Your ethics.....

Grayson

How do you work out if something is right or wrong?

I love reading about ethics. I studied it in college and it can provide some interesting thought experiments. The problem with most ethical theories is implementing them in real life.

Here's an example. There's a theory called utilitarianism. It basically means that you weight up the good and bad that an action causes and if the good outweighs the bad then it's a good action. The problem is when you're in a situation that requires a decision quickly you can't start totting up a list. And sometimes it requires you to do a bad thing (like murder someone for an inheritance so you could save multiple other people). It is really good for making laws. You set out some rights and then make laws around them. So smoking in a creche is bad because it affects children but smoking outside by yourself is ok because to ban it would restrict your freedom (which is a right you have). Most systems of laws in the western world are based on a system like this.

I'm not expecting people to have a fixed system with a name. We tend to make decisions based on a number of things but I'm wondering what criteria or thought process people here would use to make a moral decision. Or if they have any examples of when they've been stuck.

(And I know that with any system it's possible to poke holes in them so please feel free to poke holes in mine and don't take it badly when people poke holes in yours. If there was a perfect system we'd all be using it already and this wouldn't be a discussion).

Personally I've always been a fan of something called virtue theory. It has no rules but the idea is that you try to be a virtuous person so that when you're in a tricky situation you have the tools to deal with it. A virtue is defined as a mean between two extremes. So the idea is that bravery is between being feckless and being a coward. Being charitable is between being a miser and giving everything away. So rather than creating a system for working out a moral/ethical problem it creates a person who can deal with them.

Andrewf20

I generally choose what I reckon would result in the most average happiness.

stimpson

Simple. I just follow the teachings of the bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Shenshen

That's a very interesting question. I'm not sure I can actually put my finger on mine - I've got a few general guidelines like the Golden Rule, along with an emotional desire to help and not to inflict harm.
Does that constitute and ethical theory, do you think?

Badly Drunk Boy

stimpson wrote: »

Simple. I just follow the teachings of the bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

Yep, and whatever the parish priest says. May sure you alternate the contradictory stuff, though.



But seriously...I just do what seems right, what causes the least negativity all round. It's hard to describe your ethics without a situation to illustrate how you'd deal with it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I just follow the principle of doing harm to nobody and helping when I can.

HS3

Interesting thread!

I think there's a sneaky part of human nature that is based on what we can get away with. A choice should be based on virtue and the right, but we have an awful nack of letting what we really really want influence our decisions and be excused away by either the likelihood of getting caught and measuring the badness of the decision against something worse that may have been done to you, or someone else.

I can't say my ethics are always pure and I would certainly excuse away a bad decision if I could get away with it

Deub

I follow what most people think it is right.
If it is 50/50, i am neutral.

That's not how it works?

Atoms for Peace

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
-Spock

pragmatic1

The golden rule. Try and treat people with kindness.


I also try and be as honest with myself as much as possible. I find that very important as I get older and in the end it always makes me happy, even if it's shyte at first.

pillphil

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I generally choose what I reckon would result in the most average happiness.

Most average? So if it would make you too happy you wouldn't do it? :P

Junkyard Tom

A man must have a code.

Grayson

Deub wrote: »

I follow what most people think it is right.
If it is 50/50, i am neutral.

That's not how it works?

I was the same. Had a whole team of pollsters following me around to advise me. I ditched them all last week.

My name may or may not be Hillary.

Pac1Man

Magic 8-Ball.

Arghus

I do whatever the voice of God that I hear in my head demands.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Whatever experiences & influences have brought me to where I am today, guide me in my everyday decisions. I try never to do harm to others

Pherekydes

stimpson wrote: »

Simple. I just follow the teachings of the bible. Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.

If I followed the bible I'd have murdered the wife, stoned the kids and cut off both my own hands and gouged my eyes out, hopefully not in that order.

Your Face

****.

titan18

Ethics, ha, good one.

osarusan

It's a gut feeling. I don't think I could quantify it.

Fleawuss

TL;DR How do you decide if you can get away with it?

suicide_circus

I uncritically embrace the latest trendy leftist identity politics I read on facebook and label anyone who don't agree as a bigot and halfwit.

Bio Mech

suicide_circus wrote: »

I uncritically embrace the latest trendy leftist identity politics I read on facebook and label anyone who don't agree as a bigot and halfwit.

I think I know you on Facebook. Seems sadly familiar

MadDog76

I have no morals .......... and I'm being serious .......... self-preservation, and of those people I love, is all that concerns me.

Having said that, I have been justifiably accused of having sociopathic tendencies.

bodice ripper

I am exactly halfway crook.

seenitall

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Whatever experiences & influences have brought me to where I am today, guide me in my everyday decisions. I try never to do harm to others

Yup, that about sums up my views on it nicely.

I abhor the word "morals", or "morality", it turns my stomach. I'm sure you can guess why, OP.

Arcade_Tryer

Treat others the way you would like to treat them so as to maximise utility.

Cookie_Monster

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
-Spock

That, and the prime directive. Problem Solved.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

How do you work out if something is right or wrong?

Too general a question to answer with anything but too general an answer. Because for me most morality and ethics is contextual.

If a generalised answer is what is required though - I guess what many people - myself included - would say is that we try to maximise well being and reduce suffering.

As you say this sometimes involves "totting up" in a way that you simply do not have the time or wherewithal to do "in the moment". But most of us have ideas and reflexes conditioned over a life time of thought and experience which do a lot of that "on the fly" and "in the moment". Not perfect by any means - but I would say it tots up the correct result more often than not.

When you see someone drowning for example you generally feel compelled to jump in and save them. You do not tot up the probability that maybe he was on a murderous rampage and he is now in the water because someone knocked him there in self defense and your saving him will enable him to continue his rampage. Thankfully in the majority of cases this will not be the case and your saving someone is the right thing to do.

But I know what you mean about the thought experiments. For example some people say it is never a good thing to lie. Then in answer to this some people say - you are sitting having a meal with Joe and someone comes to the door saying "do you know where joe is - I want to kill him". So they think that lying in that context is the right thing to do.

But then someone furthers the thought experiment saying that _overhearing_ the conversation joe tries to escape out the back door - but due to your lie the would be killer leaves your door and happens then to bump into and murder joe. So perhaps lying is _not_ the right thing to do.

The "train" problem has always humored me too. If you have a train going along a track towards three people - while on another track stands a single man - would you flick the lever that will redirect the train away from the three in danger and towards the one who is currently not in danger - thus killing him. Most people - it turns out - would flick the lever.

However you put the identical problem thusly - that the train is hurtling towards the three people and you have a fat man beside you of sufficient mass to stop the train. Would you push him in front of it - killing him but saving the three. Most people - it turns out - say no. Even though the results are identical - one man not in danger is killed in the process of saving three people who were.

Turtyturd

Varies from situation to situation. Mainly egoism, and utilitarianism with a bit of moral nihilism.

Andrewf20

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I generally choose what I reckon would result in the most average happiness.

Average happiness is an interesting one if not articulated right

For example if I walk - as a relatively healthy human being - into a doctors office with a small complaint - and that doctor happens to have 5 patients who require organs that I have - would he increase "average happiness" to just kill and eviscerate me for my organs on the spot? You would go from 6 people - 5 of whom are miserable - to 5 people who are happy and healthy and one who does not care - because he is dead.

Shenshen wrote: »

That's a very interesting question. I'm not sure I can actually put my finger on mine - I've got a few general guidelines like the Golden Rule, along with an emotional desire to help and not to inflict harm.

The main problem with the Golden Rule is that it is only as good as the person saying it. The idea of treating other people how you yourself want to be treated - for example - is not something you would want to hear uttered by a masochist.

Further if you play your words right the Golden Rule can be used to justify just about anything. I could - if you want - use it to justify murdering homosexuals and pedophiles. All I would have to say is "If I ever found out I was gay - I would want someone to kill me" and then saying "Treat others like you want to be treated" I would instantly have justification for murdering homosexuals.

Shenshen

Deleted User wrote: »

The "train" problem has always humored me too. If you have a train going along a track towards three people - while on another track stands a single man - would you flick the lever that will redirect the train away from the three in danger and towards the one who is currently not in danger - thus killing him. Most people - it turns out - would flick the lever.

However you put the identical problem thusly - that the train is hurtling towards the three people and you have a fat man beside you of sufficient mass to stop the train. Would you push him in front of it - killing him but saving the three. Most people - it turns out - say no. Even though the results are identical - one man not in danger is killed in the process of saving three people who were.

I think what comes into play here is levels of remoteness. Flicking a switch to re-direct a train is a more remote action than physically shoving someone - who, it can be assumed, would scream and yell and try and defend himself - in front of a train and seeing him killed at close range.
The more remote you can make the killing action, the easier it will be to persuade people to kill.
As far as I know, it was one of the reason the Nazis started using gas chambers to kill. They had been using firing squads, but it was hard and getting harder for the people doing the shooting. They were experiencing guilt, started questioning, and where possible were trying to get out of that "duty".
Herding people into a room and locking it, and then releasing the gas was a much more remote action, and resulted in far less problems with the executioners' consciences.

Littlehorny

Rule 1= Try not to be a *unt

Shenshen

Deleted User wrote: »

The main problem with the Golden Rule is that it is only as good as the person saying it. The idea of treating other people how you yourself want to be treated - for example - is not something you would want to hear uttered by a masochist.

Further if you play your words right the Golden Rule can be used to justify just about anything. I could - if you want - use it to justify murdering homosexuals and pedophiles. All I would have to say is "If I ever found out I was gay - I would want someone to kill me" and then saying "Treat others like you want to be treated" I would instantly have justification for murdering homosexuals.

That would be why my other 2 moral guidelines are "help where possible" and "don't inflict harm".
It's the main reason I'm vegetarian, for example. But it's also the reason I drive an electric car and am a maniac about recycling and reducing waste

But I think you do have a point. The Golden Rule should be re-written from "Treat others the way you want to be treated" to "Treat others how they want to be treated" - within reason.

AudreyHepburn

I just follow the principle of treating others as I would like to be treated myself and using good old fashioned common sense and logical thinking.

MadDog76

Deleted User wrote: »

The "train" problem has always humored me too. If you have a train going along a track towards three people - while on another track stands a single man - would you flick the lever that will redirect the train away from the three in danger and towards the one who is currently not in danger - thus killing him. Most people - it turns out - would flick the lever.

However you put the identical problem thusly - that the train is hurtling towards the three people and you have a fat man beside you of sufficient mass to stop the train. Would you push him in front of it - killing him but saving the three. Most people - it turns out - say no. Even though the results are identical - one man not in danger is killed in the process of saving three people who were.

I just wouldn't get involved ...........

Akrasia

Ok, here we go

The trolley problem is interesting as a thought experiment, but in a real world situation, very few people would deliberately push the fat man or pull the switch to divert the train, because we don't have the perfect knowledge of the causes and effects related to our actions or inactions

What if I pull the lever to divert the track and watch in horror as the 3 people who were on the track manage to get out of the way and wouldn't have been killed even if the train wasn't diverted, meanwhile the one person on the track attracts the attention of some bystanders who rush in to save him and suddenly there are 4 people who get hit by the train...

Humans have limited information to make every decision, and we have to make judgements in real time based on guesses about what the outcomes are going to be.

People feel more responsible to act when they're in direct proximity to a crisis. If you're the first person to arrive at a car crash at a remote location, you're much more likely to stop even if you're not a doctor or if you don't have any skills in dealing with emergencies. If you're a passer by at an accident and there are loads of other people around, you're much more likely to let someone else deal with it. This isn't because you're immoral, it's because you can realistically presume that others are better qualified to help, and that too many people interfering can make things worse.

If you hear about an earthquake in Haiti, you might be prompted to send a small donation to help the recovery efforts, but if there's a neighbour who you know, whose house was burnt down and they are in a desperate situation, you're much more likely to spend many hours and a larger portion of your income in assisting them clean up and rebuilding their house.

This is because we feel a greater responsibility to help people who are near to us, and we expect that others feel the same.

Some people like Peter Singer try to equate two acts 1. you walk past a pond with a drowning child who you could easily save, and 2. there are children in africa starving who you could easily save with a small charitable donation.

Singer argues that you would be considered a monster if you refused to save the drowning child because it wasn't your responsibility, but it's morally no different to refusing to save the starving children in Africa.

In reality, it's a different moral situation. With the drowning child, that life is entirely in your hands. Only you can save her, and if you do nothing, that child will surely die.

With the example of African children, the responsibility is diluted throughout the world, where the first people who fail these children are the people who have made the political and economic choices that prevent them from getting access to food. There might be bandits or thieves hoarding the aid donations, there might be corrupt officials who are diverting resources away from those most in need.. The primary responsibility is at a closer proximity to the people in need, and there is also the uncertainty about what the best course of action to save the most lives is. The history of development is paved with well intentioned projects doing more harm than good, there are governance issues that need to be addressed to move people off dependence on aid, and towards sustainable economic positions... Or the people who vote for candidates in elections who promise to increase the amount of international state aid is we give our of our taxation, are we more moral than those who give a fixed donation each month to african charities, but consistently vote for candidates who promise to cut state aid and promote self serving economic policies that will guarantee that developing nations never catch up?

Is the person who gives away all of his income to keep people alive after earthquakes and tsunamis more moral than the person who works really hard to improve governance in global political structures and to rebalance the global economy so that people are less reliant on international aid?

Or is the person who works hard to make sure that rivers and ponds have life bouys and maintians slipways and access to the water to keep children from falling in in the first place less moral than the person who jumps in to save the child. Or is the person in local government who refuses funding for life bouys at that pond equally as immoral as the person who doesn't jump in to save the child...


My personal ethics is broadly utilitarian, we ought to act in a way that results in the best outcomes, ie promotes positive well being, and reduces suffering, but I don't do the calculus on each moral decision, I focus on the values that underly the decisions that people make in order to judge them good or evil.

Greed can be amongst the most immoral of attributes. People who already have everything they need, using their economic social and political capital to get more for themselves and less for everyone else is hugely immoral.
If people can learn to be satisfied with their fair share, then there is enough on this planet to go around and we'll be able to work together to sort out the mess we've made of our environment


Authoritarianism is another characteristic that tends towards immorality. Its tied in with arrogance, people who think they know better than everyone else, and thinks that they ought to have the power to impose that will on others regardless of their view on the matter
If people are prepared to listen and reason through the issues, we'll manage to free ourselves from the broken systems that are preserved only through inertia and heirarchical system that survive by the preservation of self interest by those with the most power.

Dishonesty is the trait that binds most immoral actions together. Telling lies isn't the same as being a fundamentally dishonest person. I tell my kids that Santa will bring them presents at christmas. That's not true, but it's a 'white lie' The kinds of dishonesty I'm talking about are people who deliberately distort facts and logic and reason in order to promote their preferred course of action even if they know that they're wrong.
Here we have all the scammers, the politicians who lie at election time so they can do the opposite after they're in power, religious leaders who try to indoctrinate people with false promises and false threats, medical woo merchants who prey on vulnerable people who are looking for relief from their suffering, marketing and commercial actors who promote their goods and services in underhanded ways knowing that they can never deliver on their promises....

The vale of ignorance is a very good way of looking at issues in a wider context.

The "veil of ignorance" is a method of determining the morality of political issues proposed in 1971 by American philosopher John Rawls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Akrasia

mariaalice wrote: »

The vale of ignorance is a very good way of looking at issues in a wider context.

The "veil of ignorance" is a method of determining the morality of political issues proposed in 1971 by American philosopher John Rawls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Yeah, that's the gold standard in designing a just and fair society. The system we have now, where everyone needs to promote their own self interest breaks down when there is a big disparity in the lobbying power of some groups over others.

buckwheat

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A man must have a code.

No doubt

Grayson

Shenshen wrote: »

I think what comes into play here is levels of remoteness. Flicking a switch to re-direct a train is a more remote action than physically shoving someone - who, it can be assumed, would scream and yell and try and defend himself - in front of a train and seeing him killed at close range.
The more remote you can make the killing action, the easier it will be to persuade people to kill.
As far as I know, it was one of the reason the Nazis started using gas chambers to kill. They had been using firing squads, but it was hard and getting harder for the people doing the shooting. They were experiencing guilt, started questioning, and where possible were trying to get out of that "duty".
Herding people into a room and locking it, and then releasing the gas was a much more remote action, and resulted in far less problems with the executioners' consciences.

They did a survey where they gave two options. Pushing a man to save a group pf people or pushing a child to save a group of people. Pretty much no-one said they'd push the child.

Mathematically it's the same. One live to save others but we don't see it that way. Children are special.

Akrasia

Grayson wrote: »

They did a survey where they gave two options. Pushing a man to save a group pf people or pushing a child to save a group of people. Pretty much no-one said they'd push the child.

Mathematically it's the same. One live to save others but we don't see it that way. Children are special.

Mathematics is a universal constant. Human psychology is a variable that has evolved over billions of years of natural selection.

The fact that it was a 'fat' 'man' who might have stopped the train influences the outcomes of the thought experiment. Its not that children are special, there are a lot of possible combinations that would have reduced or increased the people who pull the switch.

'Intelligent man', 'beautiful woman', 'convicted criminal', 'war hero', 'fat woman', 'thin man', 'golden retriever'.....

As an experiment it's not measuring how valuable 3 people are, its measuring how valuable they are compared to one fat man. If it was 3 people versus their own personal hero, or a family member, then those 3 people are doomed.

Similarly, the description of the 3 vs 1 in the lever scenario implies that the victims are all exactly the same, but if it was real life, the choice would be drastically different depending on which people are identifiably related to the person pulling the switch as well as a whole host of oter factors.

stateofflux

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Groucho Marx

Pulsating Star

stateofflux wrote: »

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Groucho Marx

I cant but only hear that in Donald Trumps voice.

B.A._Baracus

I find ethics to be a very weird thing to talk about.
By that I mean there are soooooo many factors involved. Ethics depend on the person and everyone is different. Also other things effect a person's ethics such as personal gain - like if someone else did something you would say how wrong it was but yet when you did the same yourself and you got something positive out of it? well suddenly that's different. What you did really wasn't that wrong / you were "forced" to do that etc.