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?
It depends on the context.
The answer can be found somewhere in here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason).
Quote from: Risus on April 06, 2010, 04:54:21 PM
It depends on the context.
No context for you.
Quote from: Cain on April 06, 2010, 04:56:18 PM
The answer can be found somewhere in here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason).
That should be easy enough. Thanks!
Without more information its hard to say.
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?
Well, if the feelings were hurt 'because' of your actions... then you are responsible for taking the voluntary action and thus responsible for the identified 'cause' of the hurt feelings. However, you seem like a nice person who doesn't go around pissing on people... so I'd have to wonder if the hurt feelings were solely caused by your action or if there are a number of causes which taken together led to the bad feelings.
If you voluntarily betrayed someones trust, that's pretty much all on you. If your action did not intentionally betray someone, then there is surely more causal factors involved.
In straight talk: You're always responsible for your actions. You may or may not be responsible for their reactions, depending on the context of the situation.
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?
This is impossible to properly answer without knowing the actual situation. I would say that if it's guilt they're feeling, it implies that they did something they would consider wrong, which would absolve you (to some extent) of your responsibility for what they're feeling. Then again, because you know what they are feeling and that your actions will affect these feelings you do bear some responsibility. It depends heavily on the circumstances.
I would say the appropriate action would be to discuss it candidly the person you care about.
Fuck that, Kant'll tell you if you were justified or not, and based on REASON.
Utilitarianism FTW.
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.
I would say just do it, in my experience actions taken or not taken in order to preserve someone's feelings are often less than beneficial.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 06:10:08 PM
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.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 06, 2010, 06:17:25 PM
I would say just do it, in my experience actions taken or not taken in order to preserve someone's feelings are often less than beneficial.
These are the two main points I'm vaccilating between.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on April 06, 2010, 06:17:25 PM
I would say just do it, in my experience actions taken or not taken in order to preserve someone's feelings are often less than beneficial.
I agree with Badge. The only caveat I can think of is if you have some special relationship with the person and the actions would be directly in violation of that ie. cheating in a agreed monogamous relationship.
Self-sacrifice is for the people that follow dying gods.
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on April 06, 2010, 06:26:34 PM
Quote from: dimo on April 06, 2010, 06:23:39 PM
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on April 06, 2010, 06:20:02 PM
Quote from: dimo on April 06, 2010, 06:14:57 PM
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on April 06, 2010, 06:09:57 PM
Utilitarianism FTW.
Utilitarianism is shite.
Your mom is shite.
Your mom is a moral relativist. Which is also shite.
I can agree with that statement.
OK
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 06:10:08 PM
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 is a frightening statement. Were you being serious?
Quote from: Hoopla on April 06, 2010, 06:34:08 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 06:10:08 PM
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 is a frightening statement. Were you being serious?
BE AFRAAAIID!!!
Emphasis on "simplistic mood". Right now it is 11:37 B.C. (before coffee) and I feel that people are overcompllicating a simple decision with SRS ETHICS.
OT: I feel that peoples reactions and how they feel about them are their own responsibility. "What you just did made me feel bad" is not something I usually respond to by taking responsibility for their feelings. Perhaps if they had a different attitude about life, what you did would bother them less and maybe by putting their feelings "on the spot" you might make them reassess there stance on things to become less vulnerable.
Just a thought.
Quote from: dimo on April 06, 2010, 06:42:58 PM
OT: I feel that peoples reactions and how they feel about them are their own responsibility. "What you just did made me feel bad" is not something I usually respond to by taking responsibility for their feelings. Perhaps if they had a different attitude about life, what you did would bother them less and maybe by putting their feelings "on the spot" you might make them reassess there stance on things to become less vulnerable.
Just a thought.
Right, being responsible for your actions doesn't equate to being responsible for others reactions to your actions.
unless its a totally shitty action then it is your fault
but you said they feel GUILTY and guilt is felt when they think THEY did something wrong
While you may not be responsible for their reactions, you are aware that your actions are causing some guilt and unhappiness.
It's up to you whether you care or not.
As for what to do next, see the statement above.
Generally I would err on the side of Nhat Hanh and say compassion should be the guide in such situations.
If it's somebody that you love, you should avoid doing something that you know will hurt their feelings, unless you feel that your feelings will be hurt more, relatively, by being compelled by their sensitivity to not do it.
of course, if you should choose to not do it, you should let them know about your sacrifice for them, so that they feel good and guilty about you not doing it... :)
joking aside, i would think that if there is a question, then you shouldn't do it...
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 06, 2010, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: dimo on April 06, 2010, 06:42:58 PM
OT: I feel that peoples reactions and how they feel about them are their own responsibility. "What you just did made me feel bad" is not something I usually respond to by taking responsibility for their feelings. Perhaps if they had a different attitude about life, what you did would bother them less and maybe by putting their feelings "on the spot" you might make them reassess there stance on things to become less vulnerable.
Just a thought.
Right, being responsible for your actions doesn't equate to being responsible for others reactions to your actions.
I just mugged you, but I'm not responsible for how you feel about that.
That sounds legit.
If you choose to do something knowing before you do it that it will hurt someone you care about?
IMO that's shitty.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 06:59:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 06, 2010, 06:47:08 PM
Quote from: dimo on April 06, 2010, 06:42:58 PM
OT: I feel that peoples reactions and how they feel about them are their own responsibility. "What you just did made me feel bad" is not something I usually respond to by taking responsibility for their feelings. Perhaps if they had a different attitude about life, what you did would bother them less and maybe by putting their feelings "on the spot" you might make them reassess there stance on things to become less vulnerable.
Just a thought.
Right, being responsible for your actions doesn't equate to being responsible for others reactions to your actions.
I just mugged you, but I'm not responsible for how you feel about that.
That sounds legit.
How you react or feel about being mugged is your own choice. You can choose to feel victimized or you could choose to view it more positively by seeing it as a valuable learning experience (ie: don't traverse back alleys late at night anymore). But I don't think that muggings are what we're talking about here. I think people don't realize how much control they have over their own emotions.
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."
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."
agreed. it's simply an unfortunate fact that this is more of a smudge than a line....
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 06:10:08 PM
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)
Quote from: Cain on April 06, 2010, 04:56:18 PM
The answer can be found somewhere in here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason).
THAT'S
horrible advice!
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2010, 07:25:43 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 06:10:08 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2010, 07:25:43 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 06:10:08 PM
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: Jenne on April 06, 2010, 07:37:19 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2010, 07:25:43 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 06:10:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 07:58:47 PM
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Fredamir Putin on April 06, 2010, 08:27:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 07:58:47 PM
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.
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?
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.
QuoteAlso, what is the appropriate next action to be taken?
ANAL LUBE Flowers would probably be a good idea.
I think LMNO is trolling us into submitting content of some form or another.
..."No context for you", my ass.
Quote from: dimo on April 06, 2010, 09:59:56 PM
Quote from: Fredamir Putin on April 06, 2010, 08:27:01 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 06, 2010, 07:58:47 PM
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.
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?
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)
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
http://intoallthat.com/2008/06/13/unicorn-sighting-rome/
so morality is like, real then?
:lulz:
RB,
winning with birth defects...
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.
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 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFunny).
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.
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.
I propose Fuzzy Ethics, to go along with Fuzzy Logic.
I leave it up to you to describe what the fuck that means.
Is "self-satisfaction" considered an ethical system?
If so, that's the one I use far more than any others.
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.
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?
DOES THIS INVOLVE SEX OR CLOWN SHOES?
Quote from: dimo on April 07, 2010, 08:04:01 PM
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.
Quote from: dimo on April 07, 2010, 08:04:01 PM
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.
No system. Systems of ethics don't work, you said so yourself. No system, no problem. My method is to simply assert that I must behave "ethically", whatever that means, and attempt to do so. It doesn't have a pretty framework or anything you would need a degree for, but it works in real life and that's more than Kant can say.
Quote from: dimo on April 07, 2010, 08:04:01 PM
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.
I make decisions all the time without what you would recognize as a system, and I make them at least as much with my gut as with my brain. Sometimes I make mistakes, but then, any system will eventually fail too.
I would say that the people I see who commit casual cruelties or have constant pointless drama are the ones who have strong systems they adhere to. They miss the part about eventual failure, and so never know when they need to revise a theory in light of practice.
If the system is bound to fail, what makes it superior to my own practice? We both get it wrong sometimes.
Serious question: Can you have ethics without a system/code? I think the answer is no. If the two are inseperable, then all ethics eventually fail (them being a system and all). If that is so, is making a decision based on ethics a wise decision (as opposed to something like logic/reason)?
Are you defining "ethics" to mean something other than "ethical behavior"? It sounded earlier like you were defining ethics to formally require a system.
There's nothing unique about systems in eventually failing. That's just life. If you have to have perfection to approve of something, I would recommend spending some time with the first noble truth.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 08, 2010, 06:19:24 AM
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?
DOES THIS INVOLVE SEX OR CLOWN SHOES?
Best of both worlds: REALLY SEXY CLOWN SHOES.
Quote from: LMNO on April 08, 2010, 01:56:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 08, 2010, 06:19:24 AM
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?
DOES THIS INVOLVE SEX OR CLOWN SHOES?
Best of both worlds: REALLY SEXY CLOWN SHOES.
google image search is failing me! :x
MY LIBIDO BROKE THE INTERNETS.
Quote from: dimo on April 08, 2010, 07:30:15 AM
Serious question: Can you have ethics without a system/code? I think the answer is no. If the two are inseperable, then all ethics eventually fail (them being a system and all). If that is so, is making a decision based on ethics a wise decision (as opposed to something like logic/reason)?
Well, I have to differ. Nothing about my life experiences, nor my rational understanding of nature and reality, would ever, in a thousand years, lead me to the conclusion that a systematic code of behavior is morally superior to the nebulous concepts of compassion, empathy, and good will.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 08, 2010, 03:49:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 08, 2010, 01:56:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 08, 2010, 06:19:24 AM
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?
DOES THIS INVOLVE SEX OR CLOWN SHOES?
Best of both worlds: REALLY SEXY CLOWN SHOES.
google image search is failing me! :x
LMNO, I officially volunteer to custom design this costume for you for Halloween.
SEXY CLOWN MAN.
The world needs it.
I accept your challenge.
LMNO
-this'll go over HUGE at Spooky Bear Weekend in PTown.