News:

It's funny how the position for boot-licking is so close to the one used for curb-stomping.

Main Menu

Ethical Question (minor)

Started by LMNO, April 06, 2010, 04:52:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dr. Paes

Quote from: LMNO on April 06, 2010, 04:52:46 PM
If I choose to do something voluntary (that is, not vital to my existence) that makes a person I care about feel guilty and bad about themselves, how much responsibility do I have in causing their hurt feelings?

Also, what is the appropriate next action to be taken?
So we're clear... this voluntary action has positive consequences for you, yeah? Apart from the hurting someone else?
Because as it's put in the OP they choice could be just between hurting someone and not hurting them.

Like, you could voluntarily tell someone you care about that they are the reason you can't have nice things to hurt them. If you do take whatever action you're contemplating, are there positive results for you? If you don't do this thing, is it a big enough thing that it'll continue to remain in your mind as something you didn't do, though you wanted to, because of this person?

Rumckle

Quote from: dimo on April 06, 2010, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 07:15:58 PM
It is antisocial to take no responsibility for how people react to your actions.  The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it makes sense to draw it at "I am fairly certain that this action will unduly harm/distress another."



It's foolish to expect others to take responsibility for something they have complete control over.

EDIT: That's not to say you shouldn't take these things into regard when making decisions.


I'm with Dimo here, how the other person doesn't really have bearings on weather something is ethical or not. Being antisocial isn't unethical.

That said, I'd say that if LMNO feels guilty/responsible/bad about the situation, then the ethics of it is questionable (I'm assuming here that LMNO isn't a psychopath/sociopath). The reason we have emotions such as guilt and moral regret, is when we know we have done something wrong, and can help us understand these situations.

(but my view is biased because I've been reading a lot on emotivism and emotionism lately)
It's not trolling, it's just satire.

Triple Zero

First, I would go with Paesior's advice. The OP leaves out a rather important detail: If there is any other reason for carrying out the action at all.

If not, the decision becomes rather clean-cut: Why bother? Why bother doing something if the only consequence is it will hurt someone you care about. So in that case, don't do it.

However, if this was the case you probably wouldn't be asking us. So I will assume the reason is either because it is beneficial to you, or perhaps to teach the other a lesson of sorts, in a "it's for their own good" sense.

In that case I would go with NWC's advice. The second part, not the part based on Kantianism (which might provide a useful frame of reasoning, but is not a system for deciding what's Right and Wrong that I would agree with):

Quote from: NWCwill your friend be able to forgive you?
would you forgive them in the same situation?
is there something you can do for them to compensate, or make up for the damage?
is there simply a way to complete this action, or a similar action, in such a way that they would not feel guilty?
could that similar action be some sort of compromise?
how much value do you put into your friendship? how does it compare to how much you want to do this action?

Hope that helps. Good luck with the situation.

ETA: also, will you resent the person from 'preventing' you from completing this action if you don't complete it? what effect would that have on your relationship?

and then finally top it off with Kai's suggestion about letting compassion be your guide.



If you were looking for a clear cut rule of ethics, you may think this as a sort of cop-out. But IMO it's not. You are the one that is in the actual situation as it is, with all its minute details and scales and weights.. Instead of applying some pre-fab system of ethics to the situation like a poorly fitting template mold, you are to take these broad brushes of multi-facetted considerations and read them in the light of the situation itself. Think of it as a similar way you would read a Tarot card or an I-Ching-a-majig (or a business-inspirational brainstorm card, or an Oblique Strategies card), take those elements that resonate with your mind's view of the situation.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Jasper

Quote from: Rumckle on April 07, 2010, 12:45:40 AM
Quote from: dimo on April 06, 2010, 07:51:16 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 07:15:58 PM
It is antisocial to take no responsibility for how people react to your actions.  The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it makes sense to draw it at "I am fairly certain that this action will unduly harm/distress another."



It's foolish to expect others to take responsibility for something they have complete control over.

EDIT: That's not to say you shouldn't take these things into regard when making decisions.

Being antisocial isn't unethical.

I didn't mean antisocial as in "I don't feel like socializing", I meant antisocial as in "antisocial personality disorder".

Rumckle

Well aware of that Siggy.

Rereading what I posted though (apart from it not making much sense), I think I may have been a bit heavy handed. If a reasonable person would be hurt by your actions, then maybe it is unethical. But if someone takes offence, is upset by, or otherwise hurt by something you did, when a reasonable person would not, then what you did probably isn't unethical.

Though, I'm just throwing ideas out there, I don't really take that view of ethics.
It's not trolling, it's just satire.

LMNO

Well, just to resolve the OP, it was a little of this, and a little of that.  Oh, Paes, yeah.  It was something that was ultimately benefical for me, the hurt was a by-product.

Anyway, I talked to them and said that, after thinking about it, that it was kind of a dick move on my part, because I knew beforehand they would have a negative reation, and I felt bad for causing them that hurt.

They responded that, after thinking about it, the hurt was self-generated and unfair, and they wished me well.


So, conflict over.  Although, it's been interesting reading your replies.  Thanks.

Dimocritus

System of ethics=Unicorn.

They aren't real, and exist, if at all, only in your own mind.

Just sayin'...

OT: Glad everything worked out with you and your friend, LMNO.
HOUSE OF GABCab ~ "caecus plumbum caecus"

Roaring Biscuit!


Cain

Quote from: NWC on April 06, 2010, 09:14:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 06, 2010, 09:05:13 PM
Quote from: NWC on April 06, 2010, 07:48:28 PM
I find Kant to be super helpful when it comes to questions of morality

I guess someone has to.

His moral system is quite impressive, and not so so difficult to apply to life. I pick and choose the parts that I like, as I do with all philosophers, and I find what Kant has done to help me make my reasoning when it comes to moral decisions more objective. That doesn't mean in the end that I'll go with what he says, but it gives a nice methodologically sound vantage point.

Except the part where you cannot lie to an axe murderer about where his intended victim is hiding.

LMNO

Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2010, 03:27:59 PMExcept the part where you cannot lie to an axe murderer about where his intended victim is hiding.

I believe that falls under the Rule of Funny.

Jasper

Quote from: dimo on April 07, 2010, 03:03:02 PM
System of ethics=Unicorn.

They aren't real, and exist, if at all, only in your own mind.

Just sayin'...

OT: Glad everything worked out with you and your friend, LMNO.

I'm willing to concede that a system of ethics is unfeasible.

However I contest that despite this, ethical behavior itself is not only feasible, but desirable.


Dimocritus

Quote from: Sigmatic on April 07, 2010, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: dimo on April 07, 2010, 03:03:02 PM
System of ethics=Unicorn.

They aren't real, and exist, if at all, only in your own mind.

Just sayin'...

OT: Glad everything worked out with you and your friend, LMNO.

I'm willing to concede that a system of ethics is unfeasible.

However I contest that despite this, ethical behavior itself is not only feasible, but desirable.



Ok, but ethical behavior based ON WHAT SYSTEM? That's the question. Ethics can't really exist without a set of rules or guidelines, commonly known as a system. All systems will eventually fail. Ethics is no different.
HOUSE OF GABCab ~ "caecus plumbum caecus"

LMNO

I propose Fuzzy Ethics, to go along with Fuzzy Logic.

I leave it up to you to describe what the fuck that means.

East Coast Hustle

Is "self-satisfaction" considered an ethical system?

If so, that's the one I use far more than any others.
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

Dr. Paes

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 07, 2010, 08:21:10 PM
Is "self-satisfaction" considered an ethical system?

If so, that's the one I use far more than any others.
This. Sometimes self-satisfaction is the feeling that I've done something which is beneficial to others. Sometimes it is screwing a motherfucker over. Seems to work okay.