Ethical Question

[Mobyseven]

Of course not. My argument is that if an action is ethical or unethical when it is made, however we decide that, then it will remain so for the rest of history.

Which would explain why white Americans still consider slavery to be such a good idea, I guess?

 

[Lonewulf]

Of course not. My argument is that if an action is ethical or unethical when it is made, however we decide that, then it will remain so for the rest of history.

Examples in the real world show this claim as entirely wrong, if you look at it practically.

Ideally, it would be nice if we could have a code that would be able to apply and never be questionable ever for the rest of history, but... sorry. Doesn't work that way.

But we're always as moral as we can be in THIS generation.

 

[rocketdodger]

Aristotle considered the "good" as the entire point of ethics.

Good for who? What is good?

An "ethical" decision is one made in accordance with the judge's notion of right, "unethical" with their notion of wrong.

It is just that simple. If one makes a decision, and never looks back to say "I went against my morals in that case and did the wrong thing," then they acted ethically. If not, not.

It is an entirely different case when one looks back to say "if I had known then what I know now, I would have acted differently." A bad decision can still be an ethical one.

 

[rocketdodger]

Which would explain why white Americans still consider slavery to be such a good idea, I guess?

I never said that the ethicality of a decision as seen by one person must be the same as seen by everyone else. In the case of slavery, even if those that practice it thought it was ethical (which I doubt) that doesn't mean we have to.

However, the fact that we think it is unethical has nothing to do with data accumlated in all the years since slavery was abolished in the U.S., does it? No. We know it was unethical then, just as it is now, just as it has always been (according to us).

 

[rocketdodger]

Examples in the real world show this claim as entirely wrong, if you look at it practically.

I don't think so. The ethicality of a decision varies only with the intent of the decider (or the interpreted intent, if the judge changes their ideology). Whether a decision is good or bad varies only with the actual outcome or interpretation of the actual outcome.

I could be wrong, though. Do you have any examples in mind? I can't think of any decision I considered ethical at one time unethical later on, or vica versa, based only on updated information about the outcome of that decision.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't think so. The ethicality of a decision varies only with the intent of the decider (or the interpreted intent, if the judge changes their ideology). Whether a decision is good or bad varies only with the actual outcome or interpretation of the actual outcome.

I could be wrong, though. Do you have any examples in mind? I can't think of any decision I considered ethical at one time unethical later on, or vica versa, based only on updated information about the outcome of that decision.

Slavery. Racism. Genocide.

All of which at one point of time were seen as ethical.

I never said that the ethicality of a decision as seen by one person must be the same as seen by everyone else. In the case of slavery, even if those that practice it thought it was ethical (which I doubt) that doesn't mean we have to.

However, the fact that we think it is unethical has nothing to do with data accumlated in all the years since slavery was abolished in the U.S., does it? No. We know it was unethical then, just as it is now, just as it has always been (according to us).

We perceive it as unethical today, yes. And in the next generation, they'll probably find something you did as unethical.

That's how society works.

 

[blobru]

...The second man has little money himself; he has only a dollar, his last, but he gives it to the poor man, embraces him, and weeps because he can be of no more help than that.

The rich man says, "I don't know you or your children at all, and I care about you even less. I'll give you this just to get out of my face and leave me alone. Now go away." He hands him a $100 bill because he has nothing smaller, and it's pocket change to him anyway.

Now, which man did the better act? ...

(Coming late to this.) Assume the money's accidental; i.e., the third man's wealth is not dependent on his selfishness.

Then compare attitudes. The second man wants to help. The third man doesn't. Generalize that. A society of second men vs a society of third men.

In second-man-land the consensus is to "help the poor" in any way possible. At first this may be through handouts; if that doesn't work, education; if that doesn't work, incentive programs, etc. Who knows, maybe all the social programs will fail, and the consensus will shift to "selfishness" as the best way to help the poor. But at least this will be a rational ethical consensus, arrived at through trial and error.

In third-man-land the consensus is "screw the poor". Given their attitudes, there is no way the third men will ever try another approach. The third men's selfishness towards the poor is thus untested and irrational. Not good.

So, via Mr. I. Kant's categorical imperative, I vote: second man. (Of course, if one assumes wealth does depend on selfishness, a society of "screw the poor" third men can do a lot more to lovelessly 'help' the poor than a society of well-meaning ne'er-do-well second men. In that case -- call it "Ayn Rand was right?! huh" -- the third man gets my [reluctant] vote... I think. Just so long as I don't have to have dinner with the prick paragon.)

 

[rocketdodger]

Slavery. Racism. Genocide.

All of which at one point of time were seen as ethical.

You don't understand my argument. I am not speaking in general, I am speaking about a specific judgement by a specific person at a specific point in time given a specific state of the world.

Slave owners thought slavery was ethical, at the time, given the state of the world and what they knew. This is a fact.

We think this slavery in the past was unethical, at this time, given the state of the world and what we know (including the state of the world then). This is also a fact.

Think of it this way -- consider any decision that in the past was considered ethical but is now thought of as definitely unethical. Now pretend that all the historical outcomes of that decision are erased, or that you just never learned about them. Does the decision switch to ethical status in the absence of negative outcomes?

Then try the same exercise with unethical decisions that are now considered ethical. Notice a pattern?

Unless I am wrong, you should come to the conclusion that whether or not a decision was ethical is based on our values alone, not the outcome of the decision (unless the outcome changed our values, which is very possible).

 

[Mobyseven]

I for one can't follow your argument at all, Rocketdodger. You said, "My argument is that if an action is ethical or unethical when it is made, however we decide that, then it will remain so for the rest of history."

To me, that was a clear, concise and easy to understand contention that I disagree with wholeheartedly, as counter-examples are available by the bucketload.

Whatever you're trying to say now, could you express it as clearly as that last contention? It seems like your contention now is, "Given the relevant information about a situation, a person will judge that situation as being either good or bad, and their judgment on that situation will remain that way forever or until they are given further information about the situation that changes their mind." To which I would have to say, "Duh." But the way I interpret what you are saying now is at odds with how I interpreted your previous statement, which I why I now say:

Clarification, please?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Good for who? What is good?

An "ethical" decision is one made in accordance with the judge's notion of right, "unethical" with their notion of wrong.

It is just that simple. If one makes a decision, and never looks back to say "I went against my morals in that case and did the wrong thing," then they acted ethically. If not, not.

It is an entirely different case when one looks back to say "if I had known then what I know now, I would have acted differently." A bad decision can still be an ethical one.

What is "good"? That is what Aristotle sought to answer in the Nichomachean Ethics. You may not agree with his answer, but that is another issue. The issue at hand was that the "good" is a central issue in ethical reasoning.

Your ethics seems to be entirely personal and unworkable. What is right? What is wrong? Charlie Manson never looked back and thought that he did the wrong thing. Does that make Charlie Manson an ethically proper actor?

Is it really every man for himself? Every person's individual wants and desires define the ethical? It's all just individual personal feeling?

You may wish that ethic. I do not.

 

[meg]

rocketdodger wrote:

It is just that simple. If one makes a decision, and never looks back to say "I went against my morals in that case and did the wrong thing," then they acted ethically. If not, not.

It is an entirely different case when one looks back to say "if I had known then what I know now, I would have acted differently." A bad decision can still be an ethical one.

Okay. I think I get what you're trying to say, but I really don't understand why you think it's an important distinction to make.

Yes, I agree that an ethical decision is one based on being in accordance with one's morals.

However morals are dynamic. When you were little you were selfish. All little kids are. You would take the last piece of cake, or even grab a toy right out of a playmate's hands and walk away with it, leaving them screaming and crying. Things, I assume, that would not be in accordance with your present morals. As adults, we learn and change our minds depending on the outcomes of decisions all the time. I know I myself have changed my morals about "try to improve someone else's situation", and it is now tempered with a great deal of "sometimes it is best to keep your nose out of other peoples' business".

I don't think there is much difference between saying "My past decision was unethical" (based on my currently revised ethics) and saying "If I had known then what I know now, I would have made a different choice".

I see no point, other than trying to make myself feel better, perhaps, in trying to insist that my past decision was in accordance with my past morals; that it was ethical. Who cares? The point is that now that I know better, I would not do that again.

 

[rocketdodger]

It seems like your contention now is, "Given the relevant information about a situation, a person will judge that situation as being either good or bad, and their judgment on that situation will remain that way forever or until they are given further information about the situation that changes their mind." To which I would have to say, "Duh." But the way I interpret what you are saying now is at odds with how I interpreted your previous statement, which I why I now say:

Clarification, please?

My contention is exactly what you said, with the following added: The "further information" that changes their mind will be a change in their value system as opposed to information about the actual outcome of the situation (unless, granted, the actual outcome changes their value system).

In other words, if you change your mind later and decide "that earlier decision wasn't ethical after all" it will be because you have changed values, not because of additional information you get about the actual outcome. Additional information about the outcome might lead you to regret the decision, but I don't think it will lead you to decide it was unethical (because, as I contend, ethicality has only to do with intended outcomes, not actual outcomes).

 

[Mobyseven]

My contention is exactly what you said, with the following added: The "further information" that changes their mind will be a change in their value system as opposed to information about the actual outcome of the situation (unless, granted, the actual outcome changes their value system).

In other words, if you change your mind later and decide "that earlier decision wasn't ethical after all" it will be because you have changed values, not because of additional information you get about the actual outcome. Additional information about the outcome might lead you to regret the decision, but I don't think it will lead you to decide it was unethical (because, as I contend, ethicality has only to do with intended outcomes, not actual outcomes).

Thanks for the clarification - looks like I wasn't too far off.

I think I have to digest what you're saying here...my 'gut instinct' is that something feels wrong, but I prefer not to think with my gut.

I'll have a think about it.

 

[Elind]

The first panhandler was a drunk and a liar.

The first giver was a drunk and actually the man who subsequently accosted the millionaire with the same story.

The millionaire will go home and tell the story, minus comments, to his wife who will think he is the greatest husband in the world.

Everyone is happy.

 

[breathe]

just

the first man is actually the second man at the outset of the initial scenario and by looking only at the context of that scenario it seems to me everybody was acting with good intention in accordance with what they thought, felt or saw in that moment of exchange depending on societal positioning.

first of all let me consider the beggar, whether he is given one dollar or one hundred dollars isnt going to change his predictament at all, as money is not the answer to resolving his position, however one dollar can at least give him bartering power at a counter to purchase fruit and vegetables, so i see the giving of a dollar as good for the beggar because it gives him further opportunity of human contact, ethical yes

and of course one hundred dollars could feed and clothe him and his family more adequately in the immediate moment but the possibility of incrimental handouts changing his plight ends there.

still, the beggar receives more later as a result of his exchange in the earlier encounter but only at a personal cost to the one dollar man.

by the one dollar man taking on a burden that was never his to begin with, he changes the position of the beggar. The truth is that the wealthy guy is unaffected by the scenario , so he is almost irrelevant apart from the ching ching.

Its the beggar and the one dollar man who are changed by the encounter. Its positive for the beggar but I think the one dollar man took on too much responsibility , to the point where he would have to revise his actions . But as he did not create the situation why carry such a burden on his shoulders? In this sense I think he undercuts his own ethics and fails to give selflessly .

 

[Lonewulf]

No, he succeeds in giving selflessly, which is what he did. But you question whether the consequences were worth it, and whether his ethics were viable in the long term, or in the macro scale (I.E., outside of the simple interaction of the two men).

At least, that's the way I see it...

He gave selflessly, but he failed to do so efficiently.

 

[breathe]

Good point, but I do question his ethical position and his inefficiency equates to failure. Its a values based conflict and whilst he almost succeeds in giving, finally he is thinking of himself. He fails due to a lack of self awareness.

 

[Lonewulf]

You know what? I'm tired of people talking about the poor only in terms of panhandling. You want to really help the poor? Don't give them money for panhandling. Put money and effort into homeless shelters.

THAT, is ethical. Though I loathe how many homeless shelters are religious and promise to restore "spiritual fitness". I.E., free conversions. :/

 

[breathe]

what you say above has already been mentioned elsewhere, so nothing new to add to the mix there,
assumptions aplenty hhhmmmm

im more interested in 'goodness' as aesthetically..and more importantly ethically, its a negative

 

[H-o-l-l-y]

The ethical act would be for the first man to refuse the last dollar of the second man and seek help elsewhere.

Yes!
That night the poor man had $101, while the first man had nothing. Even if the poor man hadn't run into the rich man he would still have $1 while the first man had nothing.