What do you know, the Armchair Philosophy Podcast is back, and we have a really spicy episode today! Temptation is the key focus of this discussion between Troilus and Alessandro, and things get heated quickly. We analyze the structure of temptation, and what it means for our ethical selves. Can you be a good moral actor and still be tempted by things? Is temptation controllable at all? Is temptation even a term that can stand on its own or does it only exist in relation to something else? And of course, can we ever give in to temptation all the while being good moral actors? These questions and others are asked and attempted to be answered in this week's episode!
I think that temptation is what brings us happiness, not the fulfillment of it, but just the temptation. Because we create an image of what is going to happen if we achieve our temptation that we are just happy to know it can exist (At least in our minds) but once we achieve it, the feeling is just not as expected. Even though moral codes influence the achievement and fulfillment of the temptation, it is better to feel tempted than to actually indulge ourselves into the achievement.
ReplyDeleteSebastian Pronin/Brazil
But isn't the temptation in of itself morally judge-worthy? Under your purview, you are gaining some return from visualizing something you yourself understand to be a bad decision (otherwise you would have succumbed to temptation from the start). I understand that temptation simply appears from our subconscious so its mere appearance isn't something one can be judged on, but keeping the idea going should still be morally questioned, right?
ReplyDelete