COPPEDGE’S CRUX (A MORAL QUANDARY AND THE SOLUTIONS)

Numerous themes have plagued morality, not least of which is the philosophical problem of evil: ‘Why does it exist?’ ‘Would an omni-benevolent God permit evil at all?’ and ‘How does a good person separate himself from all of the evil that takes place in the world?’ ‘Why is the war burden of statehood not commutative with citizenship?’ At the crux of the morality is a crux I will call Coppedge’s Crux, because I think I invented it: which is that, if we cannot be compelled to resist sheerly arbitrary evil, then where is the standard for resisting all other types of evil? If evil is not arbitrary, does this mean it has a rational significance? But if it is arbitrarily defined, then where is our means to defend against it? Apparently, if evil is either arbitrary or non-arbitrary, either evil must be pre-determined or in other-wise determined, or else it must have no definite meaning! Solving this problem, as the name suggests, might be at the crux of ethics. And, one solution is that everything good must be in some way meaningful, and, in a slightly Utilitarian way, what is bad must in some way amount to the most-meaningless-events-for-the-most-people. If this is the case, then many forms of negative behavior must be frowned on. But, what defines that something meaningful for one person must be preferred, if it is meaningless for other people? This leads to what has been called ‘the subjective problem of Hitler’ which is also at the crux of ethics. Apparently, if one person actually IS more meaningful than a lot of other people, even for very absurd reasons, then that person could gain more influence. The answer may be to define meaning in absolute terms, so that the POTENTIAL meanings incorporated in other lives are not lost or compromised. We cannot sacrifice potential meanings for any form of actual meaning. In that case, there is a principle of goodwill to tread lightly on others’ sense of significance, and it is only through overblown polemicism that this 'treading lightly’ is not itself conducive to significance. If, in an exceptional case, 'overblown polemicism’ becomes highly significant (say, post-modernism as opposed to Fascism), then this should be viewed with the eye of a doctor to eliminate the new, perhaps universalized constraints being placed on human creativity. Beyond that, there is also something to be said for practicality and cultured wisdom. But the crux of Coppedge appears to be resolved (1) by the insistence on human significance, and (2) not sacrificing potential meanings for actual meanings. Ironically, in this case, it appears that moral ambiguity should not be replaced with immoral ambiguity, but with creative arbitration in which each person holds an independent and autonomous authority.

I'm now a Most-Viewed Writer in Paradoxes on Quora!

https://www.quora.com/topic/Paradoxes/writers

THE SAN PELLIGRINO PROBLEM

We were having these caffeinated fruit juice beverages that cost $2.50 at B'Natural Cafe, and my dad, who has a PhD from Yale, eloped on what gradually amounted to a monologue on the subject.

"I think I just swallowed a maggot. I don't know what else it could be!"

"Did you have any SmartFood recently?" my brother chimed in.

"Hey, that's a genius explanation. I DID in fact have some SmartFood! That must be it!"

Then, the next time he visited, I ordered a smoothie, and he ordered a Pelligrino, but he wouldn't drink his (neither time did he finish it).

After I finished my smoothie, I took a drink of the Pelligrino.

I said: "Hey, I think I swallowed a maggot. It must be a maggot this time!"

"That's really disgusting. Maybe it's eating your brain!" Michael said. Then he said: "I'll tell you what I think: first I think: it's okay, it's probably not a maggot. Then, I think, what else could it be? Then I think: it's not worth investigating whether its a maggot. What would I do, pour it into a bowl? Then I think: the maggots are eating my brain! Then I think, they wouldn't really kill me, at least not immediately. Then I think that they do sort of kill me, but it happens gradually. Then I think, well, if they kill me, it's okay, because I don't die immediately... But then I just get depressed."

"Yuck, maggnots" I said.

"Let's pour it into a bowl" he said.

"No, let's just throw it away!" I said.

"You're still drinking it!" he said.

"I don't think it's maggots" I said.

The San Pelligrino Problem as I define it is the idea that something is bad, but you don't know its bad unless you test it. And the thing is just good or tempting enough to convince you that it is not quite worth testing. Thus, you are held in suspense as something continues to go wrong.

It possibly has already been described similarly as the Quality Testing Paradox, which is typically defined to mean that you can't test the good food without destroying it, and then the bad food never gets tested. But this problem is slightly different, since it has to do with tasting the food, and the food might be bad, but you never know.

The Book of Paradoxes: Including Problems Encountered in Nathan Coppedge's Philosophy

BOOK DESCRIPTION

This author has authored numerous philosophical books. In this brief treatise, questions of knowledge are broached through the lens of twenty-four compound paradoxes. The fields covered by these writings are broad: theory, metaphysics, ethics, and systemology. Coppedge’s thesis is that all problems reduce to essentialism and causality. Solutions are proposed to a line of paradoxes which lead to the paradox of essence and cause. Finally, a kind of solution to essence and cause is provided. Also included in this book is a valuable list of problems discovered by the author in investigating the realm of philosophy, even beyond paradoxy.

The book may be found on Amazon HERE.

Update: up to 19th from 28th in a search for 'book of paradoxes' on Amazon books.

Also 363 for "paradoxes". Oh well.

My Perpetual Motion Paradoxes

https://www.academia.edu/6076528/Perpetual_Motion_Paradoxes