Hypothetically Which One Of These Is A Better Person

What makes a person better than another person?

To answer your initial question: Nothing. No one in the world is better than anyone else. Many are better at certain things. Many are more accomplished. But better? No. If you are on the planet, you have as much a right to be here as anyone else.What you’re talking about is what makes a person more popular than another person. In the end, superficial characteristics mean nothing. When highly attractive people say it doesn’t make them a better person, what they’re saying is that, despite the fact that people are initially attracted to them, their life isn’t really any different than anyone else’s.As for what makes a person more popular, that depends entirely on whom you’re talking to. A good friend of mine is very attracted to men that I find decidedly unattractive. From what I know, I think George Clooney is a great guy, but I don’t find him particularly handsome. (Hugh Jackman is the best looking man in the world and Clooney’s father is much better looking than he is. :) )And it’s not just looks. Some people want to be with someone who tells them what to do, others want to dominate, others want a more equal relationship. It’s just all so relative, it’s impossible to say what makes a person more or less attractive.

This is just a hypothetical thought. If no one loves me, then should I join them by not loving myself?

Let’s bring in another “Hypothetical Situation”, imagine you saw an advertisement where an actor or actress was endorsing a product with lots of interest and love. Now this catches your interest and you actually want to buy the product. ………………………. (1)Now you go research on this product, read reviews, see ratings, learn about its pros and cons and decide if the product is good for you or not etc. etc. …………….(2)You finally buy the product and you have a period of one week to decide you want to keep it or not …………………….(3)Now let’s put scenarios (1), (2) and (3) into perspectiveIn scenario (1) you are attracted to the product only because it was presented in a way that it looked like you’d want to buy it …. same thing with us humans . There are somethings we all should believe about ourselves :we are all lovablewe are funwe are good lookingall these in our own waysIn scenario (2) we build up an image of the product and determine its use for us just like how we start to see why we want a person around us and what will he add up to our lifeIn scenario (3) we spend time with the product and decide if it is actually worth our time same waywhen we start to love ourselves we present ourselves to people as lovable beings , they learn about us from people and decide if they want us to be around or not and their final decision upon us being a part of their life but in the end you know whats important in the end :That even if a product isnt useful or liked by one person there is always some one who will always want you but you need to just find he person.

If I present someone with a hypothetical ethical dilemma, and that person refuses to choose one of the available courses of action, what does that say about the person?

This is not an ethical dilemma, but I once had a friend insist I answer the following “Would you rather?” scenario:“Would you rather be raped by a man or a woman?”I refused to answer. I don't want to be raped at all. She wouldn't let it go. She kept devising scenarios where I might have to make the choice. If I didn't choose, I'll be raped by both and also a puppy will die. She bugged me about it all day.If I were ever in one of the contrived scenarios where such a choice was necessary, I might make one. In the meantime, while I don't have to make that choice, I have better things to do and more pleasant things to think about than to imagine the experience of being raped by a man and also by a woman and having to decide which is preferable. And then, even if I could decide, entrust that information to the person who made me go there in my mind in the first place?So what it might mean is they don't want to play the game. Maybe it's just not fun for them. They don't want to make compromising decisions when they don't have to. Maybe they feel what they think they should do and what they feel they would do are at odds and they don't think they can know what they would really end up doing.I get it, sometimes these things can be fun and revealing, and I'll occassionally play along, but I have a vivid imagination and sometimes what I conjure in my head feels real. I can rile myself to anger by imagined conversations. Sometimes I have to protect my mind by not entertaining certain thoughts.What I want to know is what it says about a person who insists on people answering their difficult but unnecessary scenarios without just letting it go and respecting that they don't want to play that game.

Hypothetically, if some "average person" in the middle of their life is convinced by some person that they are super intelligent and can produce great ideas if he/she works on them, how great of an effect would there be on the person's performance?

Intelligence is not so profound a trait that it can be cited as the sole cause of success in a endeavor. The axiom “hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard” is a truism. If the cause of a persons failure or lack of profound success is due to apathy caused by disenfranchisement the effect on their performance would be great. However in the present state of world oligarchy the axiom “it’s not what you know it’s who you know” is far more operative a truism in determining the success, in both a material sense and with regards to the popularity, of an effort.I feel that the success of a project lies not in the material or social yields it produces but in the internal and essential value that the effort itself creates. The world of today rests in the hands of a few. These few are no more innately human than any of the rest of us. They are no more intelligent or strong or otherwise. They are as simplistic and common as any of the rest of us. To acquire material success is simple. All one must do is impress one of these oligarchs or one of there associates. So materialistic endeavors do not determine very much at all with respect to intellectual or spiritual progress.The real challenge that we face today is not one of material progress, it is one of maintaining the individuality of soul despite the facts of modern finance. To succeed as oneself without yielding to the gullibility of the masses, without being beguiled by the glamour espoused to the oligarchy, knowing they’re humanity and humanities concomitant nature, granting them that humanity despite the tendency of the masses to superimpose moral supremacy upon them, and still attaining the means of life is a goal very rarely accomplished.So weather or not one sees a material gain in the person mentioned in the comment is something inconsequential. The quality of the life of the mind is much more indicative of progress than a glittery yacht or a golden touch.Enjoy your lifeEven if it kills youXoxoxoMe

Would ethics exists if there were only one person?

I take ethics to be synonymous with moral philosophy.  I think it is plausible that at least some areas of moral philosophy are essentially interpersonal ("interpersonal" is really the wrong word, since we have moral obligations towards non-persons.  Eg. it is wrong to set a hamster on fire) but that that doesn't tell the whole story.Moral philosophy is traditionally concerned with the question "how should I live?" and this question is broader than "how should I treat people?"Some influential moral philosophers have asked whether we should try and live lives where we prioritise the pleasures of the mind over more base pleasures.  I think that that is pretty plausible.  Someone who reads great literature, involves themselves in politics (ignore here that that definitely is impossible if there is only one person), philosophises, writes poetry, acts, does some rudimentary science and so on really does live a less impoverished life than someone who sits on their arse all day watching reruns of Jackass.  And, we can imagine a choice between these two lives even if there are no other people.  If that's right, then there must be more to moral philosophy than interpersonal relationships.As J.S. Mill put it in his work Utilitarianism:It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question

Is it worth being a good person in this world?

No, hell no.At the beginning, sure. That should be your default mode. It’s easier to be nice to people, it makes people like you and trust you more, you have more friends, and you inherently draw others in with your energy.So be nice at the beginning, before you know anything about somebody new. And, in all likelihood, you will stay that way. You will stay nice, because most people probably won’t do anything drastic enough to lose that “common decency” you show to them.But here’s the thing: some people suck.Some people are out to get you. Some people are out to take advantage of you. Some people are out to use you like disposable goods.These are people that will treat you like shit. They will not be nice to you. So guess what?Why would you be nice to them?The fact is, for some people, you have to protect yourself. And when you are nice to people that would prey on you, you look like that much more appealing of a target.Be nice to to everyone until they give you a reason not to.Then, once that happens, let them know that they probably shouldn’t fuck with you.