Time in relation to interests

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Time in relation to interests

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

Should the length in time for which an interest was held be taken into account in the moral consideration of the possible goodness of fulfilling that interest?

To clarify what I mean:

Two people of equal sentience have the same desire, to the same degree. It is a selfish interest, so satisfying it for one of them will not satisfy it for both of them. Suppose one of them, person A, held that interest for double the time as the other, person B. If only one of their interests could be fulfilled I would select person A because there exists more past instances of person A desiring it than person B. Therefore, to fulfill person A's interest will fulfill more interests than person B's would.

Another interesting implication of this is that we might disregard suicidal desires in people who have for a longer time desired to live because the magnitude of the violation would be greater than the magnitude of fulfillment. This, is of course, not considering the implications the suicide would otherwise have, violating the interest of countless people.

Tell me what you think!
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Time in relation to interests

Post by PsYcHo »

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:28 pm Should the length in time for which an interest was held be taken into account in the moral consideration of the possible goodness of fulfilling that interest?

To clarify what I mean:

Two people of equal sentience have the same desire, to the same degree. It is a selfish interest, so satisfying it for one of them will not satisfy it for both of them. Suppose one of them, person A, held that interest for double the time as the other, person B. If only one of their interests could be fulfilled I would select person A because there exists more past instances of person A desiring it than person B. Therefore, to fulfill person A's interest will fulfill more interests than person B's would.
In this scenario, are you personally capable of "granting the wish"? Just because someone has held a desire for longer, doesn't mean that they would appreciate it more than someone else with the same desire, who has had it for a shorter period of time. Should appreciation factor into your consideration of fulfillment?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:28 pm Another interesting implication of this is that we might disregard suicidal desires in people who have for a longer time desired to live because the magnitude of the violation would be greater than the magnitude of fulfillment. This, is of course, not considering the implications the suicide would otherwise have, violating the interest of countless people.
I hope this is a wild hypothetical, but could you elaborate more? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Time in relation to interests

Post by esquizofrenico »

Like Psycho said, the time you have held a desire is a very poor measurement for the satisfaction that you will get if it is granted. You can imagine for example someone that has wanted to be a policeman since he was a child, but just because his father was and knows it's an ok work; and compare it with someone that decides when he's 18 to become a policeman, but does because he has a strong urge to help the community and protect people (whether or not policeman actually do this is not the issue, Psycho ;) ).

If comparing the importance of two different interests is somewhat arbitrary in general, comparing the intensity of the same interest held by two different people is almost impossible. Even if you could, is really expectation a good measurement of how much you will enjoy your desire and how well you will manage it? What if the second guy I talked about gets excited about things all the time, while the former is much more calm and cannot get excited about anything? But when we give the job to the first guy, he gets bored about it in a week and decides it's actually a fireman what his heart most desires?
Dream Sphere
Senior Member
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:52 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada

Re: Time in relation to interests

Post by Dream Sphere »

I wonder how the concept of idealized interests could play into this. Like if for someone's childhood they always wanted to live by the bible, and half of their childhood they didn't care what was true or rational, but the second half they began to care for being rational. How much more intense would their desire to be rational have to be and/or the benefits to their other interests from being rational, to overwhelm the longer held fundamentalist religious beliefs enough for someone to go against the longer held bible interest by explaining to them how it isn't rational?

I guess I'm wondering how you quantify time by intensity. (Not sure if I'm using the word quantify correctly in context.)

I'm thinking that while we should respect past interests proportionately, that we can only change the present and future and there's a lot more potential in the future, so it may be preferrable to value future and/or present/recent interests more than further in the past ones since there's a lot of potential for those recent interests to snowball into something more weighty in the grand scheme of things. This assumes you can likely tell what a person will subsequently want in the future if it's future interests that really matter, though maybe I'm off and it's present interests which are more relevant than future ones, since they help predict what future ones will be, focusing on the recent ones makes more sense to me, but I know that I don't know this well, so I'm really open and interested in hearing otherwise.

I'm unsure and I notice I'm a bit rambly/all over the place probably in part to being on my phone and not having as good typing/editing options, anyways... 😅 I'll see about either improving my post in editing later or better organizing my thoughts in another post in reply if anyone has anything to say on what I've said.

Edit: looking back at what you said, I think I may have missed the point.

I guess my decision on who should get it plays into the overall weight/intensity of interest in the thing. If person A had lvl 10 interest in something for 5 years leading up to the present, and person B had no interest in it for three years and then level 10 for 2 years leading up to the present, then I think it should go to person A. I think since person A wanted it as much for longer that more of their being wanted it, resulting in person A through time wanted it more even if only now both person A and B want it the same. Like person A's 5 * 10 = 50 versus person B's 20. But going back to what I originally made my post about, if it looks like person B will have an ultimately greater fulfillment of interests past, present, and probable future taken into account, then giving it to them would be better. Like person A gets a 50 point fullfillment leading up to it, then for the rest of their interest developing life gets a 10 point fulfillment, vs person B getting a 20 point fulfillment initially, but due to cause and effect after getting this thing they want they then get a 50 point fullfillment in interests in the future which was only achieved by giving them this thing.

If by same degree you mean the overall weight of interest in all time being the same, then it would be a tossup on who should get it regardless of time the interest was held in the past. If it's likely their future benefits would be the same and one held it at an equal rate of intensity, but for longer into the past, then I would say their whole being in all time wanted it more.

Another thing I'm wondering about is when a person fundamentally changes over time.

Like somebody currently really wants something but their current self doesn't want someone like their future self to have it and they don't know that their future self will be whom they don't want to have it. They stay like more or less their past self which was their current self for the vast majority of their life, but they then become that future self which they didn't want to have what they wanted for so long. If their wanting it and not wanting their future self to have it were the same, then would the tie-breaker be what their future/now current self wants which would go against what their old self wanted so long? I have no idea, haha. I would guess this is a fringe issue, though. I feel pretentious/self conscious, but I'm honestly speaking my mind and I'm really here to learn, so I feel that getting all my misconceptions out there with talking so freely could be a good way to learn although it's embarrassing.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Time in relation to interests

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

PsYcHo wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:14 pmIn this scenario, are you personally capable of "granting the wish"?
Yes.
Just because someone has held a desire for longer, doesn't mean that they would appreciate it more than someone else with the same desire, who has had it for a shorter period of time. Should appreciation factor into your consideration of fulfillment?
Good point. Let's hold it constant so that we can only consider the impact of time.
I hope this is a wild hypothetical, but could you elaborate more? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
For any point in time, a sentient being can be split up into distinct instances of itself. We change over time, so it can be useful to think of you yesterday as different from you today because some has changed about you- you are not the same.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Time in relation to interests

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

esquizofrenico wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:58 pm Like Psycho said, the time you have held a desire is a very poor measurement for the satisfaction that you will get if it is granted.
Like I said to PsYcHo, let's hold that constant.
If comparing the importance of two different interests is somewhat arbitrary in general, comparing the intensity of the same interest held by two different people is almost impossible.
Not true at all. You can ask the person.
Even if you could, is really expectation a good measurement of how much you will enjoy your desire and how well you will manage it?
Enjoyment is irrelevant. The fulfillment of the interest itself is the key.
What if the second guy I talked about gets excited about things all the time, while the former is much more calm and cannot get excited about anything? But when we give the job to the first guy, he gets bored about it in a week and decides it's actually a fireman what his heart most desires?
In order to just consider the impact of time, let's hold their character constant as well. The scenario is intended to be of two different people, the same in every way except the duration of their interest.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Time in relation to interests

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

Dream Sphere wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:18 pmI'm thinking that while we should respect past interests proportionately, that we can only change the present and future and there's a lot more potential in the future, so it may be preferrable to value future and/or present/recent interests more than further in the past ones since there's a lot of potential for those recent interests to snowball into something more weighty in the grand scheme of things.
Good point.
Like somebody currently really wants something but their current self doesn't want someone like their future self to have it and they don't know that their future self will be whom they don't want to have it. They stay like more or less their past self which was their current self for the vast majority of their life, but they then become that future self which they didn't want to have what they wanted for so long. If their wanting it and not wanting their future self to have it were the same, then would the tie-breaker be what their future/now current self wants which would go against what their old self wanted so long?
This is also interesting.
I have no idea, haha. I would guess this is a fringe issue, though. I feel pretentious/self conscious, but I'm honestly speaking my mind and I'm really here to learn, so I feel that getting all my misconceptions out there with talking so freely could be a good way to learn although it's embarrassing.
Don't worry, you're doing great! :D
User avatar
PsYcHo
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:24 pm
Diet: Pescetarian

Re: Time in relation to interests

Post by PsYcHo »

Hmm.

If both people have the same character, and both people would appreciate it the same, and you are only relying on the time of their interest in this "gift" that you may impart upon them, then I would say no to the original question, and consider flipping a coin.

My reasoning is, let's say both persons desire an old car that you have now declared you will give away. They are the same in character, and you know both will appreciate it equally, but person A has coveted your car for 15 years, while person B has only coveted it for 10.

Person A is 45 years old, person B is 18. So though person A has wanted it for longer in years, person B has wanted it for significantly more of a percentage of their life.
Alcohol may have been a factor.

Taxation is theft.
Post Reply