Ethical Question (minor)

[BabylonHoruv]

Right now I'm in a simplistic mood, so I'm going to just say that if your actions directly make someone unhappy it is not ethically sound.

That's silly.  There are a lot of cases where doing the right thing makes someone unhappy. (usually someone who was benefiting from the right thing not being done)

[E.O.T.]

The answer can be found somewhere in here.

THAT'S

          horrible advice!

[Jasper]

Right now I'm in a simplistic mood, so I'm going to just say that if your actions directly make someone unhappy it is not ethically sound.

That's silly.  There are a lot of cases where doing the right thing makes someone unhappy. (usually someone who was benefiting from the right thing not being done)

I didn't say this shit was simple, just that it's easily overcomplicated.

Given the scant details of the OP, I think "don't do it" is the best advice that can be given.  Anything else is irresponsible.  Granted there may exist mitigating factors that we haven't been told about, but it is wrong to assume they exist.

[Jenne]

Right now I'm in a simplistic mood, so I'm going to just say that if your actions directly make someone unhappy it is not ethically sound.

That's silly.  There are a lot of cases where doing the right thing makes someone unhappy. (usually someone who was benefiting from the right thing not being done)

...which is why, instead of dealing with absolutes based on a nuanced situation, context is probably warranted to give the proper advice in this particular instance.

[NWC]

Really depends on the context of course, but I find Kant to be super helpful when it comes to questions of morality, I would've posted the same link that Cain already did. Except that book is long. Quick summary:

Kant talks about 2 moral imperatives, the hypothetical and categorical(I don't actually know if these are the right terms but in French its les imperatifs categoriques et hypothetiques). A hypothetical imperative would be something you would have to do in order to reach a goal. Basically, if you want an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Since you're talking about responsibility, I'm going to assume this doesn't concern you unless your goal here is simply to keep the friend.

Alot of Kant's morality of a categorical imperative, meaning an imperative that would be an end in itself, is based on 2 criteria:

1. whether or not you can want that your maxim(the personal law according to which you would act in this situation) becomes a universal law, that is to say that your maxim would hold necessarily true. For instance, borrowing money saying that you'll pay it back when you know you won't doesn't work, because if it were a universal law, then no one would trust anyone and it simply would have no sense. Kant declares suicide immoral using a similar logic.

2. whether or not you're treating mankind(and thus its constituents) as an end in itself. According to Kant this is not exclusive, so you can treat someone as a means, but also as an end in themselves. Like when you go to the store, you use the cashier as a means, but you can still be civil/friendly, treating him as well as his own purpose.

That's a super short summary btw, it's slightly more complicated but I'm afraid to either bore you or mess up the details.


Taking a step back from Kant and into my own words (with Arendt in the back of my mind), situations are always super complicated, and there are very rarely just a couple clear-cut visible terms to deal with. So, if this action is something that you really want to do, you can ask yourself a couple questions:

will 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?

[Dimocritus]

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.

[Jasper]

Why on earth would anybody decide to take a negative experience and decide to behave as if it was a positive experience?  There is always a silver lining, fine, but the silver lining is a consolation prize.  Your whole stance here is ignoring the fact that some things just feel bad, no matter how hard you try to see the positive side.

[BabylonHoruv]

Right now I'm in a simplistic mood, so I'm going to just say that if your actions directly make someone unhappy it is not ethically sound.

That's silly.  There are a lot of cases where doing the right thing makes someone unhappy. (usually someone who was benefiting from the right thing not being done)

...which is why, instead of dealing with absolutes based on a nuanced situation, context is probably warranted to give the proper advice in this particular instance.

I agree, I can't give any sort of advice without more context.

[Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ]

Why on earth would anybody decide to take a negative experience and decide to behave as if it was a positive experience?  There is always a silver lining, fine, but the silver lining is a consolation prize.  Your whole stance here is ignoring the fact that some things just feel bad, no matter how hard you try to see the positive side.

yeah like "YOU JUST RAN OVER MY CAT... THATS OK IM SURE HE DESERVED IT"
YOAR WAY DOESNT WORK DIMO

[Cain]

I find Kant to be super helpful when it comes to questions of morality

I guess someone has to.

[NWC]

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.

[Dimocritus]

Why on earth would anybody decide to take a negative experience and decide to behave as if it was a positive experience?  There is always a silver lining, fine, but the silver lining is a consolation prize.  Your whole stance here is ignoring the fact that some things just feel bad, no matter how hard you try to see the positive side.

yeah like "YOU JUST RAN OVER MY CAT... THATS OK EVERYTHING THAT LIVES WILL DIE EVENTUALLY ANYWAY. HE LIVED A GOOD LIFE OF CHASING MICE"
YOAR WAY DOESNT WORK DIMO

Fix'd for you.

Guess what? When it comes to moral/ethical systems/codes NONE OF THEM WORK! Get over it.

All it comes down to is weighing out our options and seeing which one is the most beneficial/least harmful (zomg! Utilitarianism? fail...).

To say that you aren't responsible for your own emotions is to admit to a lack of self control.

[Iason Ouabache]

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?

I'm going to go in a different direction and say that it all depends on your intentions. If you purposely wanted this person to feel bad about themselves for no reason then yeah, you are kind of a dick and are at fault. If you did it with the further purpose to pull them out of a rut and/or reassess the course of their life then you are still a dick but at least you meant well.

Also, what is the appropriate next action to be taken?

ANAL LUBE Flowers would probably be a good idea.

[Payne]

I think LMNO is trolling us into submitting content of some form or another.

..."No context for you", my ass.

[Jasper]

Why on earth would anybody decide to take a negative experience and decide to behave as if it was a positive experience?  There is always a silver lining, fine, but the silver lining is a consolation prize.  Your whole stance here is ignoring the fact that some things just feel bad, no matter how hard you try to see the positive side.

yeah like "YOU JUST RAN OVER MY CAT... THATS OK EVERYTHING THAT LIVES WILL DIE EVENTUALLY ANYWAY. HE LIVED A GOOD LIFE OF CHASING MICE"
YOAR WAY DOESNT WORK DIMO

Fix'd for you.

Guess what? When it comes to moral/ethical systems/codes NONE OF THEM WORK! Get over it.

All it comes down to is weighing out our options and seeing which one is the most beneficial/least harmful (zomg! Utilitarianism? fail...).

To say that you aren't responsible for your own emotions is to admit to a lack of self control.

I am responsible for my own emotions and actions, but I do not have complete control over them.  Which is to say, I am culpable for whatever happens as a result of those things, but I don't have complete control over their behavior.  I do not possess a cognitive version of "sudo", to use a linux metaphor.

We are only partially rational beings, made of tiny molecular robots who individually have no free will or intelligence, yet I manage to be almost entirely rational and ethically agentic.  I call that a win.