What is ethical?
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
In another thread we reached more than once the point where we need to look deeper into what is ethical before answering the questions there. The dictionary can obviously give us synonyms and explanations but it cannot give the necessary depth to answer what is moral or what is right. So:
What is ethical/moral/right? (and how do you know?)
To me ethics and moral are derived from a goal. In the broad sense well being is usually the goal we all strive for. We can derive the use of Free software from that well being (sharing and having control of our own computing take us to be better). From that actions taken would have a + or - in regards to the goal (we have to agree as a society though). What I explained is a very simple way to see it and in real life there will be many gray areas since we don't always know all the consequences of our actions.
Sorry if I couldn't help a lot.
It might be better that we should define the word define before we define the word.
Lol, I completely agree with you XD
I was a bit excited when this thread was opened because this topic must be very important to solve some of the fundamental problems e.g. a certain same law doesn't apply to certain kind people unfairly etc. This is a so-called modern philosophical matter, was already taken up by Gilles Deleuze though, it must be the time to start it practically. I wish to God we could reach completely new perspectives to solve the problems as a proof of the evolution from this topic. I am serious, I was excited about the possibility that I might be able to see the new ideas of solutions to the fundamental problems.
I guess the way I see it is too simplistic but that is basically the way I see it. After establishing a goal, actions will be in pro or in detriment to that goal.
Your idea that moral and ethics are derived from well being, so from a goal, was a new perspective for me. And I think that it is a fact. Maybe I have a similar opinion or the partly same opinion too and your statement would have been just an other way of saying it, and a simple basis of discussion.
As I said, the problem is that the agents can think their action as ethical. Their goal, though it could be a never ending task, is to protect their states. I believe that you all are aware of this but mass surveillance is a way to protect the public order, regardless whether sometimes principles (merely peeping their bedrooms to study) or sometimes real intention, or sometimes both. Probably the all of countries's agency must be doing surveillance with computers. From the beginning, we cannot judge their activities if we cannot audit them. So it is impossible, at least now. This is difficult, isn't this? Perhaps we won't be able to define the word ethics, moral. What is ethics. But we might be able to make a breakthrough here. Trying to define the words is absolutely valuable. I think that at least we can have a consensus on the current situations of the problems. And I think that well being or happiness might differ from pleasure. I mean, those crimes are done for pleasure, not happiness, it seems (defining the words well being and pleasure, too...). Maybe actually this is not difficult if we have the healthy common sense. But since there are people who have an other common sense, we might have to talk about it... or not?
In the case of defining words I try to be a little flexible, to me, more important than a word is the concept; in that regard I'd try to meet you where you are rather than impose my way of thinking (by trying to impose my definition). Or we can agree on what do we mean when we say certain word.
This topic reminds me of some stuff I read about people justifying their crimes (not necessarily they think they did good, but more in the lines of doing bad to achieve something good) and I had a big discussion with some of my co-workers; big surprise, we couldn't agree XD
I understand that mass surveillance could be used to protect public order (although I don't know if I agree with this), but this only works if we know exactly how the information is being used and whoever is the authority looking at this is incorruptible (good luck finding someone).
This kind of conversations are always fun though.
> Or we can agree on what do we mean when we say certain word.
But the word is not the thing. Replacing one word with another (what definition does) is still in the field of words. It seems to me that to find out what is ethical/moral/right we must go beyond words, justifications or condemnations. Otherwise there will always be that "but what if" controversy.
> This kind of conversations are always fun though.
I would rather hope to see a serious exploration.
> But the word is not the thing. Replacing one word with another (what definition does) is still in the field of words. It seems to me that to find out what is ethical/moral/right we must go beyond words, justifications or condemnations. Otherwise there will always be that "but what if" controversy.
I think my comment states that words are not the important thing but what we mean with those words, unfortunately we are tied to use words to communicate to each other (although I would hear if you want to propose any other way of communication in a forum that are not words).
> I would rather hope to see a serious exploration.
Although I'm having fun talking to Masaru, that doesn't mean I'm not speaking seriously. What makes you think I'm not serious about what is being discussed?
I understood your comment but it seems you didn't understand mine.
Of course here we communicate using words. But coming to that agreement which you mentioned is not necessarily clarity. Example: we can define "black dog" by explaining that it is an animal of the dog type with black color. This sounds very clear and easy to agree with. But the mental image (the concept) you associate with that definition may be quite different from mine:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I0000cPzMY4A9NeA/fit=1000x750/Wanda-13.jpg
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/big-black-dog-8396605.jpg
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/small-short-haired-black-dog-walk-park-74771891.jpg
That's why I said that we must go beyond words. Not because we must not use words but because we can be fooling ourselves that the agreement we reached means we think about the same. Words can help us go beyond words. But we must go slowly and carefully, not simply jump from one thing to another and make quick generalizations and conclusions.
> What makes you think I'm not serious about what is being discussed?
I didn't say I thought that. I just said what I hoped for.
Interesting example with dogs you show. Even in this case we came into agreements of how to call those. If I tell you I saw a golden retriever there two scenarios; 1. You have no idea what a golden retriever is and you investigate what other people have already agreed on what to call a golden retriever. 2. You know what a golden terrier is and we could communicate using those words. My point is, if we need more clarity we have to be more specific on things we are describing, but we can also talk in general terms if that is enough (in some cases is, and in some cases isn't).
>> What makes you think I'm not serious about what is being discussed?
> I didn't say I thought that. I just said what I hoped for.
You said you'd rather which makes me think you feel like there is no seriousness here. But hey! maybe I'm wrong. What did you mean by that? and how does it associate to the words I wrote about having fun.
> What did you mean by that?
That I hope we will explore this seriously (as we are doing).
Yes but you replied that to my comment that I was having fun not as a general statement. So it seems like the fact that I was having fun was the reason for your comment. If it was completely unrelated that is fine then
> To me ethics and moral are derived from a goal
Are you saying that anyone who has a goal acts ethically? What if my goal is to kill you? How can that be ethical?
> We can derive the use of Free software from that well being (sharing and having control of our own computing take us to be better).
There is FOSS malware too. Does the license make the software ethical?
> we don't always know all the consequences of our actions
Do the consequences determine what is ethical? Is that all?
> Are you saying that anyone who has a goal acts ethically? What if my goal is to kill you? How can that be ethical?
Sorry I didn't complete my thought there. I was saying as a society we establish what are our goals and then we act upon those goals. It is convenient for you to live in a society where killing is punishable and seeing as not immoral.
> There is FOSS malware too. Does the license make the software ethical?
The license doesn't make it ethical per se. My point is if we agree that sharing is a good thing to do or that not controlling the user with software is good, then having free programs is good. Of course malware that is Free software is not good if it's made to harm the user (which by definition it is).
> Do the consequences determine what is ethical? Is that all?
I'd be curious of what you're expecting as an answer.
From my point of view just saying that consequences (in regards to a "goal" as a society) are a determining factor for what is ethical is already very complicated.
I hope this helps to the conversation.
> I was saying as a society we establish what are our goals and then we act upon those goals.
That seems too quick to me. Let me explain why:
You say "as a society" which sounds like assumption that society exists as something firm and something which defines stable goals for everyone based on agreement. But I question:
Is it really firm? Or is it just a number of (but not all) people whose desires overlap at a certain point in time and others who have different desires? Then later desires and numbers change etc. (you know all that). So can something which is dynamic and does not actually exist as a stable entity but is just conceptual abstraction set a stable static goal which is acceptable by everyone without any force or violence?
> It is convenient for you to live in a society where killing is punishable
Personally to me it is not. The convenience you speak of is just an energy saving mechanism for ensuring personal security. Although that security is important for everyone I don't think that punishment is the way to it. We have been punishing for thousands of years. Have we removed killing? Or do we feel secure that we can't be killed? Have we stopped producing weapons or have we actually made it possible to kill millions with the press of a button?
> and seeing as not immoral.
What do you mean?
> My point is if we agree that sharing is a good thing to do or that not controlling the user with software is good, then having free programs is good.
OK, let's see if we can agree to that.
Sharing can include many things, not only software. One can share knowledge, company, software, one's car, home or password. Obviously not many would agree that sharing one's wife with everyone is a good thing. Or the password to your bank account or the key to your home.
Then sharing becomes about where one draws the line between "sharable" and "personal". The personal is what we want to protect (security) and not to share (privacy). For the shareable we care only if we understand that it concerns us. Otherwise we easily abuse or even destroy the shareable.
So in the end - sharing without understanding is not some altruistic good but a way to ensure the self protection. But is a selfish activity real sharing? Is selfishness ethical?
Take a rough example: It is safe to piss in the (shared) street without anyone seeing but one wouldn't do that on the floor in one's living room (personal). Is that ethical? One would instantly say "no" because one would not want to look as a vandal in the eyes of others (one cares for one's own image and reputation) or because of fear of being pushed away or punished (because of the accepted norm). So even the disagreement to the (supposedly) wrong, unethical, immoral comes down to selfishness.
Can the abstractions (society, sharing, openness, etc) determine what is ethical, moral, right if at the base of all these there is always the ego?
> I'd be curious of what you're expecting as an answer.
I have no expectations. I am looking to explore this together.
> From my point of view just saying that consequences (in regards to a "goal" as a society) are a determining factor for what is ethical is already very complicated.
Of course they are as commonly accepted. But here we are asking - is that right? E.g. is it right to educate children to be ambitious, "better than others", "strong" (which is actually violent, aggressive, suppression etc) and put them behind bars as grown ups when all these "personal and social values" manifest?
> You say "as a society" which sounds like assumption that society exists as something firm and something which
> defines stable goals for everyone based on agreement.
Let me quote Aristotle:
“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.”
It's to sociology, psychology and biology that human is a social species (like some other species). So when I talk about society, more than a temporal framework we use (city, country, neighborhood) I talk about the mere nature of our species.
http://www.preservearticles.com/sociology/why-man-is-called-as-a-social-animal/4556
>> and seeing as not immoral.
> What do you mean?
My bad, I made a mistake and include a double negative, it should say "and seeing as immoral".
In regards to most of the rest of your comment since I technically agree with most you're saying. Unfortunately this is so complex that we have to be evaluate in a per case basis.
I am not questioning whether man is social (interacts with other people), that is clear. I am questioning what society is because we speak of it as of a person: "society does this or that". So we refer to it as to an actual entity forgetting that it is just a word, a verbal shortcut, naming an abstraction - the concept that we interact with each other. And because an interaction is not something firm but is moving I ask how can this define goals or what we are looking for - what is ethical, moral, right?
Let me illustrate that with an example:
Suppose the society consists of 5 people only. Today we sit and find out 4 of us are in the mood to drink alcohol, so we say "alcohol is good, it is ethical to drink". One of us says "I don't like alcohol, it makes me feel bad" but the majority outweighs and ignores that person calling him asocial because he refuses to conform. So it is a form of pressure - either one conforms or one should suffer in isolation, be mocked at etc.
However some years pass and the drinkers start experiencing some health issues. They make some tests and find scientifically that drinking is not good for health. So all 5 gather again and say "look, we made a mistake, one of us was right".
Of course that is oversimplification. The idea is: how do we find out what is right? How do we approach such simple yet so essential question? Biologically (survival, reproduction)? Theoretically (conceptually, abstractions etc)?
> "and seeing as immoral".
But what did you mean by "seeing"? I just don't understand that whole part of your sentence as part of the whole.
> Unfortunately this is so complex that we have to be evaluate in a per case basis.
But we still need to find the principle. Otherwise we can look at individual cases for infinity.
Your alcohol example is funny. I don't drink alcohol and whenever there is a party or something, people would drink alcohol. This is not a reason for me to be excluded, I participate of the conversations and nobody isolates me from the group. It'd be immoral to isolate someone that does not conform to drink rather than accepting we're all different and we have different likes.
Now to your point about what is right. In drinking alcohol are several aspects to be analyzed.
1. Internal consequences: What happens to yourself if you drink alcohol. Although this is the most important for oneself, this is the least relevant for the group since you're not affecting other people. In short it's not Ok.
2. External consequences: If you're one of those people that drink too much and still believe that can drive perfectly then this person is mistaken. Over drinking could kill other people, isolate people if this is the type of person that excludes those who don't drink. But in my opinion you cannot judge a person if any of this hasn't happened.
> But what did you mean by "seeing"? I just don't understand that whole part of your sentence as part of the whole.
Re-stating sentence. It is convenient for you and I to live in a society that considers killing as immoral.
> But we still need to find the principle. Otherwise we can look at individual cases for infinity.
I think this is the reason why moral and ethics are not something we're done exploring. I think one of the principles we have agreed as a society (hopefully I used society correctly this time) is the golden rule (though many people claim authorship) "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."
So I still believe that moral and ethics are to be evaluated in a case by case, not thinking about every scenario that one can face but resolving them as they arise. Actions are different and we need to evaluate the context. Simplifying, usually killing is harmful and we wouldn't like to live in a world where killing is Ok; but what happens when we do it in self defense? what if we saved other people from being killed? And this is just a simple scenario where you cannot go by a general rule.
I would like to know your take on ethics and moral since this conversation seems more like an interview XD
> I participate of the conversations and nobody isolates me from the group.
In a different group and/or with something different (not alcohol) it may be different. Example: try to talk here how much you like proprietary software and see what happens.
> It'd be immoral to isolate someone that does not conform to drink rather than accepting we're all different and we have different likes.
I think we should look at that carefully:
1. Are we different? What does this mean? Am I different from you just because I may like sweet better than salty? Or is it just unimportant preference? If I smoke (or do something more unpleasant to look at) and nobody else does - will that be tolerated and for how long? At what point does a preference become a valid moral reason for isolating another?
2. Is it morality that drives the tolerance? Today it is considered virtuous to demonstrate tolerance. So isn't that itself conformity to an accepted norm? Isn't such demonstration selfishness? Is selfishness ethical?
Or we can look at it this way:
Suppose one has a preference to be "natural and healthy", never to use any deodorant, and smells so bad that it is difficult to stay in the same room. So I can't stand your smell but I have to tolerate you because if I say something I will be the monster (who will be isolated from the company, because one has spoken honestly and directly) or you may feel hurt (and I must care about your feelings). Again - where does one draw the line and at what point "me first, you second" becomes ethical and justified? The point is - it is easy to tolerate things theoretically and selfishly - when they don't cause you any trouble or discomfort. But when they start affecting you things change a lot.
Re. internal and external consequences you mentioned:
I think it is not as simple as pointing out the obvious.
It is easy to say "well, drinking destroys my organism only, so I am not affecting other people". But it is not "not OK" to me only because when I destroy my organism I don't function as a healthy person - I don't have the energy to be helpful to others who depend on me. At some point it may become so bad that others will need to help me, work harder to pay for my visits to doctors, medications etc. So when I destroy myself I am destroying others too and vice versa.
Also you say:
> you cannot judge a person if any of this hasn't happened.
But what use is to judge him after it has happened? Is it about judgment at all? Would it be unethical to say "I won't sit in your car if you drink and drive". Or should I be tolerant in order not to hurt your feelings? What is right? And does the right change if is my child is also in your car?
> It is convenient for you and I to live in a society that considers killing as immoral.
Alright. But why? Is it because we look for security (personally, selfishly)? Or is it because we understand deep inside how precious and beautiful life really is? Or anything else?
> "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."
But that is yet another theoretical rule, one of N commandments or whatever you want to call it. If I really understand that when I destroy myself I am destroying you too and when I destroy you I am destroying myself - then I simply won't do it. I don't need any "should" or "must". So it seems to me real ethics cannot be based on dead rules and demonstrations of "look how tolerant I am" but on understanding. As you say - considering context.
> but what happens when we do it in self defense?
Most people would conform to the idea that such killing would be justified. But it is not that simple.
> just a simple scenario where you cannot go by a general rule.
Still we need to find the principle (or find that a principle doesn't exist). And the principle is not a rule to be applied universally.
> I would like to know your take on ethics and moral since this conversation seems more like an interview XD
I don't really have a one. We are exploring this together. I am careful not to make any conclusions, so I am rather focused on asking.
So far it seems to me that understanding is essential: One needs to look deeper, not just conform to what is commonly accepted or obvious. This also means sensitivity to the fine nuances. Along these lines perhaps it would be fair to say that it is important to protect health and keep one's head clear and fresh. Then one would be able to see and feel what is right and not depend on rules, quotations, philosophies, trends etc. which all limit life in a dead structure and force others to conform to that structure.
Ok, I hope you find what you're looking for.
I haven't found anything and I also don't claim that I am right in my answer to your question. But from your reply I understand you are not interested any more. That's OK.
I'm not done though XD I may not reply as often since I'm having some time constrains.
I'm not asking you to tell me what's right, but if you could tell me your point of view, that would be great. I want to know what other people think so I can relate and expand what I perceive as right or wrong (this is a search we're all in).
Now lets get to the juice:
> In a different group and/or with something different (not alcohol) it may be different. Example: try to talk here how much you like proprietary software and see what happens.
To my initial point, "here" we have agreed that using only free software is our goal, since the community has agreed on a goal now actions are based as good or bad in regards to that goal. Something analogous would be if you ask me to brag about how I like killing people. In the case of the group of people, drinking alcohol is not the goal (it has not been my experience that is the case) so drinking it or not doesn't affect us, some chose to use it some don't.
> Are we different? What does this mean?
This means to me that we're alike but we are not the same thing, it's not limited to likes only.
> Am I different from you just because I may like sweet better than salty? Or is it just unimportant preference?
It's a difference between you and I regardless of it's importance.
> If I smoke (or do something more unpleasant to look at) and nobody else does - will that be tolerated and for how long?
Speaking about your smoking example. We have seen how smoking has moved from "cool people smoke" to having many places (usually inside buildings) where you are not allowed. This is a good example of how by learning about the consequences of something (smoking is harmfull for you or others) we changed our perception of right and wrong; this doesn't mean you are not allowed to smoke this means we have agreed you're not allowed to harm other people.
> At what point does a preference become a valid moral reason for isolating another?
To me, at no point. A preference is nothing morally speaking if the person doesn't act on it. Would you isolate the person that feels attracted to kids but knows that acting upon those feelings may harm children? What if this person never acts upon this but you know his preferences?
to be continued...
Note: Right now I'm not having a lot of time to spend on the forum so I'll complete my answer at a later time. Also I want to point out the fact that by you asking about different scenarios is clear to me that every situation is analyzed in an individual basis, since there are many circumstances that surround each case.
I see some progression in this matter, but possibly only in my thought.
I gave a glance at the Wikipedia's article about ethics/moral philosophy.
From the page:
> Generally morarity is a thing that confirms norms that people should rely on in society. However, there is a debate over whether morality comes from reason or from emotion.
Indeed, the norms depend on a quality of society (in a small alcoholic group, in free software movement, in a country and the laws). So it seems that that is the current point of the argument but I think that where morality comes from is not so important. I think that morarity comes from emotion, though. And it seems to be enough. It might come from reason but who cares. That is not such a difficult matter. If I stole your money, You would have bad feelings, maybe get angry. That is emotion. But if you had stolen my money before, you might not be able to get angry. This seems to be that reason. I think that we are always calculating equality. A fair treatment, an unfair treatment, a special treatment, a proper treatment etc. We are really sensitive about equality (order of greetings etc). But if you did not notice that I stole your money, you cannot get angry. Of course you might have troubles with the lost money. You might not be able to buy something because of that. You might have bad feelings, but not for me, because simply you could not buy it. I said this once but most people seem not to understand why they must pay tax. Only people who understand what they are being done can get mad, no one wants to be stolen the one's money. That is our common sense. So there is the law that prohibits us from stealing. But paying tax seems to be our inherent duty. But I have never been explained why I must pay tax. I think that that is totally threat.
I mean, why despite we have the common sense, how difficult we define the word.
My idea is very simple. Everyone cooperlates with each other for production. Everyone must be comfortable and convinced. Sharing foods, water, electricity, oil, etc. There are idiots who steal money from the shared money. I said this once too but scrambling for bananas in the cage seems to be really stupid to me. My interest in "what is ethical/moral/right" comes from that my idea, how about sharing resources more. Why electric companies are not NPO. Why can they afford to invest in stocks or something. That is a gamble. Please. Cannot they share such a thing. Obviously it looks like nothing but scrambling for bananas. Anyway it is my motive for the definition. What is your motive? Maybe firstly we should say simply that good actions are ethical. Bad actions are unethical. What good actions are is something beneficial things to a society... What bad actions are... but it depends on the quality of society... How do we treat cheats, General Ripper. I am going to invite a specialist of ethics. I would need long sentences to explain my thought on the definition. But maybe they can do it with concision. I think that they also might say that ethical are good actions. So those cheats and rippers is the problem but where it comes from does not seem to be a matter to me.
Off-topic/mutter:
Misers. So there are people starved to death. OTOH, there are countries which junk 1/3 of food, there are idiots who don't finish their food proudly. Share, idiots.
Edit: added the word "Off-topic/mutter".
Masaru,
I don't see any clear connection in that lengthy mix of not quite related thoughts to which I could reply. You obviously feel the urge to express regularly your general discontent with society, economics, "idiots" and everything else, but we already have too many threads with that, so please...
You say "ethical are good actions" but what does this mean? It is like saying "the sun is shining". How does this tell what the sun is made of, how it produces light etc?
> how about sharing resources more
Personal data is a resource.
Your bank account is a resource.
Your home is a resource.
How do you feel about sharing those more (with as much people as possible)?
> I don't see any clear connection in that lengthy mix of not quite related thoughts to which I could reply.
As I said several times, the strongest interest of mine in this matter (what is ethical) is that the agents who you say "adversaries" can think their actions as ethical. Not just the agents but I select it according as quarity of this forum.
This matter does make the words ethical, right, especially "justice" obscure/complicated. It would be fair to say that it is the center of this matter.
From the perspective, my arguments are totally in-topic. Of course still if you say those are not quite related thoughts, you can point out and explain, and I have been always expecting those convincible counter-arguments but I think I have never seen such convincible counter-arguments against my opinion. Just those my posts are called "off-topic". No evidence. No basis. No convincible explanation. But I acknowledge that basically those my mutters are just for the adversaries. But no one would not be able not to recognize the value and relevancy of this forum. Besides there are other users who do similar actions here. If you cannot point out it, that would mean that sane discussion is impossible in this forum.
> You obviously feel the urge to express regularly your general discontent with society, economics, "idiots" and everything else,
So what? FOSS advocates have not the discontent?
> but we already have too many threads with that,
I think I have stated about 2-3% of things what I think I should state.
I think you guys's arguments cleared a obscured solution in some degree that I merely had vaguely. The solution means a way to handle the agents's ethical actions, i.e.? the justice of the United States of America. When we create a sophisticated solution through this argument, we would be able to confute them very efficiently, in a short while. And more much importantly, since it is difficult to summon them to a proper place to confute with no where to escape, I mean, law courts are not always worthy of the role (I think even now we can confute them quite easily if courts work normally), so it is better and efficient that e.g. creating a short read that even children can understand the meaning of the word ethical. Ideally, a pictured book would be the best. More shorter, more better. More younger, more better. I think what we are doing in this thread is that, right? Either way (concept or beyond word), we always can create something new.
If I could draw only one picture that even children can understand the meaning of ethical, or anything though, by looking at it, it would be good, but the picture would be based on the arguments of this thread.
> You say "ethical are good actions" but what does this mean?
Sorry I might have written that "ethical actions are good actions", or "the basic meaning of the word ethical is (equal to) one or some of the concepts of the word good". Indeed, when we have to excuse, we can consider bad actions to be good actions. Whether one can forgive it or not would depend on the victim and he would need complete information to judge.
> How do you feel about sharing those more (with as much people as possible)?
OK, we might need a list of what we should share. Obviously it seems that there are a lot of things that shared is better than possessed. But I think that the task should be done by good economists or good socialists or someone already, if there are normal good scholars who would have the discontent, or rather, it must be rage though, if they are sane.
> Obviously not many would agree that sharing one's wife with everyone is a good thing.
I think you don't understand well what the main sources of wars are. It is sharing women and killing people. BTW so I think escorts and nowadays video games have been filling their eros and thenatos with satisfaction to a great degree. This is difficult to mention since the ignoramuses are capable of dragging to jail or hospital according as the ignorant logic so actually they do are capable of entering hospital though, but I dare to say again, killing is our natural desire. That desire is not abnormality. Cannot controlling the desire is considered abnormality.
So in this kind of cases, goals are after and anything OK if they can do those crimes with those excuses. E.g. ethnic cleaning. I wonder a bit why usually they need excuses when they do those ethical crimes.
It seems that my all posts always have been consistent in the context, freedom.
typo: roll > role
The topic is "What is ethical?", not "What do you hate". You may be willing to justify any off-topic with "it is about freedom" but it is not - it is simply what you dislike. Posting repeatedly such off-topic and expecting every thread to derail to a "sane discussion" around proving that it is off-topic is hardly sane itself. So don't expect it from me.
?
As I said several times, the strongest interest of mine in this matter (what is ethical) is that the agents who you say "adversaries" can think their actions as ethical. But from your reply I understand you think my posts in this thread have nothing to do with the subject "what is ethical". I trust obviously it seems to have something to do with it, though. And you even seem not to be willing to point out it or show the convincible explanation. You just say "it is off-topic". Only condemnation, willy-nilly. But that's OK. No problem. Please continue discussion. I won't interrupt anymore. Sorry if I did interrupt.
typo of the last post: I might have written... > I should have written...
typo of this post: you don't think... > you think.,.
What we are asking here is what is right, not "who does wrong" (your persistent interest). Before finding out what is right, wrong/bad/"adversaries" has no meaning. That's why your interest in judging "the bad guys" is not only off-topic but also meaningless.
? Continue discussion?
I see. Before finding what is right, referring to historical or present instances is off-topic and meaningless?? OK, but maybe you are right. So maybe you will find what is right from future things. Right?
I know people know, know. They know what is artists. I don't underestimate them. They are exceptional so deserve to be called an artist. By the way, shall I respond more?
Please don't let me disturb you, please continue discussion.
Please keep writing, this should be a free space for everybody to express their ideas. Plus I enjoy some of the things you have to write.
Thank you. What do you think about this, Beformed?
1. "the agents who you say "adversaries" can think their actions as ethical."
From you comment, we can guess they might think that their "goal" is to protect their country. Maybe it means people of the country rather than the land of the country though. BTW, is that so-called the National security?
In short, as known well, they seem to tend to commit a crime using the relation of sovereign and subject as a shield.
The relation of sovereign and subject forgives any crimes as ethical conducts. God too. Like Deleuse says, it is not that if God is not, everything is forgiven, it is that under the name of God, everything has been forgiven, any crimes have been forgiven.
Hence I regard this subject as very important to talk about ethical. What do you think?
And this is a similar subject.
2. General Ripper [1] was seriously worried about peace of earth then commanded the nuclear attack. Of course he would have been thinking himself as ethical, but or rather, he seemed to think himself as justice rather than ethical, though.
In this case, he was obviously crazy, as the president of the United States said. So it might differ from the case 1.
What do you think about the difference, too? Is there any difference?
[1] a character in the movie "Dr. Strangelove [...] the bomb". Seems well known here, so.
> From you comment, we can guess they might think that their "goal" is to protect their country.
I'd agree they can say that but unfortunately today nationalism and national security seem to be excuses for people to follow their personal interest.
> In short, as known well, they seem to tend to commit a crime using the relation of sovereign and subject as a shield.
I agree with this.
> The relation of sovereign and subject forgives any crimes as ethical conducts.
This seems to be what the US government is doing with all the spying they do over their citizens. Which in this specific case I think is unethical. I haven't heard that much about all the terrorists they get by spying on people, but we know that all the information they gather could be use in nefarious ways (if they're not doing it right now).
> it is not that if God is not, everything is forgiven, it is that under the name of God, everything has been forgiven, any crimes have been forgiven.
The problem I find with a god as the source of moral base (I'll take the god that is more common where I live), is that it's seen as just but also merciful. This is a contradiction since mercy would be the suspension of justice. Not to say (if we go by the bible) all the moral issues we have in scripture.
> In this case, he was obviously crazy, as the president of the United States said. So it might differ from the case 1.
What do you think about the difference, too? Is there any difference?
I remember reading (but I cannot remember where) that most people that commit immoral actions have some sort of self justification for their doing.
From my perspective it's a matter of analyzing case by case all the implications of actions taken. It's not always good or bad I think it's a spectrum. Personally my first thought when considering if something is moral or not is the harm that it causes.
> Personally my first thought when considering if something is moral or not is the harm that it causes.
Then the question is: what is harm and who is the harmed one?
A surgeon causes harm to the body in order to restore health (fully or partially). Sometimes it causes death - either because of incomplete scientific knowledge, or because of the condition of the patient or because of inattentive mistake by a doctor/nurse/whoever. Giving birth surely harms the mother - sometimes even for life. Does it mean the baby was unethical? Or that nature is unethical?
When there is an epidemic case with animals and there is no known cure - the sick ones are killed to protect the healthy ones. Is that harm ethical?
If you give your life for another one to live, you are causing lethal harm to one human being (yourself). Is that ethical? How do you measure whose life is more ethical to continue? I.e. how do you measure whose existence is more right?
These are questions beyond agents or nationalities and no historical reference can answer them.
Oh man, so many things to answer and so little time.
In the case of the surgery, the patient and doctor took a decision on what would be more harmful (that's why we only have surgery when we really need to), and before you go to the route of the doctor deceiving the patient (which is unethical), as patients it is our responsibility to get a second (or third) opinion on the matter.
I have answers for the rest of your examples, but I have limited time.
I agree that some questions are out of the realm of nationalities and history, but some aren't (before you ask for examples, you can investigate, it doesn't hurt). That's how our moral system has been improving. At some point slavery was Ok for some people, and now we made progress to reduce that number (still not zero though).
Not really. The patient (normally) has no expertise to "take decision". So pretty much he trusts the doctor blindly and/or chooses between options based on which one *sounds* better. More opinions doesn't really change that principle. It simply gives a statistical sense of safety because more doctors = more confirmations. But what makes something right (or wrong) is not that it is confirmed by many. The point is - is it decision taking based on a pile of opinions what makes something right?
> (which is unethical)
How do you know what is unethical when you don't know what is ethical? What is the basis of the negation?
> That's how our moral system has been improving.
I question this.
> At some point slavery was Ok for some people, and now we made progress to reduce that number (still not zero though).
It seems to me this "progress" is merely making the chain longer and less visible. It is not reducing the number of chains.
> The patient (normally) has no expertise to "take decision". So pretty much he trusts the doctor blindly and/or chooses between options based on which one *sounds* better. More opinions doesn't really change that principle.
Really? how would you make a decision on a medical issue?
> How do you know what is unethical when you don't know what is ethical? What is the basis of the negation?
You're assuming I don't know, they thing here is you are the one asking.
> I question this.
You can question all you want but you didn't give any arguments why.
> It seems to me this "progress" is merely making the chain longer and less visible. It is not reducing the number of chains.
What is your impression about slavery this days?
Beformed,
I don't understand where I should insert this post, and sometimes inserting does not work properly, but this is a reply to the current post number 34.
So you confirms that at least mass surveillance is unethical. But as I have raised some issues, mass surveillance has some advantages in public order. And auditing their activities is almost impossible because of the national security. Free software movement cannot avoid those issues.
Seriously, I think that this is the center of the issue. So I may be a bit verbose or proceeding too slow especially in this issue. But why I take mainly USA is that, maybe it is needless to say but in short, to persue and solve the issue of the justice of USA must expand its infulence into the rest of the world efficiently. In more short, because USA is the special country.
We can say we can agree on why we think mass surveillance as unethical. But a democratic government cannot state/acknowledge blatantly that they are doing unethical activities of course. When they do collect personal information illegally, when they murder a suspected terrorist with a drone, when they torture someone in jail illegally, when they commit any illegal crimes, basically they need "excuses" to justify their crimes. Commiting crimes is not their means to protect people of the country or whatever else, it itself is just their ends from thanatos basically. The system merely take an advantage of the habits. As we agree, they always can use the relation of the sovereign and subject to justify any crimes.
So the word ethical gets complicated meanings. Here is the center of the issue.
To clarify the things which make the meaning of the word ethical complicated, let me quote a summary of the history that how USA has been justfying their activities as ethical. Maybe it is well known, though. Just to make sure to confirm the current consensus (mostly direct reproduction of google translation):
> The justice of American has changed as follows.
Obvious Heaven's will → White duty → Christian duty → Domino theory (defense) → Fight against terrorism (fight against anti-democracy)
1) Obvious natural life ... The flag of justice used by British refugees who settled on the East coast of the United States to kill all Indians (now called Native Americans) living on the mainland of America and take their land. They were convinced that the Christian God had given us an “Manifest Desitiny” to go west and kill the people there. About 6 million Indians were killed. (Of course many would have been raped, tortured. The three desires of them)
2) White's responsibility ... Whites are excellent, so it is the flag that "white's responsibility" is to suppress, educate, or take away the territory of white people into the white world. Used as an excuse to invade or attack the Caribbean, Mexican territories (Texas, etc.), Hawaii.
3) Obligation of Christianity ... The idea that it is an American duty to occupy a non-Christian country and make it Christian. Good for colonization and Christian mission in the Philippines. They couldn't find the reason for the attack on Japan because the Japanese culture was so powerful.
4) Domino theory: After the Second World War, the communism spread like a "domino defeat" and the Vietnam War was conducted to prevent it.
5) Fight against terrorism ... A flag used as an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were lies, but any invasion or first strike was allowed based on this flag.
These theoretical armaments, lies, provocations of opponents, and camouflage created the trigger for war.
a) A technique to hunt down the opponent and make the opponent fight back: Indian War, Mexican War, War against Japan
b) Start war with camouflage ... Mary and the invasion of Philippines, Vietnam war and Tonkin Bay, weapons of mass destruction and war in Iraq
America is a special country. <
Well, this is not a laughing matter. My acquaintances could guess when American people elected Donald Trump, there were still a lot of people who desired to open war against some countries. If the war happened, it would be good excuses to fill the three desires of them, again. They don't have to go to other countries to fill the desires if there are some kind of people in the USA.
Note that these are usual common excuses when any country/community commit a (ethical) crime, not just America.
There are a few questions for you. I have many but since you seem not to have much time.
1.
> but we know that all the information they gather could be use in nefarious ways
What the nefarious ways do you guess concretely? I can imagine many possibilies of that use since their nature but which suspected uses do you think as the worst or important to talk about?
2.
> most people that commit immoral actions have some sort of self justification for their doing.
Here is another modern philosophical subject.
Possibly this issue should be taken as the center of the issue. (or as next center of the issue that should be taken)
Obviously courts have not been working very well. But if they cannot work morally, fairly, who should judge? Or from the beggining, can anyone judge other one? As I stated some times, if courts work more normally, the most problems should be solved. The laws itself do not seem to be so vulnerable. It is quite sophisticated since length of human beings's history. Understanding, sensitivity, clear head would solve this problem decisively?
It could be, but how? Or from the beginning are we qualified for the tasks?
Perhaps this can be said the issue of "so-called ethical crimes". A contradicted word. Morality should not be crime.
> Before finding what is right, referring to historical or present instances is off-topic and meaningless??
If it is just an enumeration of the instances - yes. If it uses examples to find the principle of ethical - no.
I don't think time (history, incl. present) is where we should look for what ethical is. If I have to know for example what Hitler or Jesus did in order to use that as a reference for determining what is right, it implies that morality did not exist before these historical events, i.e. that what is right is the result of learning from actions which happened without knowing what right is. This is a contradiction because it means:
a) We acknowledge that the ethical happens *without knowledge* about what ethical is
b) We look for *knowledge* (history) to find the ethical
> By the way, shall I respond more?
You are welcome to respond but follow what we are discussing. If you just pile up examples which seem unethical to you without going deeply into one of them, it becomes a superficial meaningless rant.
If I suppose that the word morality means "our inherent (almost)common ability that we can judge whether good or bad, fair or unfair, forgivable or unforgivable, etc (here is difficulty, would you have good expression? )", what do you think about it?
> You are welcome to respond but follow what we are discussing. If you just pile up examples which seem unethical to you without going deeply into one of them, it becomes a superficial meaningless rant.
I would consider or refrain, but it would depend on quality of replies that I was able to receive here. My emotion decides it.
> here is difficulty, would you have good expression? )", what do you think about it?
I can't express what you are thinking as I can't read your thoughts.
OK. So how about this kind of picture book.
Long time ago, there was a small society. They were hunter-gather and living in a cave.
There was a man who was exceptionally good at hunting. Most of game was hunted by him.
He started being arrogant (btw I have just read Wilipedia and got to know that most hunter-gatherer seems to be cleverer than... them because they Neanderthals, Cro-magnons, etc were careful not making classes or a "boss". e.g. they were exchanging arrows with each other often. Maybe they are stupider than Cro-magnons) because of his technique, then he let other men make a tiered in the cave then occupied and sit on the top step of the tiered. He let women sit on the lowest step.
He banned women from drinking alcohol because he knew they could do something with other men if they got drunk. At meal times, he took almost 90% of resources of the game and threw the rest of parts to lower steps. Other people really wanted to kill him but they were really bad at hunting so they kept him living. But other men worked well, too. Some person was good at producing weapons, other person was good at tailoring clothes etc. Women worked more than men. Cooking, cleaning, washing, massaging, taking care of children and elder people, etc etc etc. But they had to say "Thank you very much, sir" and bow low to the king when they took the thrown meat.
One day, they found a stranger who was almost dead. They nursed the man and he regained good health. He was a ugly good jolly guy and very good at hunting...
> would you have good expression?
I mean, good or bad etc are dualistic ideas. I think there is something like degree in our emotion. But if we pursue the meaning of the word "good", or in this case if dualism is proper to define the meaning of the word ethical, it might have no problem to express in this kind of way. However, how about pursuing the meaning of the word good first? I think that we always encounter the concept of the word good while pursuing the meaning or definition of the word ethical/right/justice etc. The concept of the word good seems to be the base of the basis of this kind of concepts. "Ethical" seems to be a more complicated idea.
Edit: PS, about God, so I feel apparently there is a "demand" for God to commit crime in an ethical way.
> I'm not asking you to tell me what's right, but if you could tell me your point of view, that would be great.
I have done that in the last paragraph of my previous reply: understanding, sensitivity, clear head. Without that I don't see how one could possibly see what is right. So perhaps we could step further and say that it is ethical to protect and take care of understanding, sensitivity and clarity.
> this is a search we're all in
I wish it was really *all* but unfortunately it is always very few people.
> To my initial point, "here" we have agreed that using only free software is our goal, since the community has agreed on a goal now actions are based as good or bad in regards to that goal.
That's not quite so. What actually happens is (not just "here" but in any group centered around a concept): a few people who have a common goal have set up rules for everyone. Based on that everyone who wants to say something must conform (or be kicked out of the group). Is that ethical? I may believe in something, that's OK. But if I try to impose it on you - how is that right? Those who are strong believers want to impose their belief on everyone. Often times they would say "you are free to stay or leave" but that "freedom" is actually a limitation: either you conform, or buzz off. I don't see how this helps to protect and expand understanding and clarity. It rather protects the minority of those who conform, i.e. those who have limited understanding and refuse to expand it.
> Something analogous would be if you ask me to brag about how I like killing people.
This has nuances:
1. "I *brag* I like killing people" (but I may not like it, I may just be testing how others would react)
2. "I *like* killing people" (the general idea of it; but I don't kill them myself, I just like how others kill them - e.g. in movies, in games or in real wars, as long as I am safe and far from it)
3. "I *kill* people" (and I do brag that I like it)
The three are quite different. Also killing is always an extreme example because if you like something (say orange juice, tomato soup, green color, proprietary software) that doesn't put an end to your physical life. The point is: we should be careful when we make analogies as it may drive us to wrong conclusions.
> In the case of the group of people, drinking alcohol is not the goal (it has not been my experience that is the case) so drinking it or not doesn't affect us, some chose to use it some don't.
It does affect us. Whatever affects me affect those around me and vice versa. I already explained this. Or would you disagree?
In any case - let's not forget that it is the principle we are after, not the specific case of alcohol.
> It's a difference between you and I regardless of it's importance.
OK but can that be a basis for finding out what is right?
=============================
> If I smoke (or do something more unpleasant to look at) and nobody else does - will that be tolerated and for how long?
> Speaking about your smoking example [...] how by learning about the consequences of something (smoking is harmfull for you or others) we changed our perception of right and wrong; this doesn't mean you are not allowed to smoke this means we have agreed you're not allowed to harm other people.
I wonder if we have really learned. As I said previously it seems to me switching from one conformity to another. If I don't smoke in the car just because there are other people inside (but I smoke in general) - have I really learned that smoking is harmful? Or am I protecting myself from the anger of the majority by conforming to the new norm? That is my question, not the retrospection of how the norms change. Usually the transformation of norms is in direction to make wrong things less obvious, i.e. below a sensitivity threshold. Then other wrong things can easily be sneaked in.
>> At what point does a preference become a valid moral reason for isolating another?
> To me, at no point. A preference is nothing morally speaking if the person doesn't act on it.
But one always acts and almost always based on preferences. These patterns are the base of all our behavior. A preference which doesn't affect action is obviously just a predisposition. It may have importance in a special situation but generally it is latent. So the question is action based on preference.
> Also I want to point out the fact that by you asking about different scenarios is clear to me that every situation is analyzed in an individual basis, since there are many circumstances that surround each case.
Isn't there anything common in them?
Are you asking for a code of conduct? It's my impression that you need a set of general rules that you can use for most cases; is it the case?.
Who are you asking and in relation to what? I just see your reply in the main thread.
BTW this is getting quite difficult (UI-wise) with so many dots relating to who knows what.
Mazaru,
This is in regards to your post #39, since we are running out of room I'll just start a new thread here.
> So you confirms that at least mass surveillance is unethical. But as I have raised some issues, mass surveillance has
> some advantages in public order. And auditing their activities is almost impossible because of the national security.
> Free software movement cannot avoid those issues.
I agree with you that if mass surveillance helps then we need to consider and weight the benefits against the harm it
creates. But personally I'm not aware that mass surveillance is helping a lot in the USA, most of the things we hear
is how they have unlimited power to get your personal data but no through governmental ways, it's all done through
private companies like Facebook that also sell that information to other companies. There is an interesting article by RMS here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html I don't think this is binary, we just have too much of it.
I don't quite understand what you're saying in the second paragraph, could you clarify a little? Thank you.
Thank you for your consideration of my time. I'd like to address question 1 right now, but probably it'll be incomplete.
The different government agencies are gathering data from private companies like Facebook or cellphone companies. In this point I won't focus on the government (I'll do it in some other time). It has been proven (to the extend we can prove something) that information from Facebook was used in the latest USA elections to manipulate people into voting in a certain way. Manipulation of what masses think is one of the issues I have against mass surveillance they way is done today.
I'll expand and reply to the other question when time permits. If the forum is getting too complicated please email me.
> I'm not aware that mass surveillance is helping a lot in the USA.
I cannot estimate the degree of influence but if one has thought about the possibility of suiveillance on one's device, inevitably the one has been feeling the feelings under the surveillance since that time.
I cannot estimate the degree but probably most people have thought about the possibility regardless of intensity of the sense of risk.
> most of things we hear is how they have unlimited power to get your personal data but
I think that American's awareness or information about it is quite greater than Japanese's one. I guess American people hear those information from TV or news in their daily life. I have heard that American's interest in politics also is quite greater than Japanese's one. I am sure that more than 99% of Japanese don't know the name of Edward Snowden.
The link was interesting and useful. I have not read those articles much willingly, only when I see the link in this forum, but I frequently feel that some of my concerns were already considered deeply by him.
> gathering data from private companies
I know. That is an extremely efficient way so no wonder but I think that will our one of the strongest weapon or their fatal damege.
> information from Facebook was used in the latest USA elections to manipulate people into voting in a certain way
I cannot guess how. Sometimes I question the manipulation theory that is sometimes told in this forum. But,
> Manipulation of what masses think is one of the issues I have
since Leni Riefenstahl, always that has been manipulated by something in a certain degree.
Basically the degree of surveillance reflects each other, in a simple dualistic fact. If we imagine the worst surveillance society, our every action will be recorded. The crime rate will decrease dramatically. I feel that so the balance may be the most important in this kind of issues, from the link too, he seems to be always considering something called balance and times, I would agree but I prefer to pursue an idealistic way first then settling into balance as a result. The one of the points here is that basically officers are one of the most unhappy tribe so they tend to have a desire to involve others in their unhappiness (in this case, mutual surveillance). They would select the "both unhappy solution" anyway according as their despair. Because... where escape from such a deep position? Besides they choose the most stable job from their nature. Basically people who prefer stable things tend to lack flexibility.
How we recognize that this kind of activities merely make us unhappy each other. AISO, simply if we disband all of armies on the earth, it would be a mixed blessing except for certain people (a matter of trust). Whether idealistic or anything, human beings would try to achieve it seriously in the future. But this is a similar but another topic. I might raise this issue later.
> If the forum is getting too complicated please email me.
These are not matters just between you and me. And we don't have to worry about it too much, zigote and david would settle the mess of this thread. One is the mod and the other opened this thread.
About the second pragraph, some modern philosophers and film directors have a quite strong interest in the issue that "Does anyone have right to adjudicate others?". This is difficult. Firstly victims would not be able to forgive them easily. But would America be able to apologize to people of some countries one person by one person for killing their family or precious people by bombing the wrong target or mistake or something? After said that the weapon of mass destruction theory was a lie? Even just now, there must be many people who sometimes remember the deceased then must feel something sad then anger. If they see the former president laughing in TV or the internet, even I get mad at the full of shit, how can they forgive without at least apology? Cut it out. It would become like whether America first or except America then lastly, America. I am afraid that always taking America first but America is such a country, for good or ill. I want to talk about economy too, though... America must be the center of the topic, too. Sigh. If every soldier of the Army who can remember who he killed, raped, tortured goes to the countries and does something good sincerely, immediately the world would be quite better, both would become something better feelings, though. Would it that difficult.
Which of all that is looking into what ethical is?
I wonder if you have missed this post.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/what-ethical#comment-142809
It seems that pursuing the meaning of the word "good" first makes definition of the word ethical smooth.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios