Something in this space seems interesting, but a major worry I have is that much of the point of ethics is to have safeguards about doing things that are easy/convenient/harmful (where the harm might be either your future self, or other people).
If you have an injunction against pirating music or eating meat or white-lying, and then for a week you switch to treating those as permissible… one major obvious effect is just going to be “yup, it sure is convenient to do this thing I had an injunction against”, which one probably already knew.
The particular examples you give seem to mostly be doing more interesting things. My impression is your point here is less about the changing the actions you do, and more about changing the “why” behind those actions. Something in this space seems interesting and perhaps important. I expect this experiment to be more-upside when you’re experimenting with ethics other than removing injunctions.
Something in this space seems interesting, but a major worry I have is that much of the point of ethics is to have safeguards about doing things that are easy/convenient/harmful (where the harm might be either your future self, or other people).
If you have an injunction against pirating music or eating meat or white-lying, and then for a week you switch to treating those as permissible… one major obvious effect is just going to be “yup, it sure is convenient to do this thing I had an injunction against”, which one probably already knew.
The particular examples you give seem to mostly be doing more interesting things. My impression is your point here is less about the changing the actions you do, and more about changing the “why” behind those actions. Something in this space seems interesting and perhaps important. I expect this experiment to be more-upside when you’re experimenting with ethics other than removing injunctions.