Unutterably Silly Is it unethical to be unethical?

[Sparrow]

I wonder if we only belong to one society (and one ethical system) at any one time.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by TGS

Is then "sustaining society" an unquestionable good, and if so, which "society" are we talking about - human society, western society, Judeo-Christian society, African society, current society, future society?

In order to define whether a society is "good," we have to be able to define and quantify its ethics... and I think it's clear that that task is impossible at present.

Are those all independent societies? Or are they sub-societies of one overriding society, Humanity? Should sub-societies have ethics that are different from the overriding society?

If each society is independent, and by extension, can have its own independent set of ethics, how are we to determine which set of ethics is ethical, and which is not?

Is the current (apparent) breakdown of ethics a sign that independent societies are colliding with each other like errant galaxies, causing a chaos that will not re-coalesce until the galaxies either separate, merge into one, or fraction apart into numerous independent entities mixed from the two?

[neilmarr]

***Pfft... that's an easy one! "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one."***

And what if the man on the track, with his life in your hands, happens to be your only son, a kindly and senstivie chap and a promising musician, responsible and fair-dealing, father of four children, a hardy worker for several worthwhile charities, Steve, and the train is full of manacled prisoners convicted of murder, rape and violent crime? Neil

PS: I do realise your post on this occasion was tongue-in-cheek. N

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

***Pfft... that's an easy one! "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one."***

And what if the man on the track, with his life in your hands, happens to be your only son, a kindly and senstivie chap and a promising musician, responsible and fair-dealing, father of four children, a hardy worker for several worthwhile charities, Steve, and the train is full of manacled prisoners convicted of murder, rape and violent crime? Neil

PS: I do realise your post on this occasion was tongue-in-cheek. N

Violent criminals forfeit their right to be considered over others. That's why they get locked away.

Assuming there are other, not-so-condemned people on the train, my position stands... and I hope to the Gods that my son has the sense to get off the tracks.

Okay, now I'm getting a headache...

[neilmarr]

My son's not so daft either, Steve. But maybe he finds himself on the tracks because, with the best will in the world, he really feels the train is coming his way and needs to be stopped in time.

Of course, he's wrong. The points are set to the other track. But he's already displayed that he's willing to lose his life. And the prisoners on the train are not convicted, only accused and on remand for trial. Maybe they're just trippers on the way to a family seaside holiday.

You still have only a split second, Steve, to decide whether you should honour your son's wish or save him at the sacrifice of strangers ... and to whose benefit either move might be?

Me, too, kiddo. Heache time. Think I'll go and advise some newby to use a mains charger and not to sit on a Kobo.

Hoots. Neil

[neilmarr]

My son's not so daft either, Steve. But maybe he finds himself on the tracks because, with the best will in the world, he really feels the train is coming his way and needs to be stopped in time.

Of course, he's wrong. The points are set to the other track. But he's already displayed that he's willing to lose his life. And the prisoners on the train are not convicted, only accused and on remand for trial. Maybe they're just trippers on the way to a family seaside holiday.

You still have only a split second, Steve, to decide whether you should honour your son's wish or save him at the sacrifice of strangers ... and to whose benefit either move might be?

Me, too, kiddo. Headache time. Think I'll go and advise some newby to use a mains charger and not to sit on a Kobo.

Hoots. Neil

PS: Sorry for horrendous internet problems over the past couple of days (no end in sight for a week to come). It's difficult to post here and all but impossible to work through everything because -- a fairly accurate estimate -- everything that involves internet is taking about 12 times longer than it should. I never submit without first copying because the chances of this note and other succeeding first time are 20-1 agaiinst. N

[neilmarr]

NOW EIGHTH ATTEMPT TO POST THIS ONE-PAR MESSAGE AND COUNTING ...

See what I mean about internet problems? That last post was meant to be an edit. Instead it's almost duplicated. The original and edit took about twenty goes and many minutes. I think I must go read-only until mid next week. No offence, folks, if I seem to ignore comments I would normally respond to and don't immediately answer PMs, apologies. I just tried to reply to a PM and it took me over half a bloody hour. Hoots. Neil

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I wonder if we only belong to one society (and one ethical system) at any one time.

If you do, you're lucky... you'll never have an ethical conflict in your life.

But I don't think we do. We live in multiple societies at once, and so, multiple sets of ethics, and we are constantly waging internal wars over which set of ethics takes precedence at any moment or decision point.

For instance, Neill's example is a conflict between a family ethic (preserve your offspring at all costs), a societal ethic (criminals forfeit their rights in society), and possibly a higher ethic (God says killing anyone intentionally is wrong). The decision, of course, is muddied by doubts (Will my son get off the tracks? Are all those people on the train bad? Could they possibly survive the crash?).

Which suggests another question: Do ethics count in a no-win scenario?

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

If you do, you're lucky... you'll never have an ethical conflict in your life.

But I don't think we do. We live in multiple societies at once, and so, multiple sets of ethics, and we are constantly waging internal wars over which set of ethics takes precedence at any moment or decision point.

For instance, Neill's example is a conflict between a family ethic (preserve your offspring at all costs), a societal ethic (criminals forfeit their rights in society), and possibly a higher ethic (God says killing anyone intentionally is wrong). The decision, of course, is muddied by doubts (Will my son get off the tracks? Are all those people on the train bad? Could they possibly survive the crash?).

Which suggests another question: Do ethics count in a no-win scenario?

Now MY head hurts! I'm *almost* glad I have to leave for work now...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Well-p... now you all have something to ponder while I go on vacation. I may or may not be able to reconnect until I get back... we'll find out. Ta!

[GeoffC]

that's what i call leaving us in the lurch !

is that ethical ?

[Donnageddon]

I am a perfectly ethical and moral person.

Except for occasionally making a statement that I know to be a lie.

[GraceKrispy]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

that's what i call leaving us in the lurch !

is that ethical ?

I think he has just proven his point. It *is* unethical to be unethical!

[neilmarr]

***God says killing anyone intentionally is wrong***

You brought it up, Steve, so I don't think it's a hijack of your thread if we look at religion.

With the greatest respect, the statement you make above is a misinterpretation of the Ten Commandments of Moses. You know full well that Exodus continues with the Jewish god's eager encouragement of his tribe toward cruel mass murder, slavery and genocide. As far as I know, the direction of this particular god is the first recorded instance of what we now know as 'ethnic cleansing'.

What I mean to say is that tribes were are are closed societies that measure morality according to their own private (often divinely inspired) codes. These codes very often contradict others held by different tribes.

The Ten Commandments, for instance (most of them about religious worship) are meant for a specific people and its society and are not meant to be applied to 'the others'. The laws of Leviticus are considered even by the majority of Jews to be absurd and barbaric.

This clash of socital and cultural moral codes is still with us, of course. There is an answer, I am not alone in thinking. A simple answer. But who will accept total integration at the expense of deeply held ideals and discarding dictated 'ethic' for the sake of world fraternity, peace, harmony?

Bestest, Steve. And thanks again for prompting interesting responses (rather than answers -- out of our reach) to a fascinating, ever-present and pressing question. Neil

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

***God says killing anyone intentionally is wrong***

You brought it up, Steve, so I don't think it's a hijack of your thread if we look at religion.

(Yes, I'm back from vaca!)

No problem with anyone bringing up religion. To be honest, my reference above was not intended to be a specific reference to any religious belief, but instead was supposed to be the hypothetical considerations of the person in the aforementioned dilemma.

Religion is a belief system. Religions, when shared, create societies, and like all societies, mold their own set of ethics to fit their belief-system.

When we talk about ethics (everywhere but in this thread, obviously), we tend to speak of it in terms of absolutes... that is Good, this is Bad, etc. Yet, with so many societies with so many belief systems, and therefore their own set of ethics, how can we speak in absolutes about ethics that shift, blend and even reverse depending on which society/societies we happen to subscribe to?

As Sparrow suggested, we may consciously or subconsciously shift our ethics from one set to another, as we go from spending time with our family, to going to work (yes, commuters can have their own set of ethics), to being at work, to going to church, to hanging with our bowling or golfing buds, to being alone with our significant others.

In the U.S., the conflict is well-represented by "the N-word"

Spoiler:

(nigger)

, a word that is considered derogatory and verboten to use in some U.S. societies, but permitted in others. (Take note of how I've used it here.) Tracking the differences in ethics from one group to another is like tracking the use of this word in different groups.

So, if ethics are different for every group/society, and even the highest ethical points can be argued from one group to another, why do we consider ethics absolute and inviolable? Do we put too much weight on ethics in that case?

As our societies become more globally exposed and interdependent, we seem to be experiencing more conflicting ethics than ever before. Is there a way to solve this dilemma... if, indeed, this is a dilemma? Is there a need for a set of "super-ethics" that stand above all societies' ethics, and must be obeyed by all? Practically-speaking, would such a thing even be possible? And assuming it was possible... would it be desirable?