Ok so, it's one of those threads I start when I'm at work on a day shift and have nothing to do.
There are three(maybe four) main ethical positions. I will summarise as briefly as I can and then you can choose which you think is most reasonable and maybe we'll get some kind of discussion going.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is the belief that there are no inherently wrong *actions* but that the morality of a situation is derived from the agents. For instance, a virtue ethicist would not say that murder is wrong but rather that those who commit murder lack virtue. They might say that in some circumstances killing another human being is perfectly justified providing the agent doing the killing is doing so because they are acting for (their own) virtuous reasons.
Virtue theorists say that it is better that we foster good virtues in people (Honesty, Wisdom, Fairness, things like that) rather than focus on individual moral problems. They argue that those kinds of things actually don't matter and if everyone is virtuous then everyone will be happy.
Virtue Ethics can basically be summed up as "Try and be a good person and then do what feels right." It is an emotive position rather than a rational one.
Deontology
Deontology deals with ethics as a duty (Deon means duty). It is characterised as following a strict set of guidelines and never deviating. For instance, if a nazi officer askes you if there are any Jews hiding in you house, you must tell him the truth regardless of the consequences because lying is *always* wrong. Deonists argue that concerning oneself with the consequences of that action is futile because a human agent can never fully know the consequences. Even if the Nazi officer takes the jews and kills them, the deonist can be secure in the knowledge that they did not lie and did not actively cause harm. For instance, they might argue that the nazi officer was in fact a symapthiser and if you told him there *were* jews in your house he would've walked away quietly to avoid catching them. However since you told him no, he puts on a show and searches the house, thus finding the Jews and then he must execute them or his superiors would catch him.
Deontology is the root of Divine Command theory which is basically "God said it, so I'm going to do it without question because it is my duty to do God's will."
Deontology can be summed up as "Follow the rules and do your duty. Do not waver because you cannot know the consequences."
Consequentialism
Consequentialism is basically the thought that ones morality should be based upon the consequences of the actions. If a train is travelling along a track and there are 5 people in it's path but you could throw a switch and divert the train to kill only 1 person (who would be safe if you did nothign) then the consequentialist would throw the switch. They argue that 5 people dying is worse than 1 person dying even if that 1 person was not on the track in danger.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism is a possible fourth category which I'm dubious to include because it tends to describe what people *actually* do rather than what they *should* do.
Pragmatism tries to frame morality in a scientific kind of way in that it describes what we should "move towards" but acknowledges that it might not be appropriate to apply that morality at the current time. It's similar to consequentialism in that it deals with consequences but if differs in that it deals with *current* consequences that do not apply universally.
For example, slavery. Jefferson argued in his writings that slavery was ultimately wrong in a universal sense but that it could not be abolished immediately because the social framework in america at the time could not take it and the consequences would be dire (a civil war maybe?). A pragmatist argues that although some things may be morally wrong in an ideal world we shouldnt necessarily abolish them immediately because bad things would happen elsewhere were we to do so.
----------------------------
So what do you think? Where do you stand? Or rather, which do you most identify with?
I have more to say on my perceived pros and cons but I think I'll let people throw their hat into the arena first and see the general feeling of the AGS community then I'll stimulate conversation by playing devils advocate.
I fail to see difference between Consequentialism and Pragmatism when based on your explanation. The examples of train killing 1 man instead of 5 and keeping slavery to prevent a civil war sound like the very same dilemma (and reason behind the choice).
They are very similar but consequentialism deals with the *ultimate* answer.
When faced with the question "Is slavery wrong?" The consequentialist might say "Yes, because it has the following negative consequences, X Y and Z. We should not own slaves. It is wrong."
The Pragmatist rather can arrive at their conclusion using any method but the pragmatist would say what we should do *now* in the current social context.
I was reluctant to include it because its not really a fourth set of ethics but rather a way of applying ethics that one has.
For instance, Jefferson wrote that slavery was a "complicated problem" that should be "solved by the next generation". Which implies that (in light of his other writings) he had resolved that slavery was ultimately wrong but that it was not a good idea for congress to rule on it at the time because that would be bad for the union as a whole.
In other words he knew that slavery was wrong but that it was morally wrong to *act upon that* in the current social context. This is different from the train idea in that throwing the switch or not throwing the switch has no moral context in and of itself. Merely, its just a switch. The moral context is derived solely from the consequences of throwing the switch or not. Pragmatism allows one to *perform admitted immoral acts* whereas consequentialism is what *decides* whether an act is moral or not in the first instance.
The distinction is hazy but i believe it's valid.
Okay, I see now.
I am starting to think there are actually two general positions: Pragmatism and Fanatism :D (that sounds trollish, but, well...).
First three views require a person to follow certain preset laws without a question and considering practical situation, they differ only by the reasoning behind those laws.
E: Hmm... on other hand "Virtue Ethics" may be something in the middle.
Actually, on reading a little more I think I have mischaracterised pragmatic ethics partially.
Another part of pragmatic ethics is how much an action contributes to a social goal *beyond* the action itself.
For instance, a pragmatist might consider stealing a book because they do not want to contribute to the wealth of the institution publishing the book because they believe them to be a bad institution. Or they might blow up a financial institution because they believe they are doing harm to society as a whole.
Consequentialism is a theory based on a outcome with a measurable metric (usually happiness or "wellbeing") whereas pragmatism concerns itself with progression towards social change.
Revolutionary communists might be considered pragmatists because they recognise that the death of a lot of people is necessary in order to bring about social change.
I guess you could argue that consequentialism and pragmatism are what separate libertarians and revolutionaries.
Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Mon 01/10/2012 09:33:38
First three views require a person to follow certain preset laws without a question and considering practical situation, they differ only by the reasoning behind those laws.
E: Hmm... on other hand "Virtue Ethics" may be something in the middle.
Only Deontology requires strict adherence to "rules" in the traditional sense. Both Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism are value judgments really. One is emotive, the other is rational.
An interesting read. Ethics and the theories describing it are extremely complicated.
Sometimes it becomes very hard to draw exact lines, as in the case of religiousity - you tend to behave altruistically, but one could argue that you simply wish to be rewarded in afterlife. However, this doesn't take away the beneficial effects of behaving altruistically. This also raises the questions whether absolute morals exist independent of agents, or if they always require a social context.
Having strong virtues and principles will probably help you in many situations where normal rules and standards have been set aside. For instance, if everyone around you was a Nazi, and you were ordered to gas Jews, you could fall back on the categorical imperative, which says that your action can only be justified if it could work as a general rule. Alternatively, you could refer to a religious dogma, which might tell you something like "do not to others what you don't want others to do to you" - this extists in most religious, I believe. It's not always a pragmatic choice, but at least you will be consistent in your actions.
This will help you to resolve really hard dilemmas; let's say enemy soldiers capture you and give you the option to execute a friendly prisoner. The alternative is that the enemy will execute ten others instead. You have the (apparent) choice to reduce the amount of killings, but if you have principles that forbid you to kill innocent, unarmed people, you will hand over the responsibility to the soldiers. Perhaps your decision didn't lead to the best result, but you stayed true to your principles.
Others would classify me as a deontologist (if one were to adhere to these strict classifications) because I believe that it is one's duty to strive to be a good person. And since I'm a cynic (read: realist) I have little trust in what apparently 'feels right' to many people in society. As a consequence, I believe that there are fundamental ethical rules that you should live by (although my rules may differ from yours on certain details).
Of course one of these rules is: live trumps any other rule. So in the Nazi-example one would have to adhere to this rule rather than the non-lying rule. Also, if it's your duty to 'be' a good person then it's also your duty to consider the consequences. Still, you can abide to that and still follow the rules. A true story that actually happened in WWII (in the Netherlands): A man - who happened to be a Christian - was hiding a number of Jews. A couple of Nazis came and asked him if he was hiding Jews, and this man (who was a deontologist in this classification) would not lie. So he said laughing: "yes, I've got a dozen up in the attic". Both he and the Nazi's were laughing at the joke and the soldiers walked on...the Jews survived. No, this story is not generally applicable, but it did actually happen, and the man did consider the consequences as well as what he felt was the ethical rule.
Anyway...I am for all intents and purposes a deontologist. But I'm also a cynic, a (true) sceptic, a relativist, and not a fundamentalist (although others will disagree). I just think there are general rules a good man lives by (like: not skipping the line at the supermarket, to give a grounded example :) )...
I do not believe that to be deontology in the strictest sense. That is consequentialism.
If you say that "live trumps any other rule" then it means you are making a value judgment on the consequences of your action and not adhering to a strict rule.
This was Kant's main problem with consequentialism. That you *cannot know* if someone will die by your actions with any certainty and so you should stick to a strict, known set of laws.
On the other
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 01/10/2012 10:14:24I do not believe that to be deontology in the strictest sense. That is consequentialism.
If you say that "live trumps any other rule" then it means you are making a value judgment on the consequences of your action and not adhering to a strict rule.
On the other hand, extreme orthodox Jewism (and I'm not talking about Jewism in general here, or even biblical Jewism) is an extreme example of the 'live by the rules' ethics (because God or the Rabbi's told you so). Still, even in this extreme orthodox Jewism there is a rule that states 'live trumps any other rule' (well...except cannibalism and paganism if I remember correctly, but even that might be open to debate).
This would be for me on of the best examples of deontology (or at least divine command deonotoly) in the real world...but even that doesn't fit in the deontology box in the strictest sense. So does stric deontology exist (not in some extreme individuals but as an ethical basis in a group)? - Or are all lines always blurred, and does every ethical view in the end take consequences into account on one level or another?
For simplicities sake: could you have a good relationship with anyone (read: your wife) if you don't take into account the possible consequences of your actions (read: consider what happens if you don't obey here rules). It's as simple as 'should I put beans and garlic in this food if she has an important meeting tomorrow?'* :)
* yes, I like to look at ethics first on a very basic, very (very) down to earth level. And from there I might consider to extrapolate to more complex and more extreme situations to see if things still work. Some might not even consider this a part of ethics...
On further reflection, i think deontology does allow for stipulations like you mentioned because it is still an absolute without deviation. Although i'm not entirely confident of that.
Actually, on even further reflection I think this idea is *more deontological* because it is an absolute on which you *will not deviate*. Whereas a consequentialist may do so.
So yea, I was incorrect. That is not consequentialism.
Personally I don't think any form of ethics is in reality bound to these strict boxes...it can't be.
To take your railroad example:
QuoteIf a train is travelling along a track and there are 5 people in it's path but you could throw a switch and divert the train to kill only 1 person (who would be safe if you did nothing) then the consequentialist would throw the switch. They argue that 5 people dying is worse than 1 person dying even if that 1 person was not on the track in danger.
Ethics (at least on a theoretical philosophical level) goes deeper than merely looking at consequences, or rationalization of the situation (or even game theory). Ethics also asks questions like: why are 5 lives more important than 1? - Is this a general rule, or is it a subjective rule that applies to this situation (read: why are these 5 lives more important than that 1 live?). What happens if there is one child on one side, and 5 elderly on the other? - What if there is one man on either side? - What if there are five random people on one side and my wife is on the other track (I make the ethical decision that these five random people are less important than my wife).
Ethics is never purely a rational summation of the situation at hand...unless you are a military general who sits a thousand miles away from the place you drop the bombs on (but is that ethics or mere game theory? - and of course, there's a clear relationship between the two).
Quote from: Misj' on Mon 01/10/2012 11:02:19
Personally I don't think any form of ethics is in reality bound to these strict boxes...it can't be.
As with all approximations, this is true. But I think that forming opinions based on approximations is useful in the abstract.
Quote from: Misj' on Mon 01/10/2012 11:02:19
Ethics is never purely a rational summation of the situation at hand...unless you are a military general who sits a thousand miles away from the place you drop the bombs on (but is that ethics or mere game theory? - and of course, there's a clear relationship between the two).
This is a good point to point out a distinction between Normative Ethics and Descriptive Ethics. The former concerns itself with what one *should* do. The latter is merely a description of what humans actually do.
The example of your wife being on the tracks is a good one.
Let us assume that your wife is on one track, currently in danger and 2 strangers are on the other track, not currently in danger. Who would throw the switch? I think, in the heat of the moment, everyone would. But would that be *morally* right? I don't think it would.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 01/10/2012 11:10:40The example of your wife being on the tracks is a good one.
Let us assume that your wife is on one track, currently in danger and 2 strangers are on the other track, not currently in danger. Who would throw the switch? I think, in the heat of the moment, everyone would. But would that be *morally* right? I don't think it would.
On the other hand, I believe my wife is a good person (even though we differ on several ethical points), these other five people might be good or bad. Isn't one good person is more valuable to five possibly good possibly bad people? - So if ethics thrives for a better world (big if), then the decision to save one good person is the ethical one. The decision to let a good person die might be the lesser of two evils, so one could consider that ethical. The decision to kill a good person (redirecting the train) is, on the other hand, not ethical...even if it saves 5 random people.
Of course one could consider this mere rationalization and justification of ones (theoretical) actions. On the other hand each of the ethical 'boxes' can come to this same conclusion: 'virtue ethics: saving a good person feels the right thing to do', 'deontology: thou shalt not kill the good', 'consequentialism: the overall effect of one good person being killed is worse than the effect of five people of unknown morality dying', 'pragmatism: the world can only get better if there are good people, so to ensure that outcome as a possibility we must save the good person'. :)
What is the reasoning behind making a choice of ethics? Presumably - what you believe has more importance. A life, a principle, a human civilization, a God's will?
And important for whom?
Should a person find out what's is most important for a universe (or God) and then follow the path of serving this cause? or should he determine what's important for himself? or for other people (his King, his nation)?
If we are to completely discard belief or tradition, we will stand on the crossroads where billions of paths connect, not knowing what to start with. One may say there are at least basic needs that we should fulfill (food, safety), but what if our own existence endangers something that is far more important than we are (at least if we think it's more important)? - in which case it would be probably better to just kill oneselves and end the human race.
I seriously think there's no rational way to know what is ultimately good (which probably means I am agnostic, unless I am using wrong term again). And, therefore, there's no reason to seek for ultimate good. I mean, seriously, anything that does not refer to honest pragmatical reason will be based on belief. Therefore the question of ethics is a question of belief as well.
There's a big difference between what I believe is a proper way of living and the way I do actually live. My problem is I could never really follow my own principles, and perhaps will never be able to do so, and that's quite depressing. Some may say that they aren't principles then... heh, well, whatever.
I believe that human life is not so important on its own. I think that it is more important how the person lives and what he does. To live only 10 years as a good person, whose actions benefit others, is better than live 100 years as an asshole. To die but keep honor is better than protect your life and live in submission.
That does not mean that person should crave for death. That means he should not give the life without dignity much value.
I believe that each person have only one natural right: to choose the way he lives. And after the choice is made, he or she should accept all the consequences as natural events. I think that one person should not bear the responsibility for other person's choice of life. I mean, for example, if one man chooses to live like a slave and shows no intent to change, he could be dealt with like one, if others see practical reason in this.
The reasoning behind this is this. If people were common animals, there won't be any problem if they lived like ones. Basic instincts, and all. But since they are given some "conscience" and a "will" strong enough to fight the instincts (including self-preservation), it rises the level of responsibility. A person who does not want to take this responsibility and prefers to live like an animal should be envisioned like one. I don't mean that's bad or something. Animals aren't bad or evil. Cats, for example, are pretty nice. I mean that it is strange to give human rights to animals. Or apply human level of relations to them.
I think this makes me "virtue ethicist" of a sort. Perhaps something with regard for natural selection.
For example, I was thinking, how a person should behave if he is being captured and forced to tell the secret that, when revealed, may endanger millions. Enemy threatens him, telling they will kill his friends, or relatives. In this case I believe a man should decline, regardless of such threats. But the general reason, in my opinion, is not the fact that by saving lives of his beloved a person will endanger much more people, but rather the fact that he dishonors both himself and his friends/relatives by paying for their safety with safety of millions. This may seem the similar thing (especially since outcome is the same), but in-deep reasoning is different.
I quote the entire post, but highlight these two sentences...
Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Mon 01/10/2012 11:39:57
...
I think this makes me "virtue ethicist" of a sort. Perhaps something with regard for natural selection.
...
but rather the fact that he dishonors both himself and his friends/relatives by paying for their safety with safety of millions
...
Honour is a virtue...but aren't honour-bound actions in a way abiding to certain strict rules? - And these rules can't be broken because that would be dishonourable. So wouldn't that make it a deontological decision? - Aren't duty and honour that intertwined?
Quote from: Misj' on Mon 01/10/2012 12:00:23
Honour is a virtue...but aren't honour-bound actions in a way abiding to certain strict rules? - And these rules can't be broken because that would be dishonourable. So wouldn't that make it a deontological decision? - Aren't duty and honour that intertwined?
You are right. Now when I re-read "Virtue Ethics" explanation I understand that I missed the point of it making the actions carry value of the person's value (so to say). In which case I am certainly not "virtue ethitist". Now you may officially call me deontological fanatic :).
Ok, since everyone seems to be coming down on the deontological side of the argument:
If you could kill hitler circa 1939, would you?
If you would then doesnt that come down hard on your "killing is wrong" standpoint?
If you argue that killing hitler would be ok because it saved many more lives then you clearly cannot be a deontologist.
To make it less black and white:
Let's assume you interupt a rape. You are certain the man is guilty and he is fleeing. You cannot catch him but you could shoot him and possibly kill him. Do you shoot him? Or do you allow him to escape?
First of all, everything said below assumes that I strictly follow my personal religion, and am able to overcome fear etc.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 01/10/2012 12:22:49
If you could kill hitler circa 1939, would you?
I assume you mean, if I could return back to 1939 in a time machine?
No I won't.
The past events were a sum of peoples choices. I do not think I have right to change this in any way, whether it is killing bad man or helping good ones. I may change the present, because the present and future is formed by me and my choices as well as choices of others living in the same time.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 01/10/2012 12:22:49
If you would then doesnt that come down hard on your "killing is wrong" standpoint?
I do not have "killing is wrong" standpoint.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 01/10/2012 12:22:49
If you argue that killing hitler would be ok because it saved many more lives then you clearly cannot be a deontologist.
I do not say I want be a deontologist. I mean, if I am, let it be. But I won't insist :).
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 01/10/2012 12:22:49
Let's assume you interupt a rape. You are certain the man is guilty and he is fleeing. You cannot catch him but you could shoot him and possibly kill him. Do you shoot him? Or do you allow him to escape?
I'll shoot. I will try not to kill him, because the laws of the country require that the man is given a punishment by the court (which may not be death sentence). But if he will die, I'll take this as a manifestation of natural justice: responsibility for one's actions.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 01/10/2012 12:22:49
To make it less black and white:
Let's assume you interupt a rape. You are certain the man is guilty and he is fleeing. You cannot catch him but you could shoot him and possibly kill him. Do you shoot him? Or do you allow him to escape?
I will keep this abstract (so no 'raping a beloved') to make sure this doesn't get into the blood-revenge territory. But if one of the rules one should abide to is 'to protect society' (from evil-doers) - and I think that's a very ethical rule - then shooting the person is the right way to go, and still falls within the deontological side. If you kill the person in the process than that's the lesser of two evils, and still ethical (this of course doesn't mean you should go around playing judge, jury, and executioner).
The problem here is of course that theoretical ethics can come to non-ethical conclusions (especially if taken from a strict rational point of view). To misuse this example:
You see a woman in the process of getting raped. You have a gun. Mathematical deduction:
A. Preventing the rape +1 ethical. Not preventing the rape -1 ethical
B. Killing anyone -1 ethical. Letting someone live +1 ethical;
C. Let someone endure emotional scars for the rest of his/her life -1 ethical. Remove emotional scars: +1 ethical
options:
kill assailant: (A+B+C) = +1-1-1 = -1
kill girl: (A+B+C) = +1-1+1 = 1
conclusion:
killing the girl is more ethical than killing her assailant.
Now, none of the ethical styles would come to this conclusion of course. Because the life of the innocent victim is much more valuable than that of the assailant. But that's an emotional conclusion based on a single variable at a single time-point...and of course on the rule 'protect the innocent (and weak)'; but that would be a rule again and that would bring us back into the realm of deontologists.
And then, when I wrote that, I started to think about Asimov and RoboCop. In both cases behaviour of the artificial intelligence is guided by consequentialism. However, consequentialism to the extreme can become unethical, so to guide consequentialism there has to be a set of strict laws/rules that have to guide the decision regardless of the consequences. Thus, is RoboCop a deontologist or a consequentialist? :grin:
Ethical values are a subjective thing. For example:
Quote from: Misj' on Mon 01/10/2012 13:08:40
Let someone endure emotional scars for the rest of his/her life -1 ethical. Remove emotional scars: +1 ethical
What if a person believes that those scars = a challenge = a chance to strengthen one's spirit = good thing?
Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Mon 01/10/2012 12:42:58
I'll shoot. I will try not to kill him, because the laws of the country require that the man is given a punishment by the court (which may not be death sentence). But if he will die, I'll take this as a manifestation of natural justice: responsibility for one's actions.
You'll shoot and then blame nature? Which ethical position is this? If you do shoot and kill him, you'll be guilty of manslaughter/murder.
I definitely wouldn't shoot, as that would likely wound/kill the person in a way that isn't stipulated in our nation's laws. I refuse to be both jury and executioner, especially with only a few seconds to act. I think interrupting the rape and calling the police would be enough a heroic deed.
Quote from: Andail on Mon 01/10/2012 13:14:57
Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Mon 01/10/2012 12:42:58
I'll shoot. I will try not to kill him, because the laws of the country require that the man is given a punishment by the court (which may not be death sentence). But if he will die, I'll take this as a manifestation of natural justice: responsibility for one's actions.
You'll shoot and then blame nature? Which ethical position is this? If you do shoot and kill him, you'll be guilty of manslaughter/murder.
I will not "blame nature". I won't blame anyone, because if there's one who is responsible for the death it will be me.
What I mean is: this guy made his choice and he should have been ready to get the consequences.
Quote
I think interrupting the rape and calling the police would be enough a heroic deed.
I do not think heroism is something that a man should be considering in such situation anyway.
I think for the interrupted rape scenario to be useful, we have to assume that not shooting the assailant will mean he will never be caught.
(Obviously, in reality the victim is likely to know who he is, and with an eye witness it's likely he'd be prosecuted.)
However I don't understand buy the maths of this:
Quote from: Misj' on Mon 01/10/2012 13:08:40
You see a woman in the process of getting raped. You have a gun. Mathematical deduction:
A. Preventing the rape +1 ethical. Not preventing the rape -1 ethical
B. Killing anyone -1 ethical. Letting someone live +1 ethical;
C. Let someone endure emotional scars for the rest of his/her life -1 ethical. Remove emotional scars: +1 ethical
options:
kill assailant: (A+B+C) = +1-1-1 = -1
kill girl: (A+B+C) = +1-1+1 = 1
conclusion:
killing the girl is more ethical than killing her assailant.
Killing someone is not the same as removing emotional scars. If you kill someone there is no person to remove emotional scars from.
Quote from: Ali on Mon 01/10/2012 13:44:14Killing someone is not the same as removing emotional scars. If you kill someone there is no person to remove emotional scars from.
I created a very simple very stupid robot that assumed that if someone is dead he or she does not have any emotional scars anymore. :) - I followed the movie
i Robot on this one where the 'endlosung' was to remove the human factor. :D
The thing that I wanted to point out was this: purely rationally there is no difference between the value of the victim's and the assailant's live (compare the train example), and one can - pure mathematically not humanly - come to the conclusion that the best solution is to kill either of them.
This is of course not the human conclusion because we weight our options, the consequences, and the variables involved (independent of your ethical views). But the question then arises: what is the basis of this weight? - Is it a set of (fuzzy) rules like: protect the innocent, or is it a feeling of justice (which in itself is some sort of ruleset), is it purely game theory, or is it something else?
We all agree that raping is unethical (at least I hope we do). But why would the different ethical views share that opinion?
-
Virtue Ethics: there are no inherently wrong *actions* but that the morality of a situation is derived from the agents. ... Try and be a good person and then do what feels right. --> Is rape ethically wrong, if it feels right to the person committing it?
-
Deontology: It is characterised as following a strict set of guidelines and never deviating -> if one has no rules against rape, is raping then ethically wrong to the person committing it?
-
Consequentialism: ones morality should be based upon the consequences of the actions -> if the person who commits rape would otherwise be so sexually frustrated that he'd go on a killing frenzy, would rape of a few women then not be the better alternative and thus be the ethical decision?
-
Pragmatism: It's similar to consequentialism in that it deals with consequences but if differs in that it deals with *current* consequences that do not apply universally -> similar argument to consequentialism.
If we stop the rape (and we should) doesn't that also mean that we judge someone elses ethics and morality? - What gives us that right? - Is it our own ethical superiority? - Don't get me wrong, I believe we should judge immoral behaviour. And I'm very glad we have a criminal justice system that takes care of a lot of that on a larger scale. But what should we do if the person in line in front of us is hiding some groceries at the checkout (I've seen that happen, and I didn't intervene...which I still think was unethical but also the sanest and best decision in this case (considering the appearance of these people in front of me)).
Just some discussion-points...
EDIT: This is about all the time I have for now...I'll check back later today or tomorrow. :)
Quote from: Misj' on Mon 01/10/2012 14:21:06
If we stop the rape (and we should) doesn't that also mean that we judge someone elses ethics and morality? - What gives us that right? - Is it our own ethical superiority? - Don't get me wrong, I believe we should judge immoral behaviour.
...And by saying that aren't you assuming that "we" ARE ethically superior?
Speaking of right to judge, the only real right is the one of the strongest. All other rights are convention between people that believe their statements are correct or at least find them conceivable. In other words, they are a matter of belief as well. This is very similar thing I pointed few hours ago: we do not have a base, an absolute reference point here.
Hence why can't a man base his judgements on his beliefs? Seriously, why?
Quote from: Misj' on Mon 01/10/2012 14:21:06
But what should we do if the person in line in front of us is hiding some groceries at the checkout
Well, I won't shoot them, that's for sure.
In fact my idealistic hypothetical self would probably ignore this as well. Unless this is a city under siege, where food supplies is limited and stealing ones may cause someone's elses death wit high probability. The fact that some people have to steal food is a shame of society in whole.
Quote from: Misj' on Mon 01/10/2012 14:21:06
If we stop the rape (and we should) doesn't that also mean that we judge someone elses ethics and morality? - What gives us that right? - Is it our own ethical superiority?
All (secular) moral frameworks are, at their core, axiomatic. That is to say we make declarations about human experience that have no real basis in fact. We make those declarations because they are useful mostly. Generally that axiom is "suffering is bad". Bear in mind that we have no real basis to say that in a moral perspective.
This is called the is-ought problem which says, in brief, that one cannot derive what ought be the case from what is the case.
i.e
Premise - Torture causes suffering
Premise - Suffering is bad. (?????)
Conclusion - Torture is bad.
We have no basis to say that suffering is bad. You could argue that it is unpleasant but so is going to the dentist. It doesnt make it morally wrong to make someone go to the dentist.
The problem with axiomatic systems like this is that it creates what many westerners would believe are moral absurdities. For instance, let us assume that you are being attacked. Is it moral for you to fight back? If you don't fight back then you will suffer but if you do fight back then they will suffer. Jains believe that if you were to fight back you are committing a moral evil because you are inflicting suffering on another. Two wrongs dont make a right.
Just food for thought.
My system of ethics has changed greatly in the last few years, morphing from what was a fairly standard, simplified form of virtue ethics that boiled down to "don't be a dick and be excellent to each other" into something, well, completely indefensible. In short, I completely stopped caring, to the point where my philosophy now takes the form of misanthropic nihilism. I suppose it stems from my deep, seething hatred of every human being, but when faced with an ethical dilemma, my first inclination is just to kill everyone involved. The thing is, I know this is wrong and I don't hope that anyone would share such a twisted view of the world, because they would clearly be terrible person. Which I am. So what I am working on now is attempting to remove these feelings somehow and root myself in a reasonable and not-sociopathic moral theory.
Thats a different, discredited school of moral thought called "Teenagerism"
In Linkin Park We Trust
You guys think too much. The train is coming, the rapist is in action, Hitler has bent down to tie his shoe next to the rushing traffic of the autobahn.... by the time you reconcile your ethical stance to your intended actions the moment for action has long passed. Many a great moral action has no doubt been killed in utero by this deer-in-the-headlights phenomenon. I would submit to you that most actions are just reactions: like the spine jerking the arm away from a hot pot, or instinct suddenly seizing control. Afterwards we rationalize and justify, according to our ethical schema, and most of us are probably pretty good at either:
1) determining that we made the right decision (whether or not it was objectively "right"), or
2) determining that we didn't make the right decision but assuming the consequences (real world penalties, internal remorse... what have you).
Anyone who could not justify themselves as righteous or could not rue and repent would either be evil ("yeah, it's bad, so what?"), or incapable of higher self-awareness (due to age, developmental delay, mental illness, etc.), and I'm not even sure evil people would fit into this category because it lacks motive for continued action: wouldn't you just get sick and tired of it all?
So ethics I say would be relative to the ability of the actor to self-delude in 90% of the cases where "the moment" just happens. In those few cases where a pre-meditated action has to be considered, I will concede there may be an element of ethical dilemma, but again how many ethical philosophers go around committing grave acts? This would be like Hamlet plotting the demise of his uncle: he over analyses the ethics behind the action to the point where no action is taken (I would argue that events caught up with him in the end, and it was in a fit of passion that he finally murders Claudius). How many of the posters in this thread have killed a villainous rogue or an innocent bystander? Most people would probably base their intended actions on social acceptance (essentially tribalism: "my friends said it was ok"), greed ("I wanted something") or fear ("if I don't do this, things will be bad"). So the guy who has time to think about saving his wife or the five people would save his wife because he is greedy, or the Nazi death camp worker would flip the switch because he's shit scared of the tribal repercussions if he doesn't (note that this isn't consequentialism -he knows it's wrong). All of these more instinctual motivations could later be justified as virtual ethics, deontology, consequentialism, or pragmatism depending on the bent of the person involved.
In summation, ethics as a determinant of action are often a revisionist mental construct. Ethics as a yardstick for evaluating actions after the fact (ie passing judgement) are relative in that they are susceptible the persuasive abilities of the advocate. Ethics can help the human mind interpret what is right, but interpretation itself is subject to the faults and fancies of the human mind. Therefore ethics are in absolute terms only an illusion, although it sure makes you sound impressive when you quote Kant (so you will probably succeed in persuading people of your righteousness, no matter what it is you actually did). :)
Quote
A. Preventing the rape +1 ethical. Not preventing the rape -1 ethical
B. Killing anyone -1 ethical. Letting someone live +1 ethical;
C. Let someone endure emotional scars for the rest of his/her life -1 ethical. Remove emotional scars: +1 ethical
options:
kill assailant: (A+B+C) = +1-1-1 = -1
kill girl: (A+B+C) = +1-1+1 = 1
This is interesting because I would actually present those equations differently when supplied with the same options:
Kill Assailant: A + B - B + C = 2
Kill girl: A + (B-B) -C = 0
Using the above calculations, B will always cancel itself out as you are killing someone AND allowing someone to live, but when killing the girl you may be sparing her from emotional turmoil but not the would-be rapist, who has to deal with what he just saw for the rest of his life (and his actions).
Of course I disagree with your moral equation at base value as I do not equate a loss of ethics merely for killing 'anyone' and I believe there are circumstances where saving a life, even your own, is an ethical reason to end another. I also don't think one can so simply quantify ethics into a series of checks and balances, which is why I tend to fall somewhere between deontology and pragmatism in my ethical structure. I strongly believe in ethics and doing the right thing, but often it is a matter of knowing what exactly IS the right thing and analyzing your surroundings to best understand the situation and circumstances before making an ethical 'choice'.
The Only Way Is Ethics...