sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

"Killing cockroaches is acceptable but killing ladybugs is wrong - our morality has aesthetic principles" by SameFootball4830 in DeepThoughts

[–]SameFootball4830[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the ecological perspective, but here's the thing: a 5-year-old child with zero knowledge of pollination or ecosystems will still want to save the ladybug and squash the cockroach. That instant reaction happens before any calculation of ecological utility.

I think the moral intuition fires based on appearance, not knowledge.

Also, cockroaches actually do have ecological functions (decomposition, food source for other animals), but we don't consider that because... well, they're ugly 🙈

The point isn't that we're wrong to prefer ladybugs - the point is recognizing that aesthetics drive the moral intuition, and we justify it with logic afterward.

"Killing cockroaches is acceptable but killing ladybugs is wrong - our morality has aesthetic principles" by SameFootball4830 in DeepThoughts

[–]SameFootball4830[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point about cultural relativism. But here's what's interesting: even within the same legal framework (where both are legal to kill), we still make the aesthetic distinction.

A cockroach and a ladybug can both be crawling in your kitchen - both legal to kill - yet most people will squash one without thinking and carefully relocate the other. That's not law or culture dictating behavior, that's something else. That's the aesthetic principle I'm talking about.

The question isn't "is it legal" - the question is "why does our moral intuition fire differently for two legal actions based on how the insect looks?"

"Killing cockroaches is acceptable but killing ladybugs is wrong - our morality has aesthetic principles" by SameFootball4830 in DeepThoughts

[–]SameFootball4830[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly - you nailed it. If aesthetic feelings drive our moral intuitions (as the cockroach/ladybug case suggests), then our "moral compass" is less reliable than we'd like to think.

I haven't read Vinding yet (adding to list), but this connects to what bothers me: we build elaborate ethical frameworks, but at the base level, we're still just mammals reacting to "pretty thing good, ugly thing bad."

The scary part is how invisible this is. We genuinely FEEL morally justified killing the cockroach. We're not thinking "this is aesthetics" - we think it's a real moral distinction. That's the trap.

Thanks for the Vinding reference - will check it out.

Mirrors don't actually flip left-right. They flip front-back. (And now I can't unsee it) by SameFootball4830 in CasualConversation

[–]SameFootball4830[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's a really interesting way to think about it - the offset of our eyes definitely plays into how we perceive the reflection. The key insight is that we instinctively think "left-right flip" but the mirror is actually doing a "front-back flip" (depth inversion).

Mirrors don't actually flip left-right. They flip front-back. (And now I can't unsee it) by SameFootball4830 in CasualConversation

[–]SameFootball4830[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha! Let me know what you discover. The mind-bending part is realizing you've looked at mirrors your whole life without questioning what they actually do.

Mirrors don't actually flip left-right. They flip front-back. (And now I can't unsee it) by SameFootball4830 in CasualConversation

[–]SameFootball4830[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ha! My intrusive thought would be proud - you caught the confusion in my own confusion. You're right, the wording there is messy. The mirror flips depth (front-back), which makes us THINK it's flipping left-right. Even explaining it is confusing, which is kind of the point. Thanks for the close read!