Replying to Thought Experiment

Replying to Thought Experiment

Boylan & Michael explores various issues regarding aesthetics, knowledge, and ethics in the book “The good the true and the beautiful.” Most importantly, they exhaustively illustrate how those attributes affect our daily lives (Boylan & Michael, 2008, pg. 44).  In the book, the duo creatively demonstrates a unique understanding of the world through thought experiments, which in turn seeks to provide solutions to the questions that have for years nagged philosophers. Boylan & Michael, in thought experiment 3.1, therefore, significantly demonstrates how human life is like preliterate human hunting in the jungle (Boylan & Michael, 2008, pg. 46). Basically, ‘Thought experiment 3.1, is a metaphor that substantially implies working hard against all the odds to accomplish a particular goal. More specifically, as brought up by Boylan & Michael, pg. 49 (2008), thought experiment 3.1 refers to the personal achievement whereby an individual has to strive so hard to beat all odds to survive in a very stiff competition for survival. Thus, to say, in this hunting type of metaphor perspective, good can only be obtained, or rather success can only be achieved through victory in various competitive contests.

Thought experiment 3.1. Demonstrates various substantial elements in the fight for life existence and highlights what life is all about. As illustrated by Boylan & Michael, people who have the hunting-in-nature type of metaphor always perceive life to be a continual struggle for survival. Some great thinkers would equally argue; they believe in the ‘survival for the fittest’ philosophy. This thought experiment, therefore, holds that for a person to continue surviving in a particular society or rather environment, he or she must be ready to fight to fit in there, failure to which they either lose their dear lives or forced to hunt elsewhere perhaps where they may be considered more superior.

Just as exuberantly echoed by Boylan & Michael, pg. 46 (2008), everyone is on their own, so they either decide to make it in life or equally fail, the choice solely lies with them. Boylan & Michael goes ahead to explain that success only comes to those who more effectively deploy themselves. People who employ this metaphor, therefore, always work to identify their possible competitors from all walks of life. More often than not, such hunters are suspicious of possible competitors around them, for they fear they could in one way or the other lose their kill or rather harvest.  Thought experiment 3.1 is, therefore, trying to encourage people to always struggle against-all-odds to survive failure to which they are more likely to fall and be a pray to others. The experiment is also trying to explain that it is only through fighting against-all-odds in particular competition and becoming a victor that a person can achieve success.  The key point that the metaphor demonstrates is that working hard to beat all odds is the key to success.

Boylan & Michael, pg. 46 (2008) uses the term ‘Hunting’ to demonstrate the act of fighting or instead struggling. This is essential as it seeks to explain to the reader the importance of struggling in pursuit of success. By using ‘hunting,’ the writer metaphorically equated the term to ‘struggling’ because a hunter must always strive to hunt for food lest he or she starves to death. The essence of using ‘hunting’ in this metaphorical experiment is to refer to the sole act of fighting to survive in order to become successful. Thus, to say, as echoed by Boylan & Michael, pg. 47 (2008), to avoid starvation, one must hunt for food. The writer also uses the phrase ‘Kill or be Killed’ to refer to the dire need to hunt by the hunter.  The phrase demonstrates that one has no other option in their quest for survival except for working hard or rather fighting hard to survive. The phrase not only refers to hunting for food, but it also illustrates that for hunters to even remain alive in the society, they must learn to get to the prey first or risk being preyed on by other superior hunters such as superior animals like the lions, leopards, etc. Thought experiment 3.1 also documents that everything is always fair for as long as it can get a person to his/her desired goal/goals (Boylan & Michael pg. 46, 2008). By this illustration, the writer reverberates that action can perhaps be right and essential for as long as they can help in the achievement of a particular objective in life and, in this case, success.

The ideology of ‘everything is fair for as long as it can help a person achieve their desired goal’ puts consequentialism and ‘survival for the fittest’ philosophical concepts at stake. Utilitarianism concepts illustrate that the best ethical decision is that which yields the greatest good for the majority. Consequentialism, a concept of utilitarianism, on the one hand, holds that an action is considered right when they can produce a good outcome. Thought experiment 3.1, therefore, dictates that ‘survival for the fittest’ concepts play a significant role in the success of an individual/hunter. These concepts are at stake when justifying thought experiment 3.1. For instance, since the experiment advocates that for one to gain or rather be successful, they must fight against all the odds to accomplish their goals. A question comes up when they (hunters), over-hunt at the expense of others. What Boylan & Michael, pg. 48 (2008) refers to as laisses-faires Capitalism.  For example, a hunter can hunt food to avoid starvation. A problem may arise when they hunt more food to the extent that they endanger other hunter’s lives, i.e., killing others, or hunting more food to the extent of starving other future hunters. Concomitantly, thought experiment 3.1 jeopardizes consequentialism concepts when people embark so much into achieving their goals by all means possible even if it means taking the lives of other persons or even compromising other peoples’ successes. This remains to be the sole problem associated with thought experiment 3.1. Precisely, as demonstrated by Boylan & Michael, pg. 47 (2008), it is important to question this metaphor so that we may assert our personal autonomy. The best solution to the problem yielded by thought experiment 3.1 is, therefore, the full embrace of utilitarianism concepts, which dictates that an action is considered right if it can achieve happiness in everyone. Or rather, an action can be considered right when it is good to a greater number of individuals.

Utilitarianism involves three key principles: intrinsic value only exists in happiness and pleasure, actions are right when they promote happiness, and they are wrong when they indorse unhappiness, and everybody’s happiness counts (Bentham, Jeremy, and John Stuart Mill pg. 2 2004). When these concepts of utilitarianism are employed by people in their day-to-day lives, even as they strive to survive against all the odds, many social vices such as murder will seldom be heard. Instead, the concepts will substitute such social vices with healthy competition, which will ensure human beings peacefully co-exists in the environment and in solidarity. This is because more often than not, the ‘survival for the fittest’ concept usually disadvantage others.

From thought experiment 3.1, some of the general abstract points about that the world that has been explained includes; the world is filled with metaphysics. The world is metaphysical as reverberated by this thought experiment simply because it helps explain inherent elements of reality that are hardly discovered in everyday life. Thus, to say, it helps explain some of the features of reality beyond our immediate understanding, such as the survival of the fittest concepts. The idea of an individual being forced to either kill or be killed has been wonderfully explained by this experiment, and some of the compelling reasons that could perhaps make a person hunt or even kill has been clearly illustrated. These have been accomplished by the metaphysical concepts of the world.

Success in the world, as demonstrated by the experiment, is based on the amount of effort a person puts in. According to Boylan & Michael, pg. 46 (2008), success comes to those who deploy themselves effectively. Indeed, for one to achieve something in life, he or she must be ready to forgo lazing around and employ the right strategies to achieve success. The vice versa, however, is true. Thus, to say, one may incur failure or great loss if they fail to fight for what they desire. Additionally, the experiment demonstrates that the only way of protecting oneself from shortcomings such as failure is through working hard and accumulating and hoarding large amounts of reserves.

Finally, the experiment also demonstrates that the world’s nature is but at summative equilibrium. According to Boylan & Michael, pg. 47 (2008) nature is indeed equal though not identical because of scarcity in resources. Because of this summative equality, therefore, the world’s competition for resources will continue to exist, leading to wars and misunderstanding. All in all, the competition should not be viewed as that which brings enmity but unity