I have an ethical and morality question.
What is your opinion on this situation.
Take three actors: Person X, Person Y, and Person Z
Person X and Person Y have a mutual relationship with Person Z.
Person Y commits an ethical infraction that greatly harms Person X. Person X is dealing with serious personal consequences as a result of Person Y's behavior. Person X tries to confront Person Y about his behavior but he is unresponsive.
Frustrated, Person X turns to Person Z regarding the situation. He explains the situation and the consequences that he suffered as a result, and requests that Person Z confront Person Y.
Person Z responds that "What ever he has done is between you and him, and it is none of my business." Person X reiterates that Person Y commited a serious ethical breach that has caused him great personal harm, he further explains that Person Y is continuing in the harmful behavior and is not relenting. Person Z responds again that "it's not any of my business, if I confront him he will get mad becuase I am meddling in his business and thus harm my relationship with Person Y which I don't want to do."
What is your take on person Z's stance. Is it ethical for Person Z to sit back and do nothing knowing the harm Person Y's actions have caused person X. Would it be moral for Person Z to go on with Person Y as if nothing happenned, with the attitude of "whatever's going on between him and person X is none of my business and has nothing to do with my relationship with Person Y or Person X.)
Is Person Z a person that Person X can trust as a result of this incident?
Discuss.
[/i]
Need Comments Discussion On Ethics/Morality Scenario
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
I'd say no, Z's action wasn't really ethical because possibly harming a relationship when someone is acting cruelly does not sit in balance with stopping the harm. It's like refusing to cross the street to help someone because you might trip. If Person Y is so unreasonable as to get angry at Person Z for being asked to stop something destructive to a mutual friend then Y really needs to go find a hole to bury himself in and save us all from their enlightened bullshit.
So Z has shown a willingness to give total preference to Y's relationship with them over X's wellbeing. That's the very definition of an untrustworthy person--even when I'm being hurt, they can't be counted on to have my back.
So Z has shown a willingness to give total preference to Y's relationship with them over X's wellbeing. That's the very definition of an untrustworthy person--even when I'm being hurt, they can't be counted on to have my back.
I leaning towards that analysis.
But I do want to play devils advocate here and make some counterpoints.
Person Z would argue that person Person X is in the wrong for getting Person Z involved in a situation that is not any of his business, and clearly has no interest in being involved in.
Person Z would also argue that is wrong to involve oneself in other people's business without permission. Person Y did not authorize Person Z to get involved so it would be an immoral act against Person Y for Person Z to but in. Furthermore if Person Z was in person Ys place he wouldn't want an outsider to the situation to butt into his business.
But I do want to play devils advocate here and make some counterpoints.
Person Z would argue that person Person X is in the wrong for getting Person Z involved in a situation that is not any of his business, and clearly has no interest in being involved in.
Person Z would also argue that is wrong to involve oneself in other people's business without permission. Person Y did not authorize Person Z to get involved so it would be an immoral act against Person Y for Person Z to but in. Furthermore if Person Z was in person Ys place he wouldn't want an outsider to the situation to butt into his business.
Business!? Mankind is my business!Lord MJ wrote:Person Z would argue that person Person X is in the wrong for getting Person Z involved in a situation that is not any of his business, and clearly has no interest in being involved in.
Not enough? Alright. Person Z is clearly silly--no man is an island. X is asking Z to intervene on his behalf to cause the ending of suffering, something X has great reason to believe Z has the capacity does. In this scenario Z believes the same thing, otherwise we wouldn't have this problem. We could just say "Can't help! Sorry!"
So for Z not to interevene is unethical, and Z really should intervene on their own. Business has nothing to do with it. If someone's 'business' involves hurting people, especially friends, then that person should go out of 'business' as fast as possible. Z has a responsibility as a good person to do something, and even if they don't want to, that doesn't mean their actions are still unethical and earns them an untrustworthy mark in X's book.
If Z is fine with being thought of as untrustworthy and a poor friend, then I suppose that's where it'll end, but if Z wants to feel guiltless in this, they need to step in.
One doesn't need permission to involve themselves in someone's hurtful, destructive behaviors. There's a big debate about if it's okay to stop someone from hurting themselves if they want to (ie, smoking, overeating, watching FOX news), but even beyond that, this is about stopping someone from hurting someone else after that victim is asking for your assistance.Lord MJ wrote:Person Z would also argue that is wrong to involve oneself in other people's business without permission. Person Y did not authorize Person Z to get involved so it would be an immoral act against Person Y for Person Z to but in. Furthermore if Person Z was in person Ys place he wouldn't want an outsider to the situation to butt into his business.
Obviously, if Z had a bucket of water and someone was on fire, it's pretty reasonable to assume he'd douse the flaming person. If Z doesn't want to 'interefere', that's unethical and wrong, since someone's on fire for crying out loud. If Z's reluctance is based in their fear of annoying Y (let's say Y asked for a bucket of water), then Z and Y both need to realize that ceasing a real, objective harm supercedes a vague, merely potential subjective harm/annoyance/inconvenience. This is Pain versus Pleasure Denial to a pair of 3rd Parties.
Y's desire to cause harm, directly or indirectly but knowingly, doesn't give him a right to do so. Z doesn't need Y's permission to stop Y from behaving destructively, especially for the benefit of X. Z's desire to be left alone in a similar circumstance is a purely subjective want, and has nothing to do with a moral or ethical decision. If I killed Ann Coulter, I'd prefer not to go to Jail, but this is not enough justification for me to stop caring about murder, or for me to expect someone else not to care if I carry through on it.
How so exactly. Nothing wrong with W deciding to have some balls and a sense of morals and confront Person Y over his antics...drachefly wrote:What Z might be thinking of is this scenario:
Y is apparently harming X.
X knows about Z and could ask for help.
W tells Z to get Y to stop harming X.
In THAT case, a 'mind your own business' response would be somewhat defensible.
Perhaps on a more basic level, why would Person Z be alright with Person Y performing a "serious ethical breach" to another person? If I learned that my friend was acting unethically towards anyone, I would raise the point - "Dude, why are you doing that?" The fact that I know the person being violated makes no difference with regards to altruism - I should be against unethical activity on principle. If Person Y is knowingly and callously performing serious ethical breaches to other people, then our friendship is at stake, since I don't associate with such people. Thus, it is very much my business!
Additionally, if a friend (Person X) approaches me with a serious issue that he believes cannot be resolved without my intervention, then, as a friend, that becomes my business as well - even if I didn't know Person Y. That's two ways in which the issue is "my business."
Additionally, if a friend (Person X) approaches me with a serious issue that he believes cannot be resolved without my intervention, then, as a friend, that becomes my business as well - even if I didn't know Person Y. That's two ways in which the issue is "my business."
"As James ascended the spiral staircase towards the tower in a futile attempt to escape his tormentors, he pondered the irony of being cornered in a circular room."
Yeah, but that's not how my scenario went. W was telling Z to confront Y instead.Lord MJ wrote:How so exactly. Nothing wrong with W deciding to have some balls and a sense of morals and confront Person Y over his antics...drachefly wrote:What Z might be thinking of is this scenario:
Y is apparently harming X.
X knows about Z and could ask for help.
W tells Z to get Y to stop harming X.
In THAT case, a 'mind your own business' response would be somewhat defensible.
I agree that W confronting Y would be reasonable.
In any case, I would go to X first and find out how serious it actually is. Maybe there's some specific reason that X is permitting Y's behavior. Perhaps it is in some hidden way beneficial. Perhaps Y is a slippery character, and X is gathering evidence so that when the confrontation occurs it will not be contestible.
On the other hand, maybe X doesn't understand how rotten Y is being, is a wimp, or doesn't understand the degree of support he could receive from Z.
So, Z could/should go to X first and gather/give the relevant information, and only THEN act, based on that. And, in my example, so should W.
Lets say person Z has the philosophy (if person Y wasn't my brother I would stand up for Person X, but because he's my brother its a situation I can not help person X because if it comes between Person Y and Person X, Person Y wins because he's my flesh and blood.)
Does anyone feel that that is an ethically or morally justifiable stance for person Z to take?
Does anyone feel that that is an ethically or morally justifiable stance for person Z to take?
No. "Family loyalty" means you should try to mitigate the negative consequences of your family members' actions, but that doesn't mean you condone, support, or look the other way while such actions occur.Lord MJ wrote:Lets say person Z has the philosophy (if person Y wasn't my brother I would stand up for Person X, but because he's my brother its a situation I can not help person X because if it comes between Person Y and Person X, Person Y wins because he's my flesh and blood.)
Does anyone feel that that is an ethically or morally justifiable stance for person Z to take?
"As James ascended the spiral staircase towards the tower in a futile attempt to escape his tormentors, he pondered the irony of being cornered in a circular room."
-
wolveraptor
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4042
- Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm
Look up "nepotism".
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
But of course now with Person Y being Person Z's brother, it raises the question that intervening on Person X's behalf could and probably would harm Person Z's relationship with her older brother (since Person Y would not respond well to Person Z getting involved in something he feels is none of her business) and being her older brother, Person Y is not likely to listen to Person Z. So it would take near harrasment level repeated prodding for Person Y to relent which would certainly harm the relationship.
So now in this case Person Y is clearly a more valuable relationship to Person Z than Person X.
So is it ethical for Person Z to say that since Person Y is more valuable to me than Person X it is ok for me to disregard Person X's request since heeding it would harm a more important relationship?
Going further could Person Z make the argument that it is even more unethical and even selfish of Person X to ask Person Z to do something that would injure her relationship with her brother (even if that brother is engaged in some pretty destructive behavior that is harming Person X)?
So now in this case Person Y is clearly a more valuable relationship to Person Z than Person X.
So is it ethical for Person Z to say that since Person Y is more valuable to me than Person X it is ok for me to disregard Person X's request since heeding it would harm a more important relationship?
Going further could Person Z make the argument that it is even more unethical and even selfish of Person X to ask Person Z to do something that would injure her relationship with her brother (even if that brother is engaged in some pretty destructive behavior that is harming Person X)?