Even if you can avoid blame by not interacting with an ethics problem, that is an unethical decision to make since it's equivalent to not being ethical. And if you are not being ethical (as in tackling ethical problems), then that's simply being unethical. Run towards ethical problems, not away from them. One method of measuring society is how many decisions a member of said society can make. The more decisions available to members, the more ethical that society is. As in, every member gets to participate in more ethical dilemmas.
I play Catan with friends and family and we add a few extra mechanics: development has to begin on the outer edge of the island and roads are required to move further inwards, soldier cards can be used (up) to take over an adjacent player's village/city that you're connected to and fewer soldier cards can be used to defend as well with frequency limits based on how many road tiles the soldiers need to travel, political trading where paying another player to not develop certain areas in exchange for profit-free trade agreements, using each other's ports, payment, etc. Largest Army and Longest Road trophies can be traded away or lost. Robber takes over the resource spot until moved providing a resource income to the robber player. These mechanisms make Catan very deep and more fluid for every player.We also play Monopoly with a "laborhours" mechanism along with money. It costs laborhours to build those properties based on the printed monetary value of that property/house/hotel, and players can use their own laborhours, or purchase laborhours from other players to build your property. But you only get a set amount of laborhours until you pass Go where at that point they reset back, rather than add up even more. You can also increase your reset point of laborhours by using them up for "training". We used to use cards to keep track of how many laborhours everyone got, but now we use little analog clocks for each player and move their hands to keep track. Properties degrade over time though and need to be worked on every cycle to upkeep them and maintain their high rents. We use rice grains to keep track of degradation. The rice grains are also used to keep track of how much food each player has. Every time a player passed Go, they lose some of their food, which needs to be bought. If the player runs out of food, they lose. Players are also free to enter into their own co-ops together or buy membership into corporations, to share their properties and development/upkeep costs. It's fun seeing players devolve into drama arguing about which player should spend their laborhours on upkeep lol.
Good habits, rules, and virtues cause good consequences. Finding out what they are is not mystical, but science. A good rule of thumb when faced with a dilemma is to just maximize your possibility space. It's actually illogical to justify any decision other than the one that maximizes future possibilities since that'd be akin to saying "I choose to lose choices". Any proposed method of decision-making must output that very same method in order for it to retain logical consistency. This means build a future for yourself; exercise, diet, learn, and accrue wealth and relationships. In cases where all your choices only lead to no choices for you ever again (end of life decisions), then maximize possibility space in general. This means build a future for others like your kids and friends; give them wealth, resources, and knowledge.Similar with values, it's illogical to value something that would diminish your ability to value. Your ability to appreciate things and sacrifice for them must always increase. Don't value things that will leave you as a husk of a person.
There are possible oughts, impossible oughts, and necessary oughts. Possible oughts are up in the air so it's easier to deal with impossible oughts and necessary oughts. TLDR: growing your possibility space is valid, decreasing your possibility space is invalid. One example of a necessary ought is "an agent ought to ought". As in, at the very first moment that you begin to decide what you should do, you have already fallen into the trap of "deciding to decide" as a necessary imperative. From that point on, you may never justifiably leave your identity as an agent, other than for the sake of agency in the world. Of course, you can still physically destroy agency, but never in a manner that wouldn't violate any conceivable logically consistent moral framework. It's simply a logical contradiction for a decision-making system to output the destruction of all decision-making systems. So oughts that perpetuate and grow the set of decisions that agents can make are necessary and need to be included in any moral framework. An example of an impossible ought is "a living agent should play Russian Roulette a trillion times." That is impossible since it would take multiple lives to play just a thousand times. So such oughts can be excluded from the set of all oughts.
The issue with Omelas is not the lone child being sad forever, to make it possible. Even as a kid, I would gladly risk being the sacrifice to get membership there.A Utopia is where anything is possible in finite time. Just calculate your possibility space. If it goes up, good. If it goes down, bad. So I actually do live in a Utopia.
>For being with culture, there's a lot of value in existing during a growth phase
For being with culture, there's a lot of **Measure** in existing during a growth phase.
Out of all possible epochs, why else are you born in this unprecedented one?
Are you a Malthusian? The thing that elevates humans to the status of people is our immunity to Malthusian Dynamics (but I will admit that most demographics of humans don't actually qualify). If the population went 10x, the extinction risk wouldn't go up 10x. Actually, it wouldn't even go up at all. It would go down, in fact. We're not hunter gatherers who need to maintain a low tribe population to ensure the caribou herd doesn't dwindle from over hunting. Mankind is past the point where we can over-consume resources. By the time we get even close, we already find new resources.
The reason you have a preference for "scenario B" is because your evolutionary past is one filled with scarcity and tribes that didn't manage their number would over-hunt their territory and starve to death. But luckily, evolution is rewarding people who realize this and weeding out the people who don't. The people who can't adapt to the end of scarcity don't have a place in the future.
Your comment is a really good example of what the OP is talking about.
This explains why people at the lower levels of their community's hierarchy have their Reasoning abilities "unlocked". Yes, Reasoning skyrockets a person/tribe's risk, but that risk is tolerable if it's relegated to the bottom-tier members of the tribe. The tribe will go on just fine if those few end up as casualties, in fact it may even be better off so might as well use them as experimental subjects. This is also why signalling your reasoning abilities to women is the best way to not get laid. The implication is that you're at a low level of the hierarchy and not good mating material. I can confirm this from my own life because my best mating successes are when I am purposefully being dumb and not listening to anyone's reason no matter how valid those arguments actually are. Immunity to others' Reason is a very good way to signal high social status, and consequently high mating potential.
The reason pain is bad is because it narrows your set of possibilities. For example, it's impossible to solve a mathematical problem while you're in pain. Even though pain is just a feeling, it has actual effects on your possibility space.
Even if "I" isn't independent from the world in its construction, it is still independent in its ontology. For example: an apple is constructed by the tree, but it's still its own thing.