Quote:Something wrong? Or something illegal or potentially harmful to others? This is why you should not mix ethics and morality. A person may have an ethical obligation to protect the company, but may make the moral choice to violate that obligation for a greater good.
So, is it ethical if an employee comes across and makes public information found that the employer is doing something wrong? I believe I'm referring to whistler-blowing. What about that?
Even more ethical considerations...
- Thread starter JerryS
- Start date
- Status
Any/all of the above.
Quote:No it's not that simple. That is why companies have vauge ehtical policies to refer to, if and only if it suits their purpose under some specific set of circumstances. Show me a company policy that states something even remotely to the effect that "All employees shall be responsbile for evaluating any information that comes into their possesion for possible ethical violations." And then goes on to identify or even categorize what those potential ethical violation might be. It doesn't exist because it can't. These type policies are necessarily vauge so they may be invoked at the whim of management and interpreted to fit the situation as they see fit. Simple as that.
that person is faced with a single ethical choice: He can either abide by the company policy he subscribed to when he accepted employment, or not. It's that simple.
Quote:It can be that simple. I have worked for a company where it was a policy that employee salaries were confidential and you were not to divulge your salary to other employees, and if you were in a position to know the salaries of other employees you were not to divulge that information to anyone. That's simple and clear-cut.
Quote:No it's not that simple. That is why companies have vauge ehtical policies to refer to, if and only if it suits their purpose under some specific set of circumstances.
that person is faced with a single ethical choice: He can either abide by the company policy he subscribed to when he accepted employment, or not. It's that simple.
Quote:This discussion evolved well beyond the original scenario a long time ago. My statements were always predicated on the ethical obligation to maintain a company policy of confidentiality.
Fair enough, but that's not part of the scenario. It doesn't say what the company policy on the salary data issue is, or if there even is one. See how making assumpmtions makes an ....
"So, two things. First, the manager is the one responsible for any ill effects arising from this scenario, due to their negligence in safeguarding the information from the eyes of anyone who does not have a need to know it. This is a basic tenet of protecting classified information practiced throughout the government and miltary."
I agree.
Quote:Yep, that's just about as vague as it gets...
This discussion evolved well beyond the original scenario a long time ago. My statements were always predicated on the ethical obligation to maintain a company policy of confidentiality.
*whisper* "Is this guy crazy or what?" Yep. Crazy as a fox and bored to tears. I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam. I really promise I'm not going to do this all the time. Promise.
Quote:Indeed “The Ethicist” did give a few people a surprise it seems. Let me state this as firmly and cleanly as I can: the employer is under no obligation to value his employee’s or anyone else’s values above his own. To ask him to do so would be contrary to his nature. He is free to whatever degree he is free to pursue his own interests, and whenever possible, it would likely be to his benefit to pursue them in the company of a mutually beneficial or synergistic partnership with as many people as possible. The way the columnist paints his hypothetical scenario, the employee was only waiting for the right moment to get a hold of that information. After all, (as he put it): “The one who benefits most when such information is suppressed is your boss, not you or your colleagues”. If this really was the case in his workplace (as it was in the scenario featuring the dubious head captain), then the employee could hardly fault the superior for his behavior (and vice-versa), as he sees things the same way as his employer! He and the other workers should be happy if anything; their boss slipped up, and they pulled out ahead. Pre-mass disclosure to the entire department, the employer and employee would have had to be a little creative to come up with a workable compromise if both of them were going to “win”; if not, sometimes you just have competition, plain and simple. In that sense then, it seems that perhaps either: 1) the (larger) company, employer and employee entered into a (mock) social contract with at least one of them harboring the subversive intention of never keeping their expressed word or 2) that they originally agreed on a standard, but have since changed their minds (for whatever reason). The boss should have either planned things out differently from the start (preferably something that would not have relied so heavily on deception and more on cooperation), and/or been a lot more careful if he was planning on being dishonest with the intent of reaping some kind of gain. That, in accordance with my two previously mentioned pet philosophies, would have been the “ethical” thing for him to do. For a similar play, but with a different cast… Let’s assume that the employer is a nice guy, but just isn’t all that good at his job. Let’s further assume (for kicks) that the employee is me. The original “contract” between us may have looked something like: “I’ll provide [read: won’t put up a fight] you, the boss, or bosses, or company, with access to this piece of information for your use (which you want) if you agree to keep it private from the other employees (which I want). [Important to note that it takes two to tango here, and without your active employee status (which is likely under your control) they do not have the type of information that is described in the newspaper article. Alternative motivations on your part may make you forego bringing up privacy of this type of information as an issue if there are other goals you want to accomplish, e.g. getting hired, which are in competition/are not compatible with your wishes for privacy.] This would almost certainly have been a social contract based around a “more”. Or “right” or “law” or “company policy” or whatever. It is very often considered a sort of taboo to ask what another person makes (at least in the culture of the United States). If this were the case, the contract was probably focused on the “right” of myself as an employee to have this information kept secret, as conceived by the society (corporation/department) I live in. The collective members of the social contract would decide if this concept were something that would be held so strongly as to be a more. It perhaps would not be viewed as a necessity (e.g. in a more collectivist/open culture) or where other taboos prohibited the misuse of the object (everyone in this corporation somehow happens to be fervently fundamentalist Christians, and so would never intentionally steal or defraud anyone). [Or perhaps just that the costs of relying on this assumption to prevent what is termed “misuse” by the members are projected to be lower than the cost of implementing other controls.] The fact that the boss has access to that information by default may simply be an unavoidable part of his/her job. A compromise would be made on the part of the myself whereby I would allow my employer this “executive privilege” with the expectation that this was a “necessary evil” of sorts in order to keep the current organizational system to functioning properly and/or my getting the job… […rabbit trail warning…] You have to keep in mind, however, what you’re setting yourself up for when you do that. Your superior is being trained, in the same way you would train a child or a pet, to expect that same response from you whenever he or she presents that stimulus (in this case, verbal/legal/financial/etc. coercion). It’s going to get tougher and tougher to negotiate with them each time you’re NOT ok bending over and taking it. [...resume excessive rant...] ...which I would presumably value highly (or at least more highly than my right to the privacy of this information). It would be a simple compromise, in other words. Anyways, the action I would take in this hypothetical situation would need to take into consideration a lot of variables which aren’t provided by the submitter of the story, but I’ll do my best. This is part of the reason I’m not overly found of hypothetical situations. A lot of these judgments happen in the blink of an eye in real life, which is probably why it is so stinking annoying (and wordy, sorry) to type it all out. Again, assuming that my boss was a nice, but slightly careless guy, and that I see some value in the privacy rule (have internalized this particular more or see this kind of privacy as necessary to the proper operation of the department), I don’t think it would be consistent on my part to find the letter and then turn around and spread that information word-for-word all over the company. It seems to deny that I saw any true value in that information being protected in the first place. (I might not have though, and only agreed to the signing terms to get the job or to get the boss out of my face.) I most definitely do not agree with “The Ethicist” in that this type of information ought to be haphazardly disclosed in every situation without sufficient controls in place. I would likely look at the contents though. If in fact, we had another “head captain” skimming off the top or giving a little something extra to his office sweetheart, you can bet those papers would be faxed and emailed to everyone I could find faster than you can say whistleblower (and also like the columnist, anonymously). Unless… I thought it wise and was able to work out a deal with my boss and then conveniently “forget” what I had seen for the right price. (Remember though, you’re “training” your boss [and anyone else involved] again, for better or worse, and opening yourself up to the possibility of blackmail and/or prosecution (if your society disdains this type of behavior and the threat of criminal prosecution and punishment happens to be how they discourage this type of behavior), creating internal conflicts, losing a date with that co-worker who likes you at least partially because she perceives you as (traditionally) honest, or the respect and friendship of people who respect (traditional) honesty, etc. etc. etc. So assuming, that 1) the letter contains nothing incriminating (just information that the society has, perhaps very reasonably, made clear they would like to have kept private) and 2) that my boss is a nice guy, we get along, and he does a great job, doesn’t intentionally misuse the information, and only made a careless mistake in this instance, etc. 3) The people whose descriptive information is contained in the letter (unanimously, I have to make this easy on myself) don’t want/need it to be circulated publicly, 4) No one has seen me reading the letter (another scenario altogether), 5) No one else besides me has read the letter (a REALLY different scenario altogether), and 6) The five thousand things I’m not thinking of that would all still be fine with me if I could think of them and don’t complicate things too badly: I, personally, would not really be waving it around, so to speak. Now, I would have a few more choices to make. Do I tell my boss that I have read the header? Do I tell my boss that I have read the contents? Do I tell the other people that I have read the header? Do I tell the other people that I have read the contents? How do I tell them if I do? XXXXXX? This is the point where this whole “hypothetical” format really shows its weakness, because you would likely be relying almost solely on nuanced social cues for what to do next (certainly not that you wouldn’t have been this entire time, but now things become less philosophical and more personal, that’s all). When, how, what, to whom, and why you do what you do possibly begins to become a little less clear. I’ll just throw out a handful of scenarios, and you can make up the rest on your own. I’m wearing out the keys on my keyboard! Scenario 1: The boss and I have a good thing going, and I really could care less if everyone saw what I made. Action: I slip the paper back into his office in some inconspicuous place while he’s away. Crisis averted for me and my buddy. Scenario 2: The boss and I have a good thing going, but I’m horrified that he would be so irresponsible with something that mattered so much to me. We had a social contract of sorts about how my information would be handled. Well then, if he’s not going to keep his end of the bargain and keep descriptive information about myself that we agreed would be kept private in a reasonably private place, then I’m not going to keep descriptive information about HIM that he would want to be kept private in a reasonably private place. Guess which department is finding out that their boss is throwing confidential information around? They ought to know that their boss isn’t keeping his end of the bargain. Scenario 3: My best friend works in the same department, and I saw, for whatever reason, that he is not making as much as the person next to him doing the same job. He’s more than due for a raise, but doesn’t have the courage to ask for it because he doesn’t want to seem greedy. If I am more than sure that he can effectively keep the information between us, I’ll let him know how much he’s getting shafted IF he has a reasonable shot at getting the raise (it might just crush his spirits even more if I told him he was making less, and then he couldn’t get the raise). Scenario 4 (aka the last scenario): In a certain scenario, I decide to let someone or everyone know that I have seen at least the header of the letter with the confidential information. Do now I tell them that I have read the entire letter (I have), or lie and say that I haven’t? This would depend on my credibility. Even if I’m a saint [or portray one], the management still might not believe that I have seen it, and treat me like I have. If I told the whole department, what would their reaction be? Do they value this type of honesty, or are they going to think I’m naïve? Perhaps the corporate climate is such that people will now not trust me as fully because they don’t think I’m “one of them” (read: “corrupt” like them), and this will limit my mobility and functionality in the workplace. Perhaps if I tell people that I haven’t read the contents, but then flash a Mona Lisa smile (or some other kind of social cue) at a few strategic people, they will pick up on the fact that I’m manipulative, like they are, and I now have the option to enter into a greater range of types of social contracts with that person. And on and on and on. Whew! Alright, I’m done. No conclusion for this one either.
Every Sunday in the NYTIMES magazine section there is a section called "The Ethicist" where two ethical questions are answered. Always mildly amusing and somewhat predictable, but today was a surprise. What do you think??? My boss accidentally left a document on my desk listing the salaries of all the company’s employees. I read only the header, not the contents, then returned it. I felt I did the right thing, but now I’m not so sure. Reading it would have harmed no one, and the information would have helped me negotiate a long overdue raise. But would it have been ethical? J.H., San Francisco More than ethical — admirable. In your place, I would have read the document, made sure my own salary was listed and circulated it (anonymously — I’m reform-minded, not self-destructive) to everyone in the company. The one who benefits most when such information is suppressed is your boss, not you or your colleagues. It can help an employee to know that the person at the next desk makes twice as much money for performing the same task. If salaries are reasonable, employees will understand and accept them. If they are not, secrecy helps only to sustain that injustice. Transparency is necessary for good governance — why not for good management? It is a wise policy that requires publicly owned companies to disclose certain financial information, including compensation packages offered to many senior executives. In money matters as in many others, knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Thieves are the ones who operate under cover of darkness. Broadcasting salaries may be sensible and benign, but don’t expect your boss, or your colleagues, or the company’s lawyers, to see it that way. Money is the last bastion of prudery. People who post videos online of themselves having sex blush demurely as they draw the veil over their 1040’s. Some are embarrassed because they make more than you might think, others ashamed because they make less. But while this fiscal priggishness is understandable, you have no moral duty to play along (legal constraints notwithstanding). And don’t be so sure that you are underpaid and due for a raise. If you tear away that veil, you may not like what you see.
Quote:Vague only to those looking for an excuse to violate it.
Quote:Yep, that's just about as vague as it gets...
This discussion evolved well beyond the original scenario a long time ago. My statements were always predicated on the ethical obligation to maintain a company policy of confidentiality.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,800
Quote:You may not be their type of scum.
Perhaps the corporate climate is such that people will now not trust me as fully because they don’t think I’m “one of them” (read: “corrupt” like them), and this will limit my mobility and functionality in the workplace.
They can't bank on you being as competent/dedicated at being as corrupt as they are ..therefore you're an embarassment and a threat.
Often the reaction of discovery of something like this causes a reaction not unlike when you catch a thief. They aren't fearful or apologetic ..they're reflexively angry. It's your fault that you caught me doing xxxyyzzz. Not only does no good deed go unpunished ..the discovery of negligent behavior does too.Is it ethical to lie, so that you can convince people you need to do something for their own good, and get them to support it? Then when the lie is discovered, to change the subject, or attack those who call you on the lie?
Man has no standards for behavior with which to govern himself by except those that he creates for himself which allow him to attain his own desires, and no system of punishment and reward except that which exists naturally or that which is fabricated by man. Value and law do not appear out of the sky. Goals and standards for behavior are not static. Fueled by the combined products of experience, reason, and biological disposition, we are driven to attain certain goals which appeal to us for whatever reason. I believe that to be happy is the greatest goal that we can and do aspire to.
I can’t state what I’m trying to say any clearer than that. That’s the best I can come up with. If the three of you happen to think I’m some sociopath who wants nothing more than to violate every law I can understand how to break, I apparently am temporarily unable to convince you otherwise in this context. I couldn’t disagree more with your assessment of me though. Being aware of what cards are really in the deck and how you can play your hand is one of the most important steps in navigating your social environment. I’m honestly a little shocked that there aren’t more people who agree with me on all (or at least part of) this. Maybe there are and they’re just not saying it, but maybe I’m talking to myself too. (Fine either way, as long as I’m still having fun cranking out another masterpiece, lol 
[and I am]. I’m long-winded in real life too, in case you’re wondering. Who decided brevity is the soul of wit anyway?)
If anyone knows of a magic pill that allows people to capture the resounding lack of an innate and transcendental ethical network of guidelines for the human life, I’ll buy it off you. That the various experiential rewards at the end of and on the straight and narrow path offered by any variant of structured ethical standard can be appreciated in their entirety and remain unappealing is hard for some people to grasp. Maybe impossible. There is no best oil, no best life, no best standard for behavior that can be homogenously applied to the entire population of our species unless the entire population of our species is homogenous. Apparently one or two people at least recognize that the gold behavioral standard for happiness/fulfillment/pleasure/love can abandon its universal standard status and become amorphous with regard to context (is it ever ok to hate?), chronology, and culture [heck, even the pope knows that], but then why is it so hard to just admit that it keeps its amorphous status no matter closely you zoom in? Why? Hmmm?
Apparently there needs to be a mandatory life skills class in high school or something where you are forced into an interaction with someone whose values are diametrically opposed to your own. When you realize that the other person is either chemically unable to procure your point of view, or with their full intellectual capacity able to grasp the same concepts you are with exacting clarity... while still being able to look you dead in the eye and softly defy you, when you see them having the time of their lives pursuing and attaining the values they hold dear while you and everyone else ________ your lives away trying to pull out every method in existence of motivating them to change their way of thinking, and fail to get them to see the brilliance of the ethical train track your life rides on, perhaps then, when you realize that the reason they don’t see it is because there is no such thing, then you get your diploma. I will most definitively not be the one teaching the class after this experience. Everybody has to hit or at least glance off of that wall at least once at some point I think, it’s only a question of when and if it leaves the right kind of mark. Your options at that point for changing their behavior to something more to your own satisfaction are limited to either chemical manipulation of their brain or physical manipulation of their body.
If this is all just about as clear as mud, you have to forgive me; I’m doing my best to explain what I see as a very complicated subject. Maybe too complicated for one sitting. Maybe some of the shortcomings of written communication are becoming apparent as I unfurl my worldview “upon” you. If I didn’t think that understanding the same concepts, or at the very least being exposed to them in some fashion, or watching someone else’s thought process would help someone else live a better life, I wouldn’t have bothered to write all this. Please understand that even if you think this is all stupid, it is very important to me. Anyway, it’s what I have to offer; even if you think I’m full of it. I’m not afraid of looking like an idiot to people (obviously), but I am afraid of running through my one and only life without understanding what I can of it and watching other people do the same. At any rate, it’s always good fun to watch someone get a little too tipsy and start walking into walls; I always have been the entertainer! 
Thanks for listening. (All one, two, three, four... of you.) It’s sure not going to be easy for me to shake this crackpot image now! 20 posts and I’m already in too deep. Maybe the internet is a little too dangerous of a place for me. 
Good night all.
[and I am]. I’m long-winded in real life too, in case you’re wondering. Who decided brevity is the soul of wit anyway?)
If anyone knows of a magic pill that allows people to capture the resounding lack of an innate and transcendental ethical network of guidelines for the human life, I’ll buy it off you. That the various experiential rewards at the end of and on the straight and narrow path offered by any variant of structured ethical standard can be appreciated in their entirety and remain unappealing is hard for some people to grasp. Maybe impossible. There is no best oil, no best life, no best standard for behavior that can be homogenously applied to the entire population of our species unless the entire population of our species is homogenous. Apparently one or two people at least recognize that the gold behavioral standard for happiness/fulfillment/pleasure/love can abandon its universal standard status and become amorphous with regard to context (is it ever ok to hate?), chronology, and culture [heck, even the pope knows that], but then why is it so hard to just admit that it keeps its amorphous status no matter closely you zoom in? Why? Hmmm?
Apparently there needs to be a mandatory life skills class in high school or something where you are forced into an interaction with someone whose values are diametrically opposed to your own. When you realize that the other person is either chemically unable to procure your point of view, or with their full intellectual capacity able to grasp the same concepts you are with exacting clarity... while still being able to look you dead in the eye and softly defy you, when you see them having the time of their lives pursuing and attaining the values they hold dear while you and everyone else ________ your lives away trying to pull out every method in existence of motivating them to change their way of thinking, and fail to get them to see the brilliance of the ethical train track your life rides on, perhaps then, when you realize that the reason they don’t see it is because there is no such thing, then you get your diploma. I will most definitively not be the one teaching the class after this experience. Everybody has to hit or at least glance off of that wall at least once at some point I think, it’s only a question of when and if it leaves the right kind of mark. Your options at that point for changing their behavior to something more to your own satisfaction are limited to either chemical manipulation of their brain or physical manipulation of their body.
If this is all just about as clear as mud, you have to forgive me; I’m doing my best to explain what I see as a very complicated subject. Maybe too complicated for one sitting. Maybe some of the shortcomings of written communication are becoming apparent as I unfurl my worldview “upon” you. If I didn’t think that understanding the same concepts, or at the very least being exposed to them in some fashion, or watching someone else’s thought process would help someone else live a better life, I wouldn’t have bothered to write all this. Please understand that even if you think this is all stupid, it is very important to me. Anyway, it’s what I have to offer; even if you think I’m full of it. I’m not afraid of looking like an idiot to people (obviously), but I am afraid of running through my one and only life without understanding what I can of it and watching other people do the same. At any rate, it’s always good fun to watch someone get a little too tipsy and start walking into walls; I always have been the entertainer! Thanks for listening. (All one, two, three, four... of you.) It’s sure not going to be easy for me to shake this crackpot image now! 20 posts and I’m already in too deep. Maybe the internet is a little too dangerous of a place for me. Good night all.- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,800
Jerry ...you've got some veeeeeeeeeeeeeery long posts. They take some time to just read ..let alone integrate in one sitting ..let alone respond to in total.
"If anyone knows of a magic pill that allows people to capture the resounding lack of an innate and transcendental ethical network of guidelines for the human life, I’ll buy it off you."
It's not magic, it seems hard for some to obtain, but my parents would call it 'character'. Those are the people that you would trust to do the right thing, as they know that they are presented with choices to do so each day. Some have more experience than others and can, with the benefit of hindsight, make decision that most would agree were 'the right thing to do'. Funny thing about ethics, when you bring values into conflict with one another people will eventually tend to recognize the 'better choice', which is the better ethical argument or position.
Not going to apologize for the length this time.
Mostly tricky because the type of action you take to achieve the desired result is going to be completely context dependent. For the record, I’m temporarily assuming the major problem here is not the “little white lie”, but what’s going to happen the day Johnny finds out that Santa isn’t what you told him he was. The easiest place to start here would be the culture. How does your society respond to this kind of behavior? Is it one in which the use of folklore and myth are widely accepted in popular culture? (Somewhere in South America maybe? Forgive me if that’s grossly inaccurate.) When South American Johnny discovers your “little white lie” about the slightly questionable origins of Papai Noel, he probably won’t give a rip. Contrast that to a society (an entire country or maybe just your family or his school) where fact and linear reason are more highly valued, and Johnny might feel betrayed or confused. This result could have a significant (negative or positive) impact on your relationship. Choose wisely. Next, let’s look at your values (temporary assumption mentioned earlier now gone). Are there any competing motivations with your motivation of wanting your kids to have some good, clean fun? Maybe you feel uncomfortable even telling a little white lie. Your secondary motivation could be to either avoid the uncomfortable feeling and/or adhere to what you believe to be an important code of conduct. Now you need to decide whether these motivations are competing or simply incompatible. If you just can’t bring yourself to bend your rules a little without having a dissonance bomb go off in your head, then don’t lie. Tell Johnny the enthralling story of Saint Nicholas of Myra and find another behavior you can perform that will achieve your same goal. You’re an obtuse Puritan who thinks his words carry magical powers. And that’s ok.
Between here and there, tack on however many more of these sorts of equations there are which need to be calculated and calculate them. You’re almost through. Now we reach the point, as in the office example, where things again become less philosophical and more personal. Let’s assume that you aren’t really so pious (I don’t think you are Mark) and decide that you’re open to the possibility of lying to Johnny about our bearded friend. The most “right” or “ethical” way to do this requires that you know a little bit about Johnny. Should you bring it up in a sit-down conversation, at the mall when you walk by, should you let Johnny bring it up himself, should it be in a serious tone or a joking one, should mom tell him or should dad, should you take it so far as to leave cookies and milk, should you give him little hints along the way that it’s not real or will he be better off figuring it out on his own? Did I just hear reindeer on the roof? (Remember that your original goal was to assist him in having a little good, clean fun. I guess it would have been a little more technically accurate to say your goal was all that AND not have him experience any kind of distress.) If you can accurately predict how Johnny is going to react to certain methods, you’re one step ahead. [Don’t make all this too hard on yourself either. If “who’s that?” can be answered by “that’s Santa” with no follow-up quizzes, count your blessings and sweat it out till next year.]
Ta da! No matter where you branched off at which equation, as long as you just batted 1.00 in the World Series of Parenting, you just did the most “ethical” thing you could have done. You accomplished YOUR goal which coincided with YOUR values to the fullest extent possible, and that’s what matters. If for some reason you suck at reading people and Johnny is bawling his eyes out and harboring a murderous rage after discovering Santa isn’t real, the “ethical” thing to do is still to decide what your goal is and go about the best way of accomplishing it. Maybe your goal is to comfort him, and so the most ethical thing to do is to behave in a way that comforts him the most effectively. Maybe your goal is to make him stop screaming at you and an ethical behavior you could enact to accomplish your goal is to slap him. Keep in mind though that one of MY goals is to prevent the abuse of children, and the most effective and ethical behavior for me to accomplish my goal might be to slap you around a little and report you to DCFS (and then lie to them about not slapping you around). Also keep in mind that this may or may not be, in fact, the MOST “ethical” [if you haven’t figured this out yet, I can basically use ethical and effective synonymously] behavior you could perform to accomplish your goal. Perhaps talking to him with reasonable sternness (or reasonable calmness, etc.) would have quieted him down more quickly, and/or serve the values you hold, whatever they may be (keeping your children, avoiding a certain reputation, winning his affection, etc.).
(Given that your goals/values can be both conscious and unconscious/biological, and your goals/values are geared in some generic respect towards a multi-faceted “happiness” or state of well being and away from a multi-faceted “pain” or state of un-“happiness”): The discrepancy between whether accomplishing your goal to its fullest extent given your skill level or accomplishing your goal to its fullest extent in reality is the “most ethical” thing is the difference between preference utilitarianism and hedonistic utilitarianism (respectively).
The thing to note here in regards to the rest of this thread is that this system of ethics is based off of real life actions and consequences, and not some quirky ethereal framework that pretends to have you covered in every situation. Way back in the day, before any “spirit beings” (I’m not taking this R/S/P, I’m really, reeeelay trying) handed down a system of ethics or the first society drafted their first set of criminal law, people figured out that certain behaviors produced effects which were either desirable or undesirable (scene from 2001:ASO playing in my mind). Amazing. Shocking. When they grew the rest of their brain, they figured out that a similar behavior can produce a desirable or undesirable effect in one context, but not another. Call the press. Monkey man has ascertained that someone asking him to hold himself to an inflexible, abstract philosophical standard of behavior which promises to guide him without fail to a result he will never regret in every situation and context without ever questioning its functionality is insane. “F***ing” insane. Somewhere between here and there, a good portion of us have actually evolved backwards somehow. Call the press again.
My acceptance of and compliance with modern law is filled with compromises (on both sides). I (and the enforcers of the law should) realize that there are times when I’m not going to beat myself up over whether to stop at a red light in the middle of the country, with no one else in the car, when there is clearly and unmistakably no one else in sight for two miles in 360°. The light might serve a purpose at a time of day when traffic in that area is high, and my compliance is necessary. I might even just stop anyway to reinforce a good habit. But let’s not kid ourselves. If my psyche was that fragile, I would have been a goner a long time ago. I’m not stopping at the light. The FUNCTION of the law (which I believe to be of value) is not served, and as such, the behavior in compliance with the law is in conflict with another one of my values (perhaps something as simple as getting where I’m going more quickly). If I truly believe a law to be of no value to myself, or of a lesser value than my other value(s), then the “ethical” thing to do is disregard it to the degree I need/want to (whether or not complying with a given law is the MOST “ethical” again brings up the difference between the two philosophies).
A good bit of the time, I compromise regarding the law. I think some of them are reprehensible. I do nothing because I have a job (which I would like to keep), I would like to continue living in a non-institutionalized society, because I am too lazy, or something equally unforgivable. Occasionally I do protest, or vote, or show support for my ideals. Sometimes a law is drafted inflexibly because there is no agreeable way (in conflict with other values of the drafters and enforcers, such as expediency) to do it. I only wish that the so many Barney Fifes I have had the displeasure to encounter in my life saw it that way. Sometimes a rigid law is acceptable in my eyes. Like certain types of information, some things are unable to be managed effectively by certain people because they literally lack the skill to do so. The ability to do something does not imply that you “ought” to. Not everyone should have a pilot’s license, for example. I think it’s a good idea that the person flying me home is guaranteed by some sort of enforced law to have passed a minimum set of requirements. If the healthier portion of a society agrees with me on this, why not make it a law.
The concept of “justice” or “injustice” in this system is not a strange one, at least compared to conventional standards, but perhaps could still be understood differently. It is focused around the total balance of the system, with the term “justice” perhaps becoming exchangeable with “imbalance”. Everyone pursuing their own interests in the willing cooperation of other people to the greatest extent possible; which is in the greatest interest of each person. The role of intention and the nature of "causeandeffect" should be discussed in this concept of justice as well, but probably not by me. Hope this helps. Adios.
Quote:Sorry about the slow response MarkC; I wasn’t trying to blow you off or anything. I really wanted to get the “framework” out there first, but practical examples are important too. In my mind, the hypothetical scenario seems to be set up incorrectly, because there’s a critical piece of information missing: WHY do you want to do something “for their own good”? (Forgive me, but I’m going to leave out the part about getting them to support it, not because I’m unable to give you a satisfactory answer, but because it makes things massively more complex. For all practical purposes, we can assume that your action, whatever it is, may CONTRIBUTE in some way to a change in their ideals. Hopefully after I give you this example, you’ll be on your way to answering that one on your own.) There could be about a bazillion reasons, here’s a few common motivations that I came up with off the top of my head: *you have an enjoyable relationship with this person, and they are about to make a choice which you perceive as threatening to the relationship... *you get a warm fuzzy feeling (or any emotion which you perceive as pleasurable) when you see that person happy and enjoying life... *you seek relief from some sort of social pressure or obligation to step in and make them “do the right thing”, perhaps because you are perceived by people as being in a uniquely able position to “help” them. Anyway, get the idea? Let’s use the quintessential (and hopefully benign) example of whether or not to lie to your kids about Santa Claus. 1) What is your motivation? [I love saying that] Let’s say in this case that you want your kids to have some good, clean fun. After all, believing in Santa was fun when you were a kid right? 2) What do you do? This is the tricky half.
Is it ethical to lie, so that you can convince people you need to do something for their own good, and get them to support it? Then when the lie is discovered, to change the subject, or attack those who call you on the lie?
Mostly tricky because the type of action you take to achieve the desired result is going to be completely context dependent. For the record, I’m temporarily assuming the major problem here is not the “little white lie”, but what’s going to happen the day Johnny finds out that Santa isn’t what you told him he was. The easiest place to start here would be the culture. How does your society respond to this kind of behavior? Is it one in which the use of folklore and myth are widely accepted in popular culture? (Somewhere in South America maybe? Forgive me if that’s grossly inaccurate.) When South American Johnny discovers your “little white lie” about the slightly questionable origins of Papai Noel, he probably won’t give a rip. Contrast that to a society (an entire country or maybe just your family or his school) where fact and linear reason are more highly valued, and Johnny might feel betrayed or confused. This result could have a significant (negative or positive) impact on your relationship. Choose wisely. Next, let’s look at your values (temporary assumption mentioned earlier now gone). Are there any competing motivations with your motivation of wanting your kids to have some good, clean fun? Maybe you feel uncomfortable even telling a little white lie. Your secondary motivation could be to either avoid the uncomfortable feeling and/or adhere to what you believe to be an important code of conduct. Now you need to decide whether these motivations are competing or simply incompatible. If you just can’t bring yourself to bend your rules a little without having a dissonance bomb go off in your head, then don’t lie. Tell Johnny the enthralling story of Saint Nicholas of Myra and find another behavior you can perform that will achieve your same goal. You’re an obtuse Puritan who thinks his words carry magical powers. And that’s ok.
Between here and there, tack on however many more of these sorts of equations there are which need to be calculated and calculate them. You’re almost through. Now we reach the point, as in the office example, where things again become less philosophical and more personal. Let’s assume that you aren’t really so pious (I don’t think you are Mark) and decide that you’re open to the possibility of lying to Johnny about our bearded friend. The most “right” or “ethical” way to do this requires that you know a little bit about Johnny. Should you bring it up in a sit-down conversation, at the mall when you walk by, should you let Johnny bring it up himself, should it be in a serious tone or a joking one, should mom tell him or should dad, should you take it so far as to leave cookies and milk, should you give him little hints along the way that it’s not real or will he be better off figuring it out on his own? Did I just hear reindeer on the roof? (Remember that your original goal was to assist him in having a little good, clean fun. I guess it would have been a little more technically accurate to say your goal was all that AND not have him experience any kind of distress.) If you can accurately predict how Johnny is going to react to certain methods, you’re one step ahead. [Don’t make all this too hard on yourself either. If “who’s that?” can be answered by “that’s Santa” with no follow-up quizzes, count your blessings and sweat it out till next year.]
Ta da! No matter where you branched off at which equation, as long as you just batted 1.00 in the World Series of Parenting, you just did the most “ethical” thing you could have done. You accomplished YOUR goal which coincided with YOUR values to the fullest extent possible, and that’s what matters. If for some reason you suck at reading people and Johnny is bawling his eyes out and harboring a murderous rage after discovering Santa isn’t real, the “ethical” thing to do is still to decide what your goal is and go about the best way of accomplishing it. Maybe your goal is to comfort him, and so the most ethical thing to do is to behave in a way that comforts him the most effectively. Maybe your goal is to make him stop screaming at you and an ethical behavior you could enact to accomplish your goal is to slap him. Keep in mind though that one of MY goals is to prevent the abuse of children, and the most effective and ethical behavior for me to accomplish my goal might be to slap you around a little and report you to DCFS (and then lie to them about not slapping you around). Also keep in mind that this may or may not be, in fact, the MOST “ethical” [if you haven’t figured this out yet, I can basically use ethical and effective synonymously] behavior you could perform to accomplish your goal. Perhaps talking to him with reasonable sternness (or reasonable calmness, etc.) would have quieted him down more quickly, and/or serve the values you hold, whatever they may be (keeping your children, avoiding a certain reputation, winning his affection, etc.).
(Given that your goals/values can be both conscious and unconscious/biological, and your goals/values are geared in some generic respect towards a multi-faceted “happiness” or state of well being and away from a multi-faceted “pain” or state of un-“happiness”): The discrepancy between whether accomplishing your goal to its fullest extent given your skill level or accomplishing your goal to its fullest extent in reality is the “most ethical” thing is the difference between preference utilitarianism and hedonistic utilitarianism (respectively).
The thing to note here in regards to the rest of this thread is that this system of ethics is based off of real life actions and consequences, and not some quirky ethereal framework that pretends to have you covered in every situation. Way back in the day, before any “spirit beings” (I’m not taking this R/S/P, I’m really, reeeelay trying) handed down a system of ethics or the first society drafted their first set of criminal law, people figured out that certain behaviors produced effects which were either desirable or undesirable (scene from 2001:ASO playing in my mind). Amazing. Shocking. When they grew the rest of their brain, they figured out that a similar behavior can produce a desirable or undesirable effect in one context, but not another. Call the press. Monkey man has ascertained that someone asking him to hold himself to an inflexible, abstract philosophical standard of behavior which promises to guide him without fail to a result he will never regret in every situation and context without ever questioning its functionality is insane. “F***ing” insane. Somewhere between here and there, a good portion of us have actually evolved backwards somehow. Call the press again.
My acceptance of and compliance with modern law is filled with compromises (on both sides). I (and the enforcers of the law should) realize that there are times when I’m not going to beat myself up over whether to stop at a red light in the middle of the country, with no one else in the car, when there is clearly and unmistakably no one else in sight for two miles in 360°. The light might serve a purpose at a time of day when traffic in that area is high, and my compliance is necessary. I might even just stop anyway to reinforce a good habit. But let’s not kid ourselves. If my psyche was that fragile, I would have been a goner a long time ago. I’m not stopping at the light. The FUNCTION of the law (which I believe to be of value) is not served, and as such, the behavior in compliance with the law is in conflict with another one of my values (perhaps something as simple as getting where I’m going more quickly). If I truly believe a law to be of no value to myself, or of a lesser value than my other value(s), then the “ethical” thing to do is disregard it to the degree I need/want to (whether or not complying with a given law is the MOST “ethical” again brings up the difference between the two philosophies).
A good bit of the time, I compromise regarding the law. I think some of them are reprehensible. I do nothing because I have a job (which I would like to keep), I would like to continue living in a non-institutionalized society, because I am too lazy, or something equally unforgivable. Occasionally I do protest, or vote, or show support for my ideals. Sometimes a law is drafted inflexibly because there is no agreeable way (in conflict with other values of the drafters and enforcers, such as expediency) to do it. I only wish that the so many Barney Fifes I have had the displeasure to encounter in my life saw it that way. Sometimes a rigid law is acceptable in my eyes. Like certain types of information, some things are unable to be managed effectively by certain people because they literally lack the skill to do so. The ability to do something does not imply that you “ought” to. Not everyone should have a pilot’s license, for example. I think it’s a good idea that the person flying me home is guaranteed by some sort of enforced law to have passed a minimum set of requirements. If the healthier portion of a society agrees with me on this, why not make it a law.
The concept of “justice” or “injustice” in this system is not a strange one, at least compared to conventional standards, but perhaps could still be understood differently. It is focused around the total balance of the system, with the term “justice” perhaps becoming exchangeable with “imbalance”. Everyone pursuing their own interests in the willing cooperation of other people to the greatest extent possible; which is in the greatest interest of each person. The role of intention and the nature of "causeandeffect" should be discussed in this concept of justice as well, but probably not by me. Hope this helps. Adios.If none of the rest of the previous post made sense, then seriously don’t read this. It’s just for fun for whoever wants to read or discuss further (if there’s anyone still out there who doesn’t want to kill me).
Quote:The counter to this (or rather my understanding of it), in almost straw man-like succinctness, is that in some fashion, pleasure and pain are quantifiable entities. (Which I don’t believe.) If this is the case, and “the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of pain [or simply the greatest amount of happiness, another wrench in the works] for the greatest number of people is the ideal [also assuming there can be “ideals”, yet another wrench], then it might make sense to have some sort of system of ethical law. This system of directives would still recognize that you can’t give one directive and have it be “the best one” (produce the most pleasure) for all situations and contexts. It would say that the laws are going to nail it a high percentage of the time though, if they are written with skill. (This would also assume a good bit of similarity among humans.) If and only if consistently following this system statistically produced a greater amount of happiness in total [could also just be per capita, another wrench, and would need to take into consideration unequal distribution... as does the system in the previous post, another wrench], it would be preferable. This would presumably be because people in general are either too unintelligent and/or too unskilled to make effective choices which result in happiness (basically). There would be such a high rate of “error” in unskilled/unintelligent people trying to attain happiness (either failing to achieve maximum value, or perhaps just less than they could have) in the collective computation of events, the total amount of happiness would be less than if a broader number of people got it “mostly” right following a “pretty good” system of ethical law. They would follow it perhaps rigidly (depending on how good the system was), or perhaps very closely and in some cases step outside it if they were able to see where the system of ethical law had failed. The system of law could also be revised I think. Keep in mind that none of this is possible if pleasure or pain were not quantifiable, as there would be no way to validate its effectiveness. That’s basically it; just wanted to throw this out there while it’s on my mind.
Monkey man has ascertained that someone asking him to hold himself to an inflexible, abstract philosophical standard of behavior which promises to guide him without fail to a result he will never regret in every situation and context without ever questioning its functionality is insane.
Sorry Jerry - I'm solidly with Win on this one. Let's see how convincing you find all this "philosophy" when you suddenly find that some "ownership-concept-challenged" citizen (more commonly known as a thief) has taken from you something that you worked long and hard to save the money to purchase. It seems like it's pretty easy for you to spin pseudo-sophisticated arguments about other peoples' things. Somehow, I'm thinking your perspective will change when you wake up one day and find that some thug has helped himself to a few thousand dollars worth of your stuff. . .
- Status
Similar threads
