prove it wouldn't be best for him?

Reason I ask is because I was over hearing a conversation with a friend and a theist... Well my friend is a gay person (I'm not though lol) and the theist brings up a 'what if' God scenario...

1. You obviously want to minimize or reduce your suffering or pain in any way possible AND reasonable
2. IF God came down and told you that you'd burn eternity in hell for living as a gay person BUT you can avoid all that if you just convert yourself back into being straight
4. You obviously cherish your life and suffering is bad, even HYPOTHETICALLY if there is an afterlife you wouldn't want to be tortured infinitely
5. Therefore you should be straight because your framework of not wanting to suffer infinitely doesn't support your gay lifestyle IF hypothetically God came down and told you this

Some of you people might be asking how does this prove god, well it doesn't, but the point of this post is pertaining to hypotheticals...

Of course we can't really provide another hypothetical to counter act his hypothetical that would defeat the purpose of his hypothetical and just avoid his hypothetical. So is it true? Should gays be straight because HYPOTHETICALLY (remember it doesn't have to be proven true 'realistically') God can come down and do what he says he's going to do with the framework that everyone obviously cherish their life even after death?

Thank you guys if you read it all.... If it might hurt your head I can understand. It certainly hurt mines too lol.

SophistiCat

Of course we can't really provide another hypothetical to counter act his hypothetical that would defeat the purpose of his hypothetical and just avoid his hypothetical. — NakedNdAfraid

Why can't we? Because we don't want to make him feel bad about losing an argument?

When making decisions, we do consider various hypotheticals, but if we are being reasonable, we do some selection according to their plausibility and potential impact. We ignore extremely implausible hypotheticals, as well as unimportant hypotheticals. For example, when you are about to sit on a chair, most of the time you do not take seriously the possibility that someone might yank it from under you. Nor do you consider the price of tea in China. On the other hand, a relatively implausible hypothetical with a potentially very high impact may be worth considering, so there is some risk-reward balancing.

Another important thing in a rational decision making is to be consistent about which hypotheticals you include into consideration, and not give them preferential treatment for irrelevant reasons. So if someone asks you: "What if the Gay-Hating God punishes gays in the afterlife?" you are quite in your rights to retort: "What if the Straight-Hating God punishes straights in the afterlife?" Because both are equally valid, albeit extremely remote hypotheticals, at least if you are not a believer in either the Gay-Hating God or the Straight-Hating God.

Terrapin Station

↪NakedNdAfraid

All your friend needed to say is, "Hypothetically, there is a god, but his view is that everyone who isn't gay will burn in Hell for eternity."

(Also, as SophistiCat said, "Why can't we?" You can't just stipulate dibs on hypotheticals, lol. His hypothetical just as well avoids ours.)

The moral of the story is that for every hypothetical proposed, we can propose an equal and opposite hypothetical, so there has to be more to this than just considering a hypothetical.

NakedNdAfraid

↪SophistiCat

"Why can't we? Because we don't want to make him feel bad about losing an argument?"
&

↪Terrapin Station

"The moral of the story is that for every hypothetical proposed, we can propose an equal and opposite hypothetical, so there has to be more to this than just considering a hypothetical."

this would akin to a tu quo fallacy, in concept and his thought experiment would actually not have been invalidated

Thought experiment:
A thought experiment (German: Gedankenexperiment,[1] Gedanken-Experiment,[2] or Gedankenerfahrung,[3]) considers some hypothesis, theory,[4] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may not be possible to perform it, and even if it could be performed, there need not be an intention to perform it.

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question:

so for instance my gay friend obviously told the guy he holds the framework of
1. You obviously want to minimize or reduce your suffering or pain in any way possible AND reasonable

the hypothetical thought experiment would merit true if God came down and do what he is about to do pertaining to gay lifestyle

but I think the question is 'should' we live in a world that God would come down and do such a thing? Although his hypothetical thought experiment is true, the probability of it would still hold little significant weight in determining a pragmatic way of living... but then I can see him using other hypothetical thought experiment on certain principles that changed our way of living without going through such a scenario.. But I think with that kind of retort is that it IS plausible pertaining to reality thus concluding the probability merits a strong causal linkage to reality? .... I don't know but all I know is if we do present out hypothetical it would just avoid his hypothetical and it wouldn't address it not only that a thought experiment isn't to suggest that it has to be possible, but to follow the principles of a framework to its logical conclusion.... sadly all of this is intellectually merited, I don't know if responding with the idea of plausibility is even a refutation unless we're to go against the norm.

Terrapin Station

this would akin to a tu quo fallacy, in concept and his thought experiment would actually not have been invalidated — NakedNdAfraid

It's not the tu quoque fallacy--that's basically the "hypocrisy fallacy." No one is claiming hypocrisy here.

And no one is saying that just in case someone wants to minimize or reduce their suffering or pain in any way possible and reasonable, and we suppose that god is going to punish gays, then converting to straight wouldn't be merited. That definitely follows from that hypothesis. We're not saying that it doesn't.

The problem is that we can just as easily say that just in case someone wants to minimize or reduce their suffering or pain in any way possible and reasonable, and we suppose that god is going to punish straights, then converting to gay would be merited. That definitely follows from that hypothesis.

So if a hypothetical possibility merits action, then we have the problem that two contradictory courses of action are merited for every situation.

NakedNdAfraid

↪Terrapin Station

so now the question becomes, which ones hold more merits? we should address a 'should we live as if this x' in this scenario right?

Can hypotheticals prove true in ALL situations and change our pragmatic behaviors?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions