Nonsense. That's circular reasoning. The question neither necessarily begins nor ends with you. It is NOT implicitly self-centered. To even ask "Better for who?" rather than simply say "better for me" necessarily implies both that there are multiple possible valid answers regarding "who" and that the implied answer is NOT you.
Nonsense. That's circular reasoning. The question neither necessarily begins nor ends with you. It is NOT implicitly self-centered. To even ask "Better for who?" rather than simply say "better for me" necessarily implies both that there are multiple possible valid answers regarding "who" and that the implied answer is NOT you.
You have a very odd perspective. If I ask "Which is greater, 1 or 2?" the question most certainly does NOT "begin and end with me, the person asking". The 2 is greater than the 1 no matter who you are, what situation you are in, or what need you have for the information. Likewise, questions about "which option is better morally?" are by default assumed to be asking about absolutes because moral principles themselves are generally absolutes. The "for whom" is by default "for anyone and everyone".
AFTER one has reasoned to the correct answer one may apply that answer to their own self and situation as a specific application of the universal principle, but the reasoning to get to that correct answer does NOT require any self-reference regarding why you want to know and "What would happen if..." outcome hypotheticals are generally only used in consequentialist branches of moral theory, which is only one of several schools of moral reasoning. Consequentialism may be used to make a case that self-control is better than lack of self-control, but it can likewise be argued more strongly from Virtue ethics or Deontology, neither of which treat "what if" hypotheticals as at all relevant to the question.
To conflate "which is better?" (AKA more virtuous?) with "which will make me happier?" is a Fallacy of Equivocation.
Nonsense. That's circular reasoning. The question neither necessarily begins nor ends with you. It is NOT implicitly self-centered. To even ask "Better for who?" rather than simply say "better for me" necessarily implies both that there are multiple possible valid answers regarding "who" and that the implied answer is NOT you.
It's implicit in even asking the question, why do you need to know, what would happen if you didn't get the answer? Why would it matter?
You have a very odd perspective. If I ask "Which is greater, 1 or 2?" the question most certainly does NOT "begin and end with me, the person asking". The 2 is greater than the 1 no matter who you are, what situation you are in, or what need you have for the information. Likewise, questions about "which option is better morally?" are by default assumed to be asking about absolutes because moral principles themselves are generally absolutes. The "for whom" is by default "for anyone and everyone".
AFTER one has reasoned to the correct answer one may apply that answer to their own self and situation as a specific application of the universal principle, but the reasoning to get to that correct answer does NOT require any self-reference regarding why you want to know and "What would happen if..." outcome hypotheticals are generally only used in consequentialist branches of moral theory, which is only one of several schools of moral reasoning. Consequentialism may be used to make a case that self-control is better than lack of self-control, but it can likewise be argued more strongly from Virtue ethics or Deontology, neither of which treat "what if" hypotheticals as at all relevant to the question.
To conflate "which is better?" (AKA more virtuous?) with "which will make me happier?" is a Fallacy of Equivocation.