It sounds like you are concerned about hypothetical situations that test the limits of philosophical ideas whereas Zack_M_Davis and I are concerned about real-world situations that happen all the time.
Slightly reducing one’s own knowledge to prevent massive harm to others is the moral imperative. I don’t think anyone here would disagree. But I don’t think that’s the fundamental problem either. The interesting question is whether you’re willing to deceive yourself to achieve moderate instrumental ends.
Suppose there was an invisible monster that ate anyone who knew it existed. If I accidentally discovered this monster then I would want to forget that knowledge in order to protect my life.
But I would not want to replace this knowledge with a false belief. Such a false belief could get me into trouble in other ways. I would also want to preserve the knowledge in some form.
What follows is a passage from Luna Lovegood and the Chamber of Secrets.
Luna daydreamed a lot. She often found herself in rooms with little memory of how she got there. It was rare for her to find herself in a room with literally no memory of how she got there.
“I’ve just been obliviated, haven’t I?” Luna said.
“You rushed in here and pleaded for me to erase your memory,” Professor Lapsusa said.
“And?”
“It is a crime for a professor to modify the memory of a student. And for good reason. No. I have never magically tampered with your mind and I will never do so.”
Luna’s felt like she had just run up several flights of stairs. She was breathing quickly. Sweat soaked from her fingertips into the diary she was holding.
“Have I been possessed?” Luna asked.
“No,” Lapsusa said.
Lapsusa waited for Luna to work it out.
“This book I’m holding. Is it magicial?” Luna asked.
Lapsusa smiled.
“It is a tool for self-obliviation then,” Luna said.
That’s an odd passage, not sure what you’re trying to say, but I’ll check out Luna Lovegood and the Chamber of Secrets. But this knowledge dilemma is not so hypothetical as you might think. Placebo is a very real thing we encounter everyday and I would generally advice people to stay optimistic during medical operations because you’ll increase your chances of succes (I would argue skewing your worldview temporarily is worth it). When governments decide whether they should fund research into e.g nuclear weapons I would generally advice against it (even though it gives us a better map of the territory) because it’s dangerous. I much rather spend that money on pragmatic (but unintellectual) projects like housing the homeless.
It sounds like you are concerned about hypothetical situations that test the limits of philosophical ideas whereas Zack_M_Davis and I are concerned about real-world situations that happen all the time.
Fair enough. Let us dive into the fantastical. Suppose we lived in a world like you describe.
Slightly reducing one’s own knowledge to prevent massive harm to others is the moral imperative. I don’t think anyone here would disagree. But I don’t think that’s the fundamental problem either. The interesting question is whether you’re willing to deceive yourself to achieve moderate instrumental ends.
Suppose there was an invisible monster that ate anyone who knew it existed. If I accidentally discovered this monster then I would want to forget that knowledge in order to protect my life.
But I would not want to replace this knowledge with a false belief. Such a false belief could get me into trouble in other ways. I would also want to preserve the knowledge in some form.
What follows is a passage from Luna Lovegood and the Chamber of Secrets.
That’s an odd passage, not sure what you’re trying to say, but I’ll check out Luna Lovegood and the Chamber of Secrets. But this knowledge dilemma is not so hypothetical as you might think. Placebo is a very real thing we encounter everyday and I would generally advice people to stay optimistic during medical operations because you’ll increase your chances of succes (I would argue skewing your worldview temporarily is worth it). When governments decide whether they should fund research into e.g nuclear weapons I would generally advice against it (even though it gives us a better map of the territory) because it’s dangerous. I much rather spend that money on pragmatic (but unintellectual) projects like housing the homeless.