The Problem of Old Quebec City

[rousseau]

Google be damned I can't find any articles or websites covering the controversy that happened in Old Quebec City in the 60s and 70s, but the issue was this:

Back around that time the old port of Quebec city was rundown and in tatters. Lots of historical value but it wasn't exactly in shape to become a tourist hot spot. At the time counselors and city leaders were in a philosophical debate over whether it would make sense to re-build the entire old port to make it aesthetically pleasing and appear to be the original area, but actually be a tourist park. In other words, was it ethically right to basically lie to tourists and make them believe they were experiencing the historic, old port.

This is not the problem that I'm proposing in this thread

Here's the question:

Fast-forward to 2017 and one of your friends travels to Old Quebec, believing that it still exists in its original form. They are enamored with it's beauty and history, although what they're experiencing is somewhat of an illusion. You on the other hand, know that Old Quebec is a tourist park and none of the buildings are originals. Do you tell your friend that Quebec City was rebuilt, or do you let them live in their illusion?

A moral question with obvious implications elsewhere

 

[Horatio Parker]

Google be damned I can't find any articles or websites covering the controversy that happened in Old Quebec City in the 60s and 70s, but the issue was this:

Back around that time the old port of Quebec city was rundown and in tatters. Lots of historical value but it wasn't exactly in shape to become a tourist hot spot. At the time counselors and city leaders were in a philosophical debate over whether it would make sense to re-build the entire old port to make it aesthetically pleasing and appear to be the original area, but actually be a tourist park. In other words, was it ethically right to basically lie to tourists and make them believe they were experiencing the historic, old port.

This is not the problem that I'm proposing in this thread

Here's the question:

Fast-forward to 2017 and one of your friends travels to Old Quebec, believing that it still exists in its original form. They are enamored with it's beauty and history, although what they're experiencing is somewhat of an illusion. You on the other hand, know that Old Quebec is a tourist park and none of the buildings are originals. Do you tell your friend that Quebec City was rebuilt, or do you let them live in their illusion?

A moral question with obvious implications elsewhere

Let them let them live the illusion.

You can slip your point in as an aside, "they did a good job on the re-creation" etc.

Never been to Quebec, but it's on my list.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's George Washington's hatchet. Although the head has been replaced twice and the handle once, it's still his hatchet.

Of all the moral dilemmas a person might face in a day, whether of not to tell a tourist that the scenic backdrop is not original, would seem to be a small one. Is this an allegory of some larger moral question?

 

[rousseau]

It's George Washington's hatchet. Although the head has been replaced twice and the handle once, it's still his hatchet.

Of all the moral dilemmas a person might face in a day, whether of not to tell a tourist that the scenic backdrop is not original, would seem to be a small one. Is this an allegory of some larger moral question?

Yes. Illusion vs Truth.

If someone is happy in their illusion, is it ethical to break their illusion? If so, under what circumstances?

 

[Bronzeage]

It's George Washington's hatchet. Although the head has been replaced twice and the handle once, it's still his hatchet.

Of all the moral dilemmas a person might face in a day, whether of not to tell a tourist that the scenic backdrop is not original, would seem to be a small one. Is this an allegory of some larger moral question?

Yes. Illusion vs Truth.

If someone is happy in their illusion, is it ethical to break their illusion? If so, under what circumstances?

I don't think this the best illustration of the dilemma. The real question is, what does a person do with the information they have? Suppose a person looks at a building and assumes it is 200 years old, when it was actually built in 1978. What effect will this have on their life? Everything in life is on a spectrum from one extreme to the other, with life happening mostly in the middle.

I can imagine a historic tableau which depicts happy slaves picking cotton while their benevolent master watches from the veranda. A casual onlooker might mistake this for a realistic portrayal, and believe slavery to be a benign institution which wasn't all that bad. In this case, I would feel an obligation to state the historical facts, as I understand them.

The key word here, is not illusion, but obligation. Am I obligated to correct the erroneous ideas of other people, especially when it doesn't affect my life? Why should I?

 

[Horatio Parker]

It's George Washington's hatchet. Although the head has been replaced twice and the handle once, it's still his hatchet.

Of all the moral dilemmas a person might face in a day, whether of not to tell a tourist that the scenic backdrop is not original, would seem to be a small one. Is this an allegory of some larger moral question?

Yes. Illusion vs Truth.

If someone is happy in their illusion, is it ethical to break their illusion? If so, under what circumstances?

Depends on the illusion. If an illusion is relatively harmless and trivial, leave it alone. If the truth is toxic or dangerous, leave that alone.

 

[rousseau]

Yes. Illusion vs Truth.

If someone is happy in their illusion, is it ethical to break their illusion? If so, under what circumstances?

I don't think this the best illustration of the dilemma. The real question is, what does a person do with the information they have? Suppose a person looks at a building and assumes it is 200 years old, when it was actually built in 1978. What effect will this have on their life? Everything in life is on a spectrum from one extreme to the other, with life happening mostly in the middle.

I can imagine a historic tableau which depicts happy slaves picking cotton while their benevolent master watches from the veranda. A casual onlooker might mistake this for a realistic portrayal, and believe slavery to be a benign institution which wasn't all that bad. In this case, I would feel an obligation to state the historical facts, as I understand them.

The key word here, is not illusion, but obligation. Am I obligated to correct the erroneous ideas of other people, especially when it doesn't affect my life? Why should I?

The bolded seems to be the key passage. Step in if there is a material concern. Does your post also imply that if there is no material concern, fuck it, even if correcting an erroneous belief has no material impact on you? In other words, material interests aside, is reality or illusion better? For what reasons?

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think this the best illustration of the dilemma. The real question is, what does a person do with the information they have? Suppose a person looks at a building and assumes it is 200 years old, when it was actually built in 1978. What effect will this have on their life? Everything in life is on a spectrum from one extreme to the other, with life happening mostly in the middle.

I can imagine a historic tableau which depicts happy slaves picking cotton while their benevolent master watches from the veranda. A casual onlooker might mistake this for a realistic portrayal, and believe slavery to be a benign institution which wasn't all that bad. In this case, I would feel an obligation to state the historical facts, as I understand them.

The key word here, is not illusion, but obligation. Am I obligated to correct the erroneous ideas of other people, especially when it doesn't affect my life? Why should I?

The bolded seems to be the key passage. Step in if there is a material concern. Does your post also imply that if there is no material concern, fuck it, even if correcting an erroneous belief has no material impact on you? In other words, material interests aside, is reality or illusion better? For what reasons?

I once thought I was wrong about something, but it turned out I was mistaken. I know of many situations where the illusion was infinitely better, but that's another discussion.

Someone asks, "Does your dog bite?" and I say, "No." We both know the punchline to that joke. If I have information that may spare somebody an injury, it's malevolent to conceal it when the consequences are easily foreseen.

I read an article sometime back about humans and other primates. It compared learning processes of human children and chimpanzees. The experiment involved a puzzle box which could only be opened by following a complicated series of steps. The reward was a piece of candy in the box. The human child and the chimpanzee both mastered it quickly. Next, the same box was presented, but made of transparent plastic. This made it plain to see that only one step was needed to open the box. All the other steps were superfluous. The human child still went through all the steps, but the chimpanzee went straight to the reward.

The difference is the human child's real reward was the teacher's approval, not the candy. The child cared what the teacher thought, while the chimpanzee did not seem to. This is the source of empathy in humans. We care how other humans feel, and the closer the relationship, the more we care, but we still have empathy for total strangers. This drives us to share information and especially to correct erroneous information. This doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

 

[OLDMAN]

In old Quebec, you do get the real history and a version of what it might have been like...it is not an historical settlement. But very beautiful none the less.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Google be damned I can't find any articles or websites covering the controversy that happened in Old Quebec City in the 60s and 70s, but the issue was this:

Back around that time the old port of Quebec city was rundown and in tatters. Lots of historical value but it wasn't exactly in shape to become a tourist hot spot. At the time counselors and city leaders were in a philosophical debate over whether it would make sense to re-build the entire old port to make it aesthetically pleasing and appear to be the original area, but actually be a tourist park. In other words, was it ethically right to basically lie to tourists and make them believe they were experiencing the historic, old port.

This is not the problem that I'm proposing in this thread

Here's the question:

Fast-forward to 2017 and one of your friends travels to Old Quebec, believing that it still exists in its original form. They are enamored with it's beauty and history, although what they're experiencing is somewhat of an illusion. You on the other hand, know that Old Quebec is a tourist park and none of the buildings are originals. Do you tell your friend that Quebec City was rebuilt, or do you let them live in their illusion?

A moral question with obvious implications elsewhere

Well, any historical representation is actually a representation of the original and not an authentic experience of the original. If you go to a pioneer town, you see well built structures from rugged individualists carving out a new life and the half-built hovels of immigrants who don't know about architecture aren't included, nor do you see any of the actors dying from an easily preventable disease or the blackened bones of a local townswomen who was burnt for witchcraft because her neighbour's cow died. When you go to an Olde West town, the courtesans are happy, empowered women who love entertaining their clients and not despondent sex slaves who were dragged halfway across the world and beaten half to death if stop smiling during their shift. Gunfights are honourable tests of manhood and not brutal acts of murder and few, if any, of the places have half-decomposed corpses rotting in the alleys because a group of thugs mugged and killed them.

Old Quebec City is the historical equivalent of an amusement park. It's designed to say "Look at how wonderful our history and culture is", not "Look at this accurate representation of our history and culture". If you go to an amusement park and think that the mouse is real, that's your own fault.

 

[LordKiran]

It's George Washington's hatchet. Although the head has been replaced twice and the handle once, it's still his hatchet.

Of all the moral dilemmas a person might face in a day, whether of not to tell a tourist that the scenic backdrop is not original, would seem to be a small one. Is this an allegory of some larger moral question?

Yes. Illusion vs Truth.

If someone is happy in their illusion, is it ethical to break their illusion? If so, under what circumstances?

Is it an illusion though? The Hagia Sophia was rebuilt TWICE! It doesn't make it any less of a historic treasure. Your problem is one of viewpoint. You gotta adopt a "When life gives you lemons make lemonade." Outlook to really appreciate what I'm saying.

You aren't necessarily losing anything when the white house burns down. Its just a chance to built an even bigger and better one!

I mean is it anymore of a tragedy when buildings are bulldozed all over the world (each with their own history) in the interest of making newer, bigger, more impressive structures?

This is why I refuse to be broken up over ISIS destroying old ruins from previous civilizations. At the end of the day that's the final destination for all of mankind's creations. So it doesn't matter that it's gone. What matters is that we know it was there at all.

 

[rousseau]

Google be damned I can't find any articles or websites covering the controversy that happened in Old Quebec City in the 60s and 70s, but the issue was this:

Back around that time the old port of Quebec city was rundown and in tatters. Lots of historical value but it wasn't exactly in shape to become a tourist hot spot. At the time counselors and city leaders were in a philosophical debate over whether it would make sense to re-build the entire old port to make it aesthetically pleasing and appear to be the original area, but actually be a tourist park. In other words, was it ethically right to basically lie to tourists and make them believe they were experiencing the historic, old port.

This is not the problem that I'm proposing in this thread

Here's the question:

Fast-forward to 2017 and one of your friends travels to Old Quebec, believing that it still exists in its original form. They are enamored with it's beauty and history, although what they're experiencing is somewhat of an illusion. You on the other hand, know that Old Quebec is a tourist park and none of the buildings are originals. Do you tell your friend that Quebec City was rebuilt, or do you let them live in their illusion?

A moral question with obvious implications elsewhere

Well, any historical representation is actually a representation of the original and not an authentic experience of the original. If you go to a pioneer town, you see well built structures from rugged individualists carving out a new life and the half-built hovels of immigrants who don't know about architecture aren't included, nor do you see any of the actors dying from an easily preventable disease or the blackened bones of a local townswomen who was burnt for witchcraft because her neighbour's cow died. When you go to an Olde West town, the courtesans are happy, empowered women who love entertaining their clients and not despondent sex slaves who were dragged halfway across the world and beaten half to death if stop smiling during their shift. Gunfights are honourable tests of manhood and not brutal acts of murder and few, if any, of the places have half-decomposed corpses rotting in the alleys because a group of thugs mugged and killed them.

Old Quebec City is the historical equivalent of an amusement park. It's designed to say "Look at how wonderful our history and culture is", not "Look at this accurate representation of our history and culture". If you go to an amusement park and think that the mouse is real, that's your own fault.

Well that's the thing though. Old Quebec was designed to fool people into believing it's legitimate. There are no banners flying above the town that say 'welcome to Old Quebec Amusement Park'. Whereas a pioneer village is clearly and explicitly a historical representation. It took me until my third visit to the area when someone happened to tell me that the entire area had been completely re-built, and none of the buildings were originals.

 

[LordKiran]

Well, any historical representation is actually a representation of the original and not an authentic experience of the original. If you go to a pioneer town, you see well built structures from rugged individualists carving out a new life and the half-built hovels of immigrants who don't know about architecture aren't included, nor do you see any of the actors dying from an easily preventable disease or the blackened bones of a local townswomen who was burnt for witchcraft because her neighbour's cow died. When you go to an Olde West town, the courtesans are happy, empowered women who love entertaining their clients and not despondent sex slaves who were dragged halfway across the world and beaten half to death if stop smiling during their shift. Gunfights are honourable tests of manhood and not brutal acts of murder and few, if any, of the places have half-decomposed corpses rotting in the alleys because a group of thugs mugged and killed them.

Old Quebec City is the historical equivalent of an amusement park. It's designed to say "Look at how wonderful our history and culture is", not "Look at this accurate representation of our history and culture". If you go to an amusement park and think that the mouse is real, that's your own fault.

Well that's the thing though. Old Quebec was designed to fool people into believing it's legitimate. There are no banners flying above the town that say 'welcome to Old Quebec Amusement Park'. Whereas a pioneer village is clearly and explicitly a historical representation. It took me until my third visit to the area when someone happened to tell me that the entire area had been completely re-built, and none of the buildings were originals.

There's nothing in Tombstone that states it is anything other than a comical recreation. People aren't generally interested in taking a three hour car ride through empty desert just to look at some rotted out supports and foundations.

 

[bilby]

These three photographs were all taken from roughly the same place (the first photo with a wider lens than the other two), and show the Gothic Cloth Hall in the town of Ypres (Ieper) in Belgium.

The first photo was taken in the decade prior to the first world war (exact date unknown), and shows the original medieval building, which was completed in 1304, and the 'new' gallery, which was added in the early 17th Century (only the end of the new gallery is visible in the second and third photos).

The second photo was taken in 2009

The third photo, which I have hidden, was taken in 1918

Does the 2009 photograph depict the medieval Cloth Hall of Ypres? The WWI history of the town is well known, and it would be almost impossible for a tourist in Belgium to see this building without also hearing about its destruction in the 1914-18 war - particularly as the building now houses the 'Flanders Fields' Museum.

Show

 

[Treedbear]

... The Hagia Sophia was rebuilt TWICE! It doesn't make it any less of a historic treasure. ...

This is why I refuse to be broken up over ISIS destroying old ruins from previous civilizations. At the end of the day that's the final destination for all of mankind's creations. So it doesn't matter that it's gone. What matters is that we know it was there at all.

I don't get it. You wouldn't care if the Hagia Sophia was destroyed even though you see it as a historic treasure?

 

[cpollett]

When I read the original post, the first thing I thought of was the  Ship of Theseus paradox, as you modify something when does it cease to be that original thing?
Your question is more like: "I know y is not x", "y has many of the same properties of x", "a simple property tester T can't distinguish y from x", "is it moral to tell/to not tell T that y is not x?"
To me the answer depends on the consequences to T of not knowing that y and x are different. In the Old Quebec City case, I think the benefits of setting the record straight are probably small,
the effort to set the record straight probably imposes a burden on you, and may or may not reduce the enjoyment of Old Quebec City for the other person.

 

[rousseau]

The bolded seems to be the key passage. Step in if there is a material concern. Does your post also imply that if there is no material concern, fuck it, even if correcting an erroneous belief has no material impact on you? In other words, material interests aside, is reality or illusion better? For what reasons?

I once thought I was wrong about something, but it turned out I was mistaken. I know of many situations where the illusion was infinitely better, but that's another discussion.

Someone asks, "Does your dog bite?" and I say, "No." We both know the punchline to that joke. If I have information that may spare somebody an injury, it's malevolent to conceal it when the consequences are easily foreseen.

I read an article sometime back about humans and other primates. It compared learning processes of human children and chimpanzees. The experiment involved a puzzle box which could only be opened by following a complicated series of steps. The reward was a piece of candy in the box. The human child and the chimpanzee both mastered it quickly. Next, the same box was presented, but made of transparent plastic. This made it plain to see that only one step was needed to open the box. All the other steps were superfluous. The human child still went through all the steps, but the chimpanzee went straight to the reward.

The difference is the human child's real reward was the teacher's approval, not the candy. The child cared what the teacher thought, while the chimpanzee did not seem to. This is the source of empathy in humans. We care how other humans feel, and the closer the relationship, the more we care, but we still have empathy for total strangers. This drives us to share information and especially to correct erroneous information. This doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

The bolded is mainly what I'm interested in exploring.

When is correcting erroneous information a bad idea? Under what circumstances and situations? Pretty thoroughly subjective question, but I'm interested in hearing some opinions.

For example, many members here feel comfortable quashing Christianity. What are the justifications that people use in trying to break this illusion in others?

 

[4321lynx]

The bolded seems to be the key passage. Step in if there is a material concern. Does your post also imply that if there is no material concern, fuck it, even if correcting an erroneous belief has no material impact on you? In other words, material interests aside, is reality or illusion better? For what reasons?

I once thought I was wrong about something, but it turned out I was mistaken. I know of many situations where the illusion was infinitely better, but that's another discussion.

Someone asks, "Does your dog bite?" and I say, "No." We both know the punchline to that joke. If I have information that may spare somebody an injury, it's malevolent to conceal it when the consequences are easily foreseen.

I read an article sometime back about humans and other primates. It compared learning processes of human children and chimpanzees. The experiment involved a puzzle box which could only be opened by following a complicated series of steps. The reward was a piece of candy in the box. The human child and the chimpanzee both mastered it quickly. Next, the same box was presented, but made of transparent plastic. This made it plain to see that only one step was needed to open the box. All the other steps were superfluous. The human child still went through all the steps, but the chimpanzee went straight to the reward.

The difference is the human child's real reward was the teacher's approval, not the candy. The child cared what the teacher thought, while the chimpanzee did not seem to. This is the source of empathy in humans. We care how other humans feel, and the closer the relationship, the more we care, but we still have empathy for total strangers. This drives us to share information and especially to correct erroneous information. This doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

Sounds like a feel-good story made up for tourists of the psychology of education, and showing the superiority of even childlish humans over ?mature chimps. I have sympathy and empathy for the chimps. Even though this experiment seems innocuous enough, who knows what possible pain or humiliation they had suffered or were to suffer next in clever experiments to show the superiority, moral and ethical, of humans full of empathy for their own Superior Human Race.
(And, having said that, climbs into fig tree to gorge himself on its fruit and, god willing and with the assistance of his whole tribe - the chimp's not god's tribe - to kill and eat any sybaritic Bonobo that dared invade his holy fig territory.)

 

[untermensche]

...Fast-forward to 2017 and one of your friends travels to Old Quebec, believing that it still exists in its original form. They are enamored with it's beauty and history, although what they're experiencing is somewhat of an illusion. You on the other hand, know that Old Quebec is a tourist park and none of the buildings are originals. Do you tell your friend that Quebec City was rebuilt, or do you let them live in their illusion?

They are not living in an illusion or delusion.

They are living in ignorance.

You have some information.

If you know the information is reliable then your choice is to allow their ignorance to persist, thus continually having to skirt certain issues, or end it.

End their ignorance.

If you have the truth, end their ignorance.

 

[LordKiran]

... The Hagia Sophia was rebuilt TWICE! It doesn't make it any less of a historic treasure. ...

This is why I refuse to be broken up over ISIS destroying old ruins from previous civilizations. At the end of the day that's the final destination for all of mankind's creations. So it doesn't matter that it's gone. What matters is that we know it was there at all.

I don't get it. You wouldn't care if the Hagia Sophia was destroyed even though you see it as a historic treasure?

Why would I? They rebuilt it twice already, what's one more time?