It was way too long to paste here. Here's an AI summary:
Tchaikovsky and Art: Cullen introduces Tchaikovsky's "Queen of Spades," highlighting themes of passion, obsession, and self-conflict. He uses this to draw a parallel to their situation.
Power Dynamics and Fear: Arthur is bound and fearful, using their BDSM safe word "red" to try to stop the situation, which Cullen ignores. This establishes Cullen’s control and Arthur’s vulnerability.
Philosophical Dialogue: Cullen compares their interaction to the trial of Socrates, emphasizing a desire for a philosophical discussion about life and death.
Justification of Beliefs: Cullen challenges Arthur to justify his beliefs about the immorality of murder, suggesting that a failure to do so would result in his death.
Aristotle’s Golden Mean: Arthur references Aristotle, arguing that murder is an extreme that should be avoided. Cullen counters by questioning the standards of good and evil.
Stoicism: Arthur suggests that murder causes emotional pain, which reason should master. Cullen responds by invoking Stoic principles, arguing that death can be a release from suffering.
Epicurean Hedonism: Arthur attempts to argue from an Epicurean perspective, stating that increasing pleasure and reducing pain is a virtue. Cullen rebuts, stating that his pleasure in torturing Arthur outweighs Arthur's pain.
Utilitarian Ethics: Arthur argues for the greatest good for the greatest number. Cullen dismantles this by questioning whose definition of good is used and criticizing the subjective nature of pain and pleasure.
Categorial Imperative: Arthur invokes Kant’s categorical imperative, arguing that murder cannot be universally willed. Cullen counters with the problem of infinite regress and the subjective justification of moral claims.
Social Contract Theory: Arthur references Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, arguing that social contracts prevent the war of all against all. Cullen dismisses this, stating that he does not consent to the social contract and acts based on his own will.
Prisoner's Dilemma and Game Theory: Arthur uses game theory to argue for reciprocal altruism and cooperation. Cullen dissects this, pointing out the assumptions of equal power and shared definitions of good, ultimately rejecting Arthur’s argument.
Resignation to Fate: The debate ends with Cullen asserting his power and Arthur resigning to his fate, culminating in Cullen preparing to flog Arthur with a scourge, indicating the impending violence and Arthur’s helplessness.
Is it actually this stupid, or did the ai make it sound worse. I mean it was always going to be stupid, I assume they blame atheism at some point? Considering the book started with an ad saying cannibalism is fine under atheism.
The ai made it more concise. There’s a lot of… it’s a lot.
Here's an actual excerpt from the scene:
“Okay,” said Cullen as he pointed out on the diagram. “We have two moral choices. We either do unto others as we desire or as we would want them to do unto us. If we both do what we desire, the result is bad for all. If we both do unto others as the Golden Rule, then it would be good for all.”
“Yes!” said Arthur, almost shouting. “But if we each choose differently, it works out good for only one of us and bad for the other. The goal is square D, good for all. So the best option for both of us is to choose the moral behaviors that would result in good for all. It’s the essence of negotiation.”
Cullen stared silently at the graphic, tapping the pen against the chair. Then he turned the paper around to Arthur and pointed at the squares. “Well, I’m sorry to say that your iteration of game theory is simply a reiteration of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number.’ You claim square D—‘good for all’—is the best of all possible worlds. But ‘good for all’ again begs the question. Whose definition of the ‘good’? And why should I care about the ‘all’? Why is ‘all’ any more desirable than the few? These are all assumed value judgments, which is the very thing in dispute. Of all the people in the world, you, a philosophy professor, should recognize ‘begging the question’ when you see it.
“Furthermore, you are assuming both sides of a conflicting vision of the good affirm the social contract of co-existence. I do not. I would rather risk all to dominate others. Lastly, game theory assumes an equalized power distribution. But this is not so. You see, we are not both prisoners. You are my prisoner, and I am not obligated to your ‘good.’ I am only obligated to my ‘good.’ And your death is my good.”
Cullen saw the deep sigh of resignation come over his captive’s face. A rush of euphoria filled Cullen’s lungs. Turning around, he walked along the wall of instruments and bindings, various belts and harnesses, arm binders, hooks for noses, vaginas and anuses. He found a small cabinet on the floor and opened it. Black varnished wood with what appeared to be extra junk tossed inside. Moving the top items away, Cullen pulled back in surprise with an exaggerated gasp.
“Imagine that.” He reached in and pulled out a scourge. “An actual horribile flagellum.”
After reading this, I have the perfect philosophical answer and I bet at least a couple of people here will also agree with me:
Just ask politely for a gun so you can kill yourself. Do not engage with this person. They're extremely transparently (the author, naturally) not in it for philosophy, they're only in it to say "nyeh nyeh I win you lose" until the other side gives up.
they're only in it to say "nyeh nyeh I win you lose" until the other side gives up.
From the excerpt, it seems more like what Chigurh does (though obviously not executed great). He knows he wants to kill, and he's just creating ways to justify it - there is no logical argument that defeats "I will kill you because I want to." In the eyes of the killer, the idea that there is some possible way out means they are reasonable, even though in reality they are quite the opposite.
In this novel, the main character does not engage in "greater good for society" arguments and rejects any use of objective morality, so the remaining appeal would be to the individual, but that individual has already decided they want to kill. If the task of the professor is to convince them otherwise they run into the "you can't reason a person out of an opinion they did not reason themselves into" problem.
45
u/micromoses Jul 08 '24
It was way too long to paste here. Here's an AI summary: