Ethical considerations on unenfored rules...

[Nova Andromeda]

--As we all know the world if filled with stupid people. I would argue that this would be just fine if they would just use what intelligence they had, but the world is also filled with irrational people.
-Now supose there is a rule that is ethical, but unenforced (offically, unofficially, or otherwise).
-Supose further that breaking this rule is beneficial to those who break it.
-Given the above is it actually ethical to break the rule if failing to do so favors the unethical in society over the long run (assume for now that this is bad for society).

--I raise this dilema because of the "Is profiting off of ignorance unethical?" thread.
-Supose ethical people refuse to cheat dumb shits out of their cash, the dumb shits cannot be protected from this, and this leads to unethical people having more cash and therefore more political/social power. This probably isn't good for society so perhaps from a certain ethical point of view it isn't unethical to cheat dumb shits out of their money when all is said and done.

[Stark]

It's been acknowledged for millenia that very ethical behaviour isn't profitable.

[Zero]

It's been acknowledged for millenia that very ethical behaviour isn't profitable.

Not necessarily. If someone developes a reputation for honesty, integrity, and constistance, if he's smart about shit, he can still get decent business. Someone who's known to cheat over fuckers won't be selling as much.

Generally, doing good things for others should be, at the least, neutral to your own position, and fucking over others for your own good should be good. The trouble is, we're smart apes. We remember who's fucked us over, we tell others about it, and we make sure never to deal with that person again, and make sure our friends don't either. We mostly learn to be beneficial to those who benefit us in return, which may be why a lot of the older psuedo-ethical systems are based on reciprocity. It's also a bit of a reason why we form groups of friends and why we remember enemies.

So dicking over your customers frequently can be bad for business.

[Stark]

Oh yes, I meant to say that it's the difficult path. It's much easier to make money/obtain power if you simply take advantage of the stupid/less fortunate/weaker.

[Stile]

Ack, got me with the double negative, change that no to a yes.

[R. U. Serious]

Supose ethical people refuse to cheat dumb shits out of their cash, the dumb shits cannot be protected from this, and this leads to unethical people having more cash and therefore more political/social power. This probably isn't good for society so perhaps from a certain ethical point of view it isn't unethical to cheat dumb shits out of their money when all is said and done.

That's not very original, actually I think that is how a lot of the power-hungry people that act unethically justif their actions. "I am not the worst shit that could hapen to these people, so they better be grateful and I am actually doing them good".

So from your "certain ethical point of view" everything that is nor provably the absolute worst and horrible thing/action has a positive ethical value. Basically that's changing the scale, like saying let's make the "most negative" number our new zero, then we'll have only positive numbers left.

[Nova Andromeda]

It's been acknowledged for millenia that very ethical behaviour isn't profitable.

Not necessarily. If someone developes a reputation for honesty, integrity, and constistance, if he's smart about shit, he can still get decent business. Someone who's known to cheat over fuckers won't be selling as much.

Generally, doing good things for others should be, at the least, neutral to your own position, and fucking over others for your own good should be good.

--If this were true in general then politicians, used car salesmen, corporations, lawyers, etc. would all behave in a vastly more responsible manner. As it stands they all show massive unethical behavior since society doesn't hold them to account.

[Nova Andromeda]

Supose ethical people refuse to cheat dumb shits out of their cash, the dumb shits cannot be protected from this, and this leads to unethical people having more cash and therefore more political/social power. This probably isn't good for society so perhaps from a certain ethical point of view it isn't unethical to cheat dumb shits out of their money when all is said and done.

That's not very original, actually I think that is how a lot of the power-hungry people that act unethically justif their actions. "I am not the worst shit that could hapen to these people, so they better be grateful and I am actually doing them good".

So from your "certain ethical point of view" everything that is nor provably the absolute worst and horrible thing/action has a positive ethical value. Basically that's changing the scale, like saying let's make the "most negative" number our new zero, then we'll have only positive numbers left.

--You are fairly new here so I'll cut you some slack. Your entire argument falls appart once you realize that society can and does enforce laws and just because someone rationalizes unethical behavior it doesn't necessarily mean they will get away with it or that society won't be able to enforce laws against it.

[wolveraptor]

Your scenario is too vague. Without explaining how much this rule protects in society, you can't determine just how immoral breakers of it would be.

[Nova Andromeda]

Your scenario is too vague. Without explaining how much this rule protects in society, you can't determine just how immoral breakers of it would be.

--The rule doesn't protect society at all since it can't be enforced, however, you could assume that widespread breaking of the rule would be very bad for society.

[Admiral Johnason]

Your scenario is too vague. Without explaining how much this rule protects in society, you can't determine just how immoral breakers of it would be.

--The rule doesn't protect society at all since it can't be enforced, however, you could assume that widespread breaking of the rule would be very bad for society.

You would have to take into consideration that the good people breaking the rule by the good people would place them into the exploiters category, thus morally degrading the good person by allowing him to believe that hurting someone is in the best interest of society. This could alos make the less scrupulous members of society more desperte for funds causing them to cross other ethical line, prehaps even criminal laws.

[R. U. Serious]

--You are fairly new here so I'll cut you some slack. Your entire argument falls appart once you realize that society can and does enforce laws and just because someone rationalizes unethical behavior it doesn't necessarily mean they will get away with it or that society won't be able to enforce laws against it.

Huh? I don't understand what you are getting at. I wasn't talking about the practicability in the real world. I was talking about how that concept of ethical behaviour would be useless, because everything minus the absolute worst action could be subsumed under it.
It's kind of like saying everybody is only acting out of self-interest, including the "corrupt politician" (obvious) as well as "the poor people who share what little they have with those even poorer without expecting anything back" (they do it for the good, fuzzy feeling, those egotistic bastards).

If you don't like that argument: I don't buy any of the premises:
-> "the dumb shits cannot be protected from this"
not perfectly, but a lot of things can and is being done to limit the abuse.
-> "and this leads to unethical people having more cash"
this is not a given either. You could argue that the ethical behaviour would be to limit this effect, rather than the plunder the stupid yourself.
- "and therefore more political/social power".
again, this does not automatically follow. It is possible to restrict the influence of money on politics.

So, you see, there's a lot of alternatives that can be done that are more ethical than either of your proposed alternatives ("cheat stupid yourself" and "do nothing and let 'evil' people do whatever they want"). I am sure you've heard the saying: "evil wins when good people do nothing"...

[Nova Andromeda]

--You are fairly new here so I'll cut you some slack. Your entire argument falls appart once you realize that society can and does enforce laws and just because someone rationalizes unethical behavior it doesn't necessarily mean they will get away with it or that society won't be able to enforce laws against it.

Huh? I don't understand what you are getting at. I wasn't talking about the practicability in the real world. I was talking about how that concept of ethical behaviour would be useless, because everything minus the absolute worst action could be subsumed under it.
It's kind of like saying everybody is only acting out of self-interest, including the "corrupt politician" (obvious) as well as "the poor people who share what little they have with those even poorer without expecting anything back" (they do it for the good, fuzzy feeling, those egotistic bastards).

If you don't like that argument: I don't buy any of the premises:
-> "the dumb shits cannot be protected from this"
not perfectly, but a lot of things can and is being done to limit the abuse.
-> "and this leads to unethical people having more cash"
this is not a given either. You could argue that the ethical behaviour would be to limit this effect, rather than the plunder the stupid yourself.
- "and therefore more political/social power".
again, this does not automatically follow. It is possible to restrict the influence of money on politics.

So, you see, there's a lot of alternatives that can be done that are more ethical than either of your proposed alternatives ("cheat stupid yourself" and "do nothing and let 'evil' people do whatever they want"). I am sure you've heard the saying: "evil wins when good people do nothing"...

--Your first argument doesn't make any sense at all. Are you trying to say that an action isn't ethical if society enforces it?
--Your second set of arguments don't work either since they are contrary to the facts of reality: unless unethical behavior (that is beneficial to the individual) is sufficiently detered by society those actions benefit the individual. You seem to also think that I propose that society not try to make rules for the benefit society where possible. That isn't true. However, there are circumstances where society either fails to make such rules or can't make them.

[R. U. Serious]

The quote implies you are replying to me, yet you and me seem to talk about totally different things. I honestly don't see any connection between wht you are writing and what I was saying.

I will try to rephrase my arguments, if it doesn't work, we'll blame it on the language barrier and I'll retreat here

1) I am saying, that you if you expand the concept of "ethical behaviour" such, that cheating people becomes ethical because of a kind of "butterfly-effect", then the concept of ethic as you have redefined is not very useful anymore. (see, nothing about enforcement or rules or anything). That is the main gist of my argument.

2) Im my second set of arguments, I am again not saying anything about the rules of society. What I am basically saying, is that you present a false dillema: Good people either cheat stupid people out of their money, or they watch as meaner people cheat stupid people out of their money. In reality there is no such dilemma, because there are lots of alternative paths of actions for an individual to act ethically that concerns this very issue. Therefore, I say, you do not get to redefine "ethical" to include cheating stupid people out of their money. As one alternative, I propose a more ethical course of action would include acting in such a way, that your premises do not hold (and that includes a little bit of "rules of society"; but not in a context like you framed it).