dice3510
09-26-2012, 07:52 AM
Hello,
For months, I've been almost completely paralyzed by a vicious cycle of obsessive thinking I have been unable to escape. I will describe my thought processes below; and I am especially interested in hearing people's opinion on the rationality, or lack thereof, of my worries, and how I am to go on about addressing/alleviating my intrusive thoughts. Unlike what I presume is the case in most anxious persons' cases, in mine, it is not so readily apparent or easy to establish the irrationality of the thoughts. I think it really requires one to sit down and think about it.
Copied from a Yahoo answers page.
In summer 2011, a brief study on morality I did led me to believe moral nihilism was true. In February 2012 I started studying the matter again and concluded morality relativism made more sense than I initially thought and even objective morality might exist.
I've been driving myself crazy with questions such as the following. Why did I initially not do a more thorough study on morality? Was it a belief that further study would not have changed my mind, or was it influenced by a desire to engage in certain 'immoral' behaviors (there is basis to think this; I did desire to engage in some immoral behaviors, although I never did). Why did I start studying the matter again in February? Did I start thinking morality might exist, or was it a desire for it to exist? Or maybe I always thought morality might exist, I just chose not to study the matter because 1) it would take too long 2) I desire to engage in certain immoral behaviors now.
There are the following possibilities with regards to what I thought would have happened if I'd studied morality more thoroughly last summer:
- it definitely would not have changed my mind
- it definitely would have changed my mind
- it probably would not have changed my mind
- it probably would have changed my mind
- it is more probable that it would have than that it would not have
- it is more probable that it would not have that it would
- it is equally probable that it would and that it wouldn't
What do you think about all this? I think the most probable answer is that I thought it probably wouldn't have changed my mind, but later, when I started wanting morality to exist, I decided to test for that small possibility I was wrong. This doesn't sound at all dishonest or hypocritical or anything like that.
However, there are other options. In light of the possibility of other alternatives being correct, am I obliged to address each individual scenario? What some people might assume is the worst case scenario - that I thought I would definitely change my mind, is, from perspective, very easily addressed. All I have to do is acknowledge that I was dishonest and try to be as bias-free as I can possibly be now. Let's say, for example, I thought it was equally probable I would have changed my mind. However, because there was too much information, as well the fact I didn't want to spend years studying before I learned whether behaviors I desired to engage in were wrong or not, I decided not to study it, come to a conclusion based on the information I possessed by that point. Is it, in light of the scenario I just described, dishonest/hypocritical, to go back and study morality in February 2012, out of desire for it to be true?
For months, I've been almost completely paralyzed by a vicious cycle of obsessive thinking I have been unable to escape. I will describe my thought processes below; and I am especially interested in hearing people's opinion on the rationality, or lack thereof, of my worries, and how I am to go on about addressing/alleviating my intrusive thoughts. Unlike what I presume is the case in most anxious persons' cases, in mine, it is not so readily apparent or easy to establish the irrationality of the thoughts. I think it really requires one to sit down and think about it.
Copied from a Yahoo answers page.
In summer 2011, a brief study on morality I did led me to believe moral nihilism was true. In February 2012 I started studying the matter again and concluded morality relativism made more sense than I initially thought and even objective morality might exist.
I've been driving myself crazy with questions such as the following. Why did I initially not do a more thorough study on morality? Was it a belief that further study would not have changed my mind, or was it influenced by a desire to engage in certain 'immoral' behaviors (there is basis to think this; I did desire to engage in some immoral behaviors, although I never did). Why did I start studying the matter again in February? Did I start thinking morality might exist, or was it a desire for it to exist? Or maybe I always thought morality might exist, I just chose not to study the matter because 1) it would take too long 2) I desire to engage in certain immoral behaviors now.
There are the following possibilities with regards to what I thought would have happened if I'd studied morality more thoroughly last summer:
- it definitely would not have changed my mind
- it definitely would have changed my mind
- it probably would not have changed my mind
- it probably would have changed my mind
- it is more probable that it would have than that it would not have
- it is more probable that it would not have that it would
- it is equally probable that it would and that it wouldn't
What do you think about all this? I think the most probable answer is that I thought it probably wouldn't have changed my mind, but later, when I started wanting morality to exist, I decided to test for that small possibility I was wrong. This doesn't sound at all dishonest or hypocritical or anything like that.
However, there are other options. In light of the possibility of other alternatives being correct, am I obliged to address each individual scenario? What some people might assume is the worst case scenario - that I thought I would definitely change my mind, is, from perspective, very easily addressed. All I have to do is acknowledge that I was dishonest and try to be as bias-free as I can possibly be now. Let's say, for example, I thought it was equally probable I would have changed my mind. However, because there was too much information, as well the fact I didn't want to spend years studying before I learned whether behaviors I desired to engage in were wrong or not, I decided not to study it, come to a conclusion based on the information I possessed by that point. Is it, in light of the scenario I just described, dishonest/hypocritical, to go back and study morality in February 2012, out of desire for it to be true?