Should ugly people exist? Are poor artists better than rich bankers?
Mood:  happy
Topic: Philocafe Session Reports
(Philosophy caf? #32, 21 June 2006, 10 participants)

This night is a historic night. It sees the launch of NOUS: The Automated Thought Machine (ATM). It enables us to handle two questions in a single night.
The first question: Should ugly people exist? We construct an argument for a “yes” answer.

There are beautiful people.
“Ugly” and “beautiful” are a comparison.
Beautiful is desired.
Therefore, ugly people should exist.

We agree that the reason (all the premises taken together) implies the conclusion. We are uncertain if the first premise is true.
Branch #1: Are there beautiful people? We construct a “yes” argument.

I am beautiful.
“I” refers to a person.
If there is at least one beautiful person, then there are beautiful people.
Therefore, there are beautiful people.

We agree that the reason implies the conclusion. We are again uncertain if the first premise is true.
Branch #2: Am I beautiful? To answer “yes”, we construct the argument:

Different cultures have different concepts of beauty.
Confidence exists.
There is beauty everywhere.
If you think you’re beautiful, then you’re beautiful.
I think I am beautiful.
Therefore, I am beautiful.

We agree the reason implies the conclusion. All premises are true. Therefore “I am beautiful” is true.
We roll back to Branch #1. The second and third premises are true. Therefore “there are beautiful people”. We roll back again. It is true that “‘ugly’ and ‘beautiful’ are a comparison” and that “beautiful is desired”. Therefore, ugly people should exist. The question is answered.

We begin a second question: Are poor artists better than rich bankers?
We construct a “yes” argument.

When you desire nothing, you have everything.
Rich bankers do not desire nothing.
Artists generally desire less materially than bankers.
Therefore, poor artists are better than rich bankers.

We agree the reason implies the conclusion. We agree the first two premises are true. We are uncertain if the third premise is true. This is an empirical question, which can be settled only empirically. We recognize that if the third premise turns out to be true, then “poor artists are better than rich bankers”; and that if it is false, then we cannot draw this conclusion via this argument.
We build a second “yes” argument.

“Better” means “happier”.
Adding more value to society means “happier”.
Creating objects of lasting value adds value to society.
More objects of lasting value come from artists than from bankers.
Therefore, poor artists are better than rich bankers.

We agree the reason implies the conclusion. We agree the first three premises are true. We are uncertain if the fourth premise is true. We do not have time to branch.
Discussion ends. Feedback from participants indicate ATM is useful.