Ethics - How ethical are you and how ethical is everyone else?

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Crimson Wizard]

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).

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Crimson Wizard]

Okay, I see now.

I am starting to think there are actually two general positions: Pragmatism and Fanatism (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.

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Andail]

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.

[Misj']

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 )...

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Misj']

On the other

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.

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...

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

[Misj']

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:

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 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).

[Calin Leafshade]

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.

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.

[Misj']

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.

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'.

[Crimson Wizard]

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.

[Misj']

I quote the entire post, but highlight these two sentences...

...
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?

[Crimson Wizard]

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 .

[Calin Leafshade]

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?

[Crimson Wizard]

First of all, everything said below assumes that I strictly follow my personal religion, and am able to overcome fear etc.

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.

If you would then doesnt that come down hard on your "killing is wrong" standpoint?

I do not have "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.

I do not say I want be a deontologist. I mean, if I am, let it be. But I won't insist .

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.

[Misj']

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?