Do No Harm - Main Tenet of Ethics or Complete Bullshit?

[Justforfun000]

MJ, you have embroiled yourself in the worst kind of argument: the kind where you must convince a stubborn, irrational opponent that you are right and he is wrong.

It's sad that this is the most common type of argument that is at the heart of our biggest social issues. I guess the only good thing about the political arena is that everyone DOES have the opportunity to listen in, and (ostensibly) make a vote on who makes sense.

[Lord MJ]

MJ, you have embroiled yourself in the worst kind of argument: the kind where you must convince a stubborn, irrational opponent that you are right and he is wrong. Ideally, one argues either with intelligent people or with an audience present, with the objective of impressing the audience rather than the opponent.

Yeah, I'm beginning arguing with this person is futile. Especially given that he finds the whole idea of an action being unethical because it causes harm to be personally offensive and a result of a bad thought process. Actually was told by this moron that I should seek some professional help due to said thought process.

The thing is that the prevailing values of our society don't jive at all with the notion that right and wrong is determined by harm. Some legal issues maybe, but non-legal interpersonal issues are not. This is especially true in a culture where pride, ego, and self interest are championed. So most people would reject my argument as crazy.

He tried to give some counter examples

If I'm working with you (partner, co-worker) and you say something that offends or insults me I am completely justified in "ex-communicating" you. I am being perfectly ethical. Sure harm was caused, but I am perfectly justified in blocking someone that insults me out of my life, and I have the right to do that. Whatever harm is done to you as a result, you have only himself to blame.

If I was with someone who suffers from severe depression and I am aware of it, and I know he/she values me, and that person pisses me off one day and I tell him/her to "Go Fuck Yourself" and that person commits suicide, then under you ethical system I am unethical which is bullshit. Sure I caused harm, but the fault rests with the person who's behavior justifies my behavior and I won't lose any sleep over it. The idea that an action is unethical because it causes harm is RIDICULOUS!

Even if this person was reasonable, I can't think of an argument that isn't circular reasoning or relies on the assumption that causing harm is bad (which he rejects).

[PeZook]

Even if this person was reasonable, I can't think of an argument that isn't circular reasoning or relies on the assumption that causing harm is bad (which he rejects).

How about the ultimate test of utilitarian ethics?

I'm not sure if I'm not strawmanning his argument here, though, so be wary ;

What would happen if everyone in society acted like he advocates? Ie. didn't give a fuck about anybody else and anything except their own convenience? (Like quitting their fucking jobs when your project administrator stutters. Though I'm not sure this is exactly convenient)

I'd wager you'd be seeing a lot less firefighters, for one.

Ultimately, an ethical system has to generate useful guidelines for making ethical decisions, that are beneficial to society as well as yourself. Show that his system doesn't allow for such, and you've pretty much won.

But as I said, be wary. It would be best to ask him to clarify his position again and then attack this clarification, to avoid strawmanning.

[Darth Wong]

Ask him why the medical code of ethics and the engineering code of ethics both emphasize the importance of not causing harm, if society does indeed not consider harm to be an ethics breach. Point out that doctors and engineers are particularly highly regarded professions in terms of ethics. What's he going to do, cite the lawyer's ethics code?

[Lord MJ]

Even if this person was reasonable, I can't think of an argument that isn't circular reasoning or relies on the assumption that causing harm is bad (which he rejects).

How about the ultimate test of utilitarian ethics?

I'm not sure if I'm not strawmanning his argument here, though, so be wary ;

What would happen if everyone in society acted like he advocates? Ie. didn't give a fuck about anybody else and anything except their own convenience? (Like quitting their fucking jobs when your project administrator stutters. Though I'm not sure this is exactly convenient)

I'd wager you'd be seeing a lot less firefighters, for one.

Ultimately, an ethical system has to generate useful guidelines for making ethical decisions, that are beneficial to society as well as yourself. Show that his system doesn't allow for such, and you've pretty much won.

But as I said, be wary. It would be best to ask him to clarify his position again and then attack this clarification, to avoid strawmanning.

His position rejects everything about utilitarianism since he said that nobody is obligated to place anyone's interests above his own.

But I doubt he will answer the question since he would probably not be concerned about the state of society.

If he did he would say that the only people that things would only be bad for people that are strange and abnormal. Everyone else will be happy.

Stating that something would be beneficial to society especially when that something goes against what is generally accepted is not going to convince him at all that his view of ethics is wrong.

[Lord MJ]

Ask him why the medical code of ethics and the engineering code of ethics both emphasize the importance of not causing harm, if society does indeed not consider harm to be an ethics breach. Point out that doctors and engineers are particularly highly regarded professions in terms of ethics. What's he going to do, cite the lawyer's ethics code?

Well this person just graduated from law school....

But he would argue that engineering and medical ethics do not apply to ethics of interpersonal interaction.

[Darth Wong]

Ask him why the medical code of ethics and the engineering code of ethics both emphasize the importance of not causing harm, if society does indeed not consider harm to be an ethics breach. Point out that doctors and engineers are particularly highly regarded professions in terms of ethics. What's he going to do, cite the lawyer's ethics code?

Well this person just graduated from law school....

That explains it right there.

But he would argue that engineering and medical ethics do not apply to ethics of interpersonal interaction.

Doctors and engineers don't interact with people in the course of their work?

[PeZook]

His position rejects everything about utilitarianism since he said that nobody is obligated to place anyone's interests above his own.

Did he justify this? Societies work based on co-operation and provide him cerain services ; society at large then expects him to contribute something in return, by working a certain job, entering a public service etc. - and, also, to obey laws, regulations and cultural norms. In this way, society expects him to put at least some interests above his own (for example, to pay taxes and call 911 in emergencies). So, can he justify not being obligated to do this despite being indebted to society by virtue of using its services?

But I doubt he will answer the question since he would probably not be concerned about the state of society.

Why isn't he? Doesn't he see that a functioning society is the only reason for his profession to exist? Nobody needs lawyers in an anarchy.

If he did he would say that the only people that things would only be bad for people that are strange and abnormal. Everyone else will be happy.

The problem is that everyone is abnormal or irritating in some way or another to somebody, somewhere. If everyone acted like he advocates, co-operation between people would be impossible.

Two examples: engineering projects and romance.

In an engineering project, you have to co-operate with dozens (or even hundreds) of people in order to finish the project. Now, assume that everyone involved follows this idiot's code of ethics. Thus, if someone else they have to cooperate with irritates them (say, he likes to say 'like' a lot) they shun him, avoid all contact or even quit the project.

Since everyone does that to everyone else, co-operation is impossible and the project fails. No work gets done, society suffers. Apply it on a large enough scale, and nothing is doable at all.

In romance: it would be impossible to find a partner in such a situation, since everyone would look for a perfect partner who doesn't have any irritating flaws at all - his ethical system dictates that he's justified in dumping an irritating partner. Since this is impossible to achieve, society degenerates if everyone follows this guy's code of ethics.

Stating that something would be beneficial to society especially when that something goes against what is generally accepted is not going to convince him at all that his view of ethics is wrong.

I hope the above examples will help. If he doesn't understand that a valid ethical system is supposed to funtion in human society as well as for individuals, then you may call him an idiot with a perfectly clear conscience.

[Lord MJ]

Did he justify this? Societies work based on co-operation and provide him cerain services ; society at large then expects him to contribute something in return, by working a certain job, entering a public service etc. - and, also, to obey laws, regulations and cultural norms. In this way, society expects him to put at least some interests above his own (for example, to pay taxes and call 911 in emergencies). So, can he justify not being obligated to do this despite being indebted to society by virtue of using its services?

He would argue he is satisfying those obligations, he's working a job, obeying laws, observing norms. He wouldn't feel ethically deficient in this regard.

Why isn't he? Doesn't he see that a functioning society is the only reason for his profession to exist? Nobody needs lawyers in an anarchy.

He isn't calling for anarchy, he's disputing the idea that he needs to place another person's interests above his own, his needs ALWAYS come first in his mind.

The problem is that everyone is abnormal or irritating in some way or another to somebody, somewhere. If everyone acted like he advocates, co-operation between people would be impossible.

He would argue that a lot of those things that are irritating are common enough among a significant number of people that they are considered normal. People in general will be comfortable with those. Its the behaviors that fall outside of the norms and are considered strange, that the majority of people would be irritated or alienated by, that fall outside of what most people would expect that would justify people acting like he advocates, if those behaviors involve interaction. Bad oral communication and interpersonal skills fit within that category in his mind.

In an engineering project, you have to co-operate with dozens (or even hundreds) of people in order to finish the project. Now, assume that everyone involved follows this idiot's code of ethics. Thus, if someone else they have to cooperate with irritates them (say, he likes to say 'like' a lot) they shun him, avoid all contact or even quit the project.

In his mind, if the offender was a project member, people would avoid all contact, and actively campaign to have the offending member removed, and they would be justified in doing so. He would only have himself to blame. If he was the leader people would very little patience with him, and it would be unreasonable to expect people to be cooperative or respect his authority. People would not be willing to tolerate him getting on their cases about issues since he is already irritating already, him now harassing them or chewing them out, would be the final straw. "People have little patience for that in personal relationships, they would have even less in a business environment. Who wants to work with a leader that you can hardly hear and stutters all the time?"

Since everyone does that to everyone else, co-operation is impossible and the project fails. No work gets done, society suffers. Apply it on a large enough scale, and nothing is doable at all.

Everyone doesn't do that to everyone else, just those that don't conform.

In romance: it would be impossible to find a partner in such a situation, since everyone would look for a perfect partner who doesn't have any irritating flaws at all - his ethical system dictates that he's justified in dumping an irritating partner. Since this is impossible to achieve, society degenerates if everyone follows this guy's code of ethics.

In his mind only those that are non conformers will have problems.

I hope the above examples will help. If he doesn't understand that a valid ethical system is supposed to funtion in human society as well as for individuals, then you may call him an idiot with a perfectly clear conscience.

I imagine that I will have to play the idiot card with this guy... Under his ethics system though, he would be perfectly justified in "ex-communicating" me if I do. (May turn out not to be a bad thing, I'm starting to think...)

[Lord MJ]

Hmm, I've been thinking about


If an action doesn't cause harm (or potential harm) it is not wrong or unethical.

All actions are assumed to be ethical unless harm can be demonstrated.

If an action causes harm it is assumed to be unethical unless a compelling justification can be made for the harm.

The only way to demonstrate that an action that causes harm is not unethical is to

a. Demonstrate some harm (or reasonable potential harm) that is serious enough that causing harm is justified.
b. That causing the harm is necessary in order to stop the justifying harm.

Most of his ethics would not work in such a scenario, given that being irritated (with no intent to irritate for that matter) is not serious enough a harm to justify the harm to the other person. And it certainly is not necessary.

Expanding on this, I would say that actions are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the effects (or the potential effects.) Actions are not wrong the harm the produce is wrong. Actions don't justify actions, effects justify effects.

Under this system ANY action could be ethical or unethical depending on circumstances, even killing someone.

Ethically you could justify killing if you demonstrate those two criteria, that there is a harm serious enough to justify killing (very few things, difficult to demonstrate), and after that that killing is necessary to stop or prevent the harm (maybe even harder).

It wouldn't be easy by any means, in fact its very difficult (finding a harm serious enough to justify killing someone) but it is possible. Don't know if such reasoning would hold up in court, but I think with a competant judge and a competant jury (oxymoron) it would be enough to clear a defendant out of manslaughter and into justified killing. (If the person provided a harm serious enough but not necessity, then that would go to manslaughter territory. If he demonstrated necessity but not a harm serious enough or neither, then we are looking at a sociopath and full blown murder would apply.)

Kindof went off topic, but the same logic can be applied in reverse. You can demonstrate an action that causes harm as unethical by pointing out a lack of a harm serious enough to justify the harm caused by the action, or a lack of necessity.

Of course this guy will reject this logic because there are actions that cause harm that are commonly accepted as okay. Therefore the logic is wrong.

Furthermore I would imagine that many people would say "Under this ethical system killing can be justified, killing is always wrong and evil! Therefore this ethical system is flawed and evil!"[/i]

[PeZook]

He would argue he is satisfying those obligations, he's working a job, obeying laws, observing norms. He wouldn't feel ethically deficient in this regard.

He insists acting like an asshole to people who irritate him is justifiable, so I guess he isn't quite following these norms.

He isn't calling for anarchy, he's disputing the idea that he needs to place another person's interests above his own, his needs ALWAYS come first in his mind.

I don't really know how else to phrase this, and it may be I don't clearly understand his position because I'm arguing by proxy...but what does it mean his own interest always comes before others? Is he arguing that when he sees a person bleeding to death in the street he shouldn't help, because it's inconvenient? Or perhaps he should help, unless he's on his way to meet an important client? What about friends and family, if they ask for help, does his ethical system dictate that he should only help them when it doesn't inconvenience him?

He would argue that a lot of those things that are irritating are common enough among a significant number of people that they are considered normal.

Not to everyone, and that's my point. How do you determine if something is "normal"? If I, personally, accept his ethical system and am irritated by stupid, antisocial, egoistic shits like him, am I justified in screwing him over during a work assignment, causing him to loose a client? Or do we hold a vote or something?

People in general will be comfortable with those. Its the behaviors that fall outside of the norms and are considered strange, that the majority of people would be irritated or alienated by, that fall outside of what most people would expect that would justify people acting like he advocates, if those behaviors involve interaction.

Okay, so if a Russian comes to visit an kisses him on the cheeks (a common way to greet people in Russia), and it makes him feel queasy, he's perfectly justified in packing him back on the plane? Even if this Russian is a client of his boss, and received instructions to accomodate the guest and make him feel comfortable?

If I understand this right, his belief system posits that everyone should conform to "widely accepted" social norms, or face threat of alienation, right? Or not?

Bad oral communication and interpersonal skills fit within that category in his mind.

In some cultures, you are expected to respect your boss even if he's an asshole to you. So which is it - are you justified in alienating someone based on wider cultural norms or your personal dislike of certain characteristics of a person? These do conflict a lot.

In his mind, if the offender was a project member, people would avoid all contact, and actively campaign to have the offending member removed, and they would be justified in doing so.

What if he's an essential specialist who cannot be easily replaced? Is he arguing that these criteria overrule all other considerations? Is delaying an important project for, say, six months justified because of communication problems with this one person, in his mind?

I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'm really trying to see if his "ethical system" is really a proper system or just some excuse thought up to not have to go through the inconvenience of cooperating with irritating people.

He would only have himself to blame. If he was the leader people would very little patience with him, and it would be unreasonable to expect people to be cooperative or respect his authority.

Well, utilitarianism posits that it would only be unreasonable if the effort required to do so reduced the utility of the project. It's a more sensible approach, because it allows for special circumstances and problems (like the "essential specialist" one)

People would not be willing to tolerate him getting on their cases about issues since he is already irritating already, him now harassing them or chewing them out, would be the final straw. "People have little patience for that in personal relationships, they would have even less in a business environment. Who wants to work with a leader that you can hardly hear and stutters all the time?"

Why does he think people would have less patience in business? Business sometimes demands you cooperate with people you don't particularly like. Or does his ethical system not differentiate between demands placed on a person in a personal relationships and a professional environment?

Everyone doesn't do that to everyone else, just those that don't conform.

There are more of those people than you think. Unless his ideal society is one that forces everyone to behave in a "proper" way and doesn't allow for deviations.

In his mind only those that are non conformers will have problems.

Yeah, so? Society doesn't regulate every norm and behaviour, and some of the behaviours it doesn't regulate can be irritating.

I imagine that I will have to play the idiot card with this guy... Under his ethics system though, he would be perfectly justified in "ex-communicating" me if I do. (May turn out not to be a bad thing, I'm starting to think...)

Well, it's really too bad if his ethical system allows him to conveniently escape having to defend his position and resolve conflicts

[Lord MJ]

He insists acting like an asshole to people who irritate him is justifiable, so I guess he isn't quite following these norms.

Oh he is following social norms. I can gaurantee that. Its just that those norms, along with the vast majority of society in general are idiotic. (Don't think he would respond well to me saying that the majority of people are idiots though, if will only further set in his mind that I need professional help.) Regarding professional norms, he is completely clueless and he's being outrageously hard headed about that.

I don't really know how else to phrase this, and it may be I don't clearly understand his position because I'm arguing by proxy...but what does it mean his own interest always comes before others? Is he arguing that when he sees a person bleeding to death in the street he shouldn't help, because it's inconvenient? Or perhaps he should help, unless he's on his way to meet an important client? What about friends and family, if they ask for help, does his ethical system dictate that he should only help them when it doesn't inconvenience him?

Have no idea, but I think he would agree that he should help someone bleeding to death. About friends and family asking him for help, he would agree if it is inconvenient or if he doesn't want to do it then he doesn't have to (except maybe for close family members, have no idea. Friends, definately not.)

Not to everyone, and that's my point. How do you determine if something is "normal"? If I, personally, accept his ethical system and am irritated by stupid, antisocial, egoistic shits like him, am I justified in screwing him over during a work assignment, causing him to loose a client? Or do we hold a vote or something?

Tolian Soran: "Normal is what everyone else is and you are not..."

In his mind though, it would be unacceptable for you to treat him that way since he is just just behaving as a normal person would. And he would probably retaliate harshly

Okay, so if a Russian comes to visit an kisses him on the cheeks (a common way to greet people in Russia), and it makes him feel queasy, he's perfectly justified in packing him back on the plane? Even if this Russian is a client of his boss, and received instructions to accomodate the guest and make him feel comfortable?

I think I could unravel his entire argument with this, but he is too hard headed to admit that he's full of shit. He would probably say that is different because working with other cultures is a part of business and life today. Whoops. How is that different from working with someone that behaves in a way contrary to your notions. I would love to see him spin to try to eat his way out of that one. But he has a strong personality, and doesn't respect my authority so I really doubt that point would dissuade him from his position nor will he think whatever bullshit he comes up with to argue my point would be actually bullshit.

If I understand this right, his belief system posits that everyone should conform to "widely accepted" social norms, or face threat of alienation, right? Or not?

Yes. If you do not, nobody is to blame for the harm they do to you as a result, all the blame and the fault lies solely on you.

In some cultures, you are expected to respect your boss even if he's an asshole to you. So which is it - are you justified in alienating someone based on wider cultural norms or your personal dislike of certain characteristics of a person? These do conflict a lot.

That used to be a norm in this culture, but now is not. He won't care what other cultures have to say.

What if he's an essential specialist who cannot be easily replaced? Is he arguing that these criteria overrule all other considerations? Is delaying an important project for, say, six months justified because of communication problems with this one person, in his mind?

I have no idea what he thinks in a traditional workplace enviornment, though he would probably still think actively trying to get him removed, or complaining to him or to his superiors would be ethical. Project is important and all, but I shouldn't have to sacrifice my happiness because of it. If it was a small person start up partnership, then telling the offending partner "I'm not going to deal with you anymore" is justified in his mind.

I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'm really trying to see if his "ethical system" is really a proper system or just some excuse thought up to not have to go through the inconvenience of cooperating with irritating people.

It is an excuse and a pretty lame set of excuses at that. Honestly this guy doesn't really think about ethics too much. He has no ethical system. He just assumes how he behaves is perfectly ethical, and how society behaves in general is perfectly ethical. He uses common behavior as a validator of how he behaves. And doesn't give much thought to it. It's only after being challenged that his idea of behavior is unethical that he tried to defend it as being ethical.

Well, utilitarianism posits that it would only be unreasonable if the effort required to do so reduced the utility of the project. It's a more sensible approach, because it allows for special circumstances and problems (like the "essential specialist" one)

Of course it's more sensible. But the utility of the project would be a low priority in his mind. His mindset would be "Is the utility of this project to me justify the unhappiness I have to deal with." The utility of the project in general would not mean a thing to him.

Why does he think people would have less patience in business? Business sometimes demands you cooperate with people you don't particularly like. Or does his ethical system not differentiate between demands placed on a person in a personal relationships and a professional environment?

He is just looking a common behavior, his understanding of people's mindsets, his sociology background, and his own attitude. It's a complete appeal to selfishness.. but his argument is that "if a person is my friend then I would feel some need to tolerate his behavior for a limited amount of time. If I'm in a business relationship though and this person is not my friend then my patience for his behavior will be very limited. I refuse to waste too much of my time dealing with it."

There are more of those people than you think. Unless his ideal society is one that forces everyone to behave in a "proper" way and doesn't allow for deviations.

Some irritating acts he would probably support legal remedies for (while in truth there are already legal remedies, any action could be considered harassment in this country... which has civil and criminal penalties.) But outside of that he does agree that socially forced via harm is ok. If you don't want to be harmed, don't engage in deviant behavior.

Yeah, so? Society doesn't regulate every norm and behaviour, and some of the behaviours it doesn't regulate can be irritating.

Legal system doesn't but people do.

Well, it's really too bad if his ethical system allows him to conveniently escape having to defend his position and resolve conflicts

Yeah it is sad. But in his mind, "Calling someone an idiot is rude and offensive and assholish, they have every right to tell you to go fuck yourself if you do, if you don't see that something is wrong with you."

However regardless of everything discussed in this thread, his view is that people have the right to terminate their associations with other people whenever they want and for whatever reason they choose. So that quashes the whole idea of that being unethical right there.

How do you argue against such stupidity.

[PeZook]

Oh he is following social norms. I can gaurantee that. Its just that those norms, along with the vast majority of society in general are idiotic. (Don't think he would respond well to me saying that the majority of people are idiots though, if will only further set in his mind that I need professional help.) Regarding professional norms, he is completely clueless and he's being outrageously hard headed about that.

Well, in my culture, alienating people because of flaws they can't control (or have little influence on) is considered to be incredibly assholish. So I guess I can use his own little belief system and call him that, since he's guaranteed to be thought of this way if he ever comes here and starts spouting his bullshit

Have no idea, but I think he would agree that he should help someone bleeding to death. About friends and family asking him for help, he would agree if it is inconvenient or if he doesn't want to do it then he doesn't have to (except maybe for close family members, have no idea. Friends, definately not.)

I honestly don't believe American society views "not helping your friend if it would be inconvenient" as commonly accepted behavior.

Tolian Soran: "Normal is what everyone else is and you are not..."

In his mind though, it would be unacceptable for you to treat him that way since he is just just behaving as a normal person would. And he would probably retaliate harshly

"Unacceptable" and "unethical" are two different things, but I guess we've established he considers all "widely accepted social norms" to be ethical by default. Hooray to gay-bashing and stoning indecent women!

I think I could unravel his entire argument with this, but he is too hard headed to admit that he's full of shit. He would probably say that is different because working with other cultures is a part of business and life today.

So is putting up with irritating bosses, project managers and colleagues needed to finish work on time and within budget. I seriously doubt his colleagues would hold him in high esteem if he hurt a project by actively campaigning against one of the harmless, but irritating team members. Some would, I guess, but most would be pissed because their boss would chew them out one by one for delays and bickering.

Whoops. How is that different from working with someone that behaves in a way contrary to your notions. I would love to see him spin to try to eat his way out of that one.

Yeah, exactly

But he has a strong personality, and doesn't respect my authority so I really doubt that point would dissuade him from his position nor will he think whatever bullshit he comes up with to argue my point would be actually bullshit.

Ah, so he's the type who won't accept an argument unless it's from someone he views as an authority. What wonderful pack mentality. He needs an Alpha male to argue with, all other males are inferior by default

Yes. If you do not, nobody is to blame for the harm they do to you as a result, all the blame and the fault lies solely on you.

This is the same logic that makes people blame rape victims for wearing indecent clothes. If it's acceptable to cause harm to somebody because that somebody doesn't conform to social norms, it's acceptable to do great harm to someone who grossly violates these norms. Like, say, gays in Medieval society. Or witches.

That used to be a norm in this culture, but now is not. He won't care what other cultures have to say.

Oh, yeah. I forgot other cultures don't matter to self-centered assholes.

I have no idea what he thinks in a traditional workplace enviornment, though he would probably still think actively trying to get him removed, or complaining to him or to his superiors would be ethical. Project is important and all, but I shouldn't have to sacrifice my happiness because of it. If it was a small person start up partnership, then telling the offending partner "I'm not going to deal with you anymore" is justified in his mind.

So in his mind, you're basically justified in screwing your partner over in the middle of a project? I can't possibly see how that's an acceptable social norm anywhere. Even the most primitive societes had an "honor your agreements" rule, even if it was informal. He'd certainly be viewed as a complete dick over here, anyway.

It is an excuse and a pretty lame set of excuses at that. Honestly this guy doesn't really think about ethics too much. He has no ethical system. He just assumes how he behaves is perfectly ethical, and how society behaves in general is perfectly ethical. He uses common behavior as a validator of how he behaves. And doesn't give much thought to it. It's only after being challenged that his idea of behavior is unethical that he tried to defend it as being ethical.

Ah. This would explain a lot - a simple cause of somebody making up justifications for their behavior post hoc. Unfortunately, it's an all too common psychological mechanism.

He is just looking a common behavior, his understanding of people's mindsets, his sociology background, and his own attitude. It's a complete appeal to selfishness.. but his argument is that "if a person is my friend then I would feel some need to tolerate his behavior for a limited amount of time. If I'm in a business relationship though and this person is not my friend then my patience for his behavior will be very limited. I refuse to waste too much of my time dealing with it."

Again, I see that one time, he sees common social norms as what he should follow, and then he switches to self-interest. So which one is it, for fuck's sake? People expect you to honor your agreements at work, so if you signed an agreement accepting certain responsibilities, it's not viewed well if you break them because they're inconvenient to you. And, if you want to quit, you should give fair notice to your employer beforehand.

Again, over here, behavior he advocates would be considered completely assholish. It's just not the way adults deal with conflicts.

Some irritating acts he would probably support legal remedies for (while in truth there are already legal remedies, any action could be considered harassment in this country... which has civil and criminal penalties.) But outside of that he does agree that socially forced via harm is ok. If you don't want to be harmed, don't engage in deviant behavior.

Nice. Really says a lot. He basically supports the worst part of small, isolated or conservative societies - lack of tolerance for difference and change. Racism is but a slight modification of this ideology - after all, if only god-fearing white folk are accepted, then the strange black man is not and should be driven out of town, right? Same goes for atheists, gays and other undesirables.

Legal system doesn't but people do.

What I meant was that depending on society, some behaviors may be seen as a little odd, while being irritating, but not draw the kind of extreme responce. Say, in here, it doesn't really matter if you shake a woman's hand or kiss it when greeting her, though kissing her hand is seen as a bit anachronistic and quiant. I'd guess it still technically falls under "regulated", though.

However regardless of everything discussed in this thread, his view is that people have the right to terminate their associations with other people whenever they want and for whatever reason they choose. So that quashes the whole idea of that being unethical right there.

Well, culturally speaking, you'd be viewed as a dick if you decided to terminate a relationship over a minor issue like that. Ethically speaking, depending on a system you use (any real system, not this pile of bullcrap of his) it would depend upon harm done or utility reduced or other semi-objective criterion.

So his view is not necessarily wrong in and of itself ; it all breaks down when we discuss which reasons are acceptable and which are not.

How do you argue against such stupidity.

I very much accept DW's opinion on this matter: At this point, you don't argue with the idiot, you try to win as many of the audience and you can."

And then you laugh at him for a bit and forget he ever existed a week later.

[Lord MJ]

What is your position on the manner that if you are confronted with a situation between Person A and Person B.

You don't know everything, but you know that Person B's actions have caused significant harm to Person A. While Person A's actions caused no harm to Person B.

What conclusion would you draw?

[Master of Ossus]

This guy is ridiculous. How the fuck can you go through law school and not understand that one's actions, and the results of them, form the basis for judgment. This is just a case of someone who takes the concept of mens rea to an absurd degree.

Adam Smith answered his basic argument better than I know how:

If the hurtfulness of the design, if the malevolence of the affection, were alone the causes which excited our resentment, we should feel all the furies of that passion against any person in whose breast we suspected or believed such designs or affections were harboured, though they had never broke out into any action. Sentiments, thoughts, intentions, would become the objects of punishment; and if the indignation of mankind run as high against them as against actions; if the baseness of the thought which had given birth to no action, seemed in the eyes of the world as much to call aloud for vengeance as the baseness of the action, every court of judicature would become a real inquisition. There would be no safety for the most innocent and circumspect conduct. Bad wishes, bad views, bad designs, might still be suspected; and while these excited the same indignation with bad conduct, while bad intentions were as much resented as bad actions, they would equally expose the person to punishment and resentment. Actions, therefore, which either produce actual evil, or attempt to produce it, and thereby put us in the immediate fear of it, are by the Author of nature rendered the only proper and approved objects of human punishment and resentment. Sentiments, designs, affections, though it is from these that according to cool reason human actions derive their whole merit or demerit, are placed by the great Judge of hearts beyond the limits of every human jurisdiction, and are reserved for the cognizance of his own unerring tribunal. That necessary rule of justice, therefore, that men in this life are liable to punishment for their actions only, not for their designs and intentions, is founded upon this salutary and useful irregularity in human sentiments concerning merit or demerit, which at first sight appears so absurd and unaccountable. But every part of nature, when attentively surveyed, equally demonstrates the providential care of its Author, and we may admire the wisdom and goodness of God even in the weakness and folly of man.

That's Theory of Moral Sentiments II, iii, 2.

Emphasis added.

[Lord MJ]

I want to put the utilitarian ethical model to the test and use it to analyze a real life situation I have dealt with.

Lets suppose there are two partners and a team of other partners in a startup venture, with Partner A being the technical person and founder, and Partner B being the business manager responsible for handling matters with the clients and managing the team in general. Partner A has significant financial investments in the firm, and the firm itself has financial obligations. Partner A is sort of the typical socially awkward computer guy, while Partner B is your "normal" guy with good social skills.

A situation comes up where Partner B is being irresponsible and as a result the firm is being undermined. Serious issues arise, and Partner B is not changing his behavior. In fact it's hard to even get in touch with Partner B. For example if Partner A tells Partner B to call him, and the earliest convenience for Partner B is two weeks away, then Partner B will call in 2 weeks regardless of what Partner A says, furthermore if Partner B's schedule changes then the call might come even later. Partner A becomes frustrated and starts cursing and using profanity. As the situation worsens, Partner A goes on an apeshit rant about the matter. As a result Partner B immediately ceases all communication with partner A, refuses all future contact, and abandons the venture. As a result the project crumbles, and Partner A is left with significant debt, and a project he put his heart and soul into is destroyed.

Now Lets look at this situation via both my friends ethical system, and utilitarianism. In discussing this matter with my friend I presented the utilitarian point of view his analysis was based totally on his "ethical" system.

His system:

Partner A is totally at fault in the situation, and Partner B is acting completely ethically. He was aggravated and annoyed by Partner A's social anxiety as well as his persistent and constant bothering of Partner B. Partner B has cause not to respect Partner A's authority and not cooperate or follow instructions (who would want to follow and comply with a stuttering leader). Also Partner A insulted and offended Partner B. It is a generally accepted social standard that if someone offends you, you are completely justified in immediately ceasing all communication with the offender, or "ex-communicating" them from your life. The harm that is done is totally irrelevant. Partner B is not to blame for the resulting harm of his actions, and any harm done as a result of Partner B's conduct is solely the fault of Partner A.

Utilitarian Ethics:

Partner B is totally at fault in the situation. Social awkwardness, stuttering, soft voice is NOT unethical behavior, and thus Partner B has to tolerate it due to the needs of the overlying project. Furthermore Partner B is not justified in jumping ship on partner A because what Partner A said is a reasonable interpretation and reaction of events and the conduct of Partner B. Furthermore the harm done to Partner B is almost non existent and therefore does not justify the severe amount of harm done to Partner A. Furthermore such an action does not increase the overall utility of everyone involved. It may be an increase in utility for Partner B, but for everyone involved it is a net decrease in utility, and ethically an individual is obligated to pursue the action that maximizes total utility.


I really think its a no brainer what ethical analysis is correct, but of course my friend will disagree.

I would also like to add that this person believes that any leader that has issue communicating, stutters, has a soft voice, or is strange in some way, is by definition a bad leader and others are completely justified in not respecting his authority and not cooperating with him (and pretty much being assholes to him).

[Lord MJ]

[quote="Master of Ossus"]This guy is ridiculous. How the fuck can you go through law school and not understand that one's actions, and the results of them, form the basis for judgment. This is just a case of someone who takes the concept of mens rea to an absurd degree.

The guy is arguing that the action is not wrong if it is a response to another's action, and is a commonly accepted belief that the action is justifed. If that criteria is met, a person is justified in doing the action without regard for the effects or harm done and is blameless for the harm.


In my personal opinion as I mentioned before, actions are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is harm (or potential harm that a reasonable person could forsee.) Actions don't justify harm, harm justifies harm. It is only ethical to cause harm if the harm done to you is so great that committing that harm is justified, and that there are no less harmful alternative responses available.

[phred]

part of the problem is that there are conflicting views about what "normal " is. For instance alot of people support gay marriage and abortion while there are just as many screaming about the breakdown of morality.
in your example above lets replace stuttering with flamboyantly gay. is partner B still at fault for being queer and getting on bornagain christian partner As nerves?

[Lord MJ]

part of the problem is that there are conflicting views about what "normal " is. For instance alot of people support gay marriage and abortion while there are just as many screaming about the breakdown of morality.
in your example above lets replace stuttering with flamboyantly gay. is partner B still at fault for being queer and getting on bornagain christian partner As nerves?

Actually if I understand my friend's nature. He'll probably say being openly gay only increases the justification for behaving that way... And he's not a fundamentalist Christian by any definition.

[Master of Ossus]

His system:

Partner A is totally at fault in the situation, and Partner B is acting completely ethically. He was aggravated and annoyed by Partner A's social anxiety as well as his persistent and constant bothering of Partner B. Partner B has cause not to respect Partner A's authority and not cooperate or follow instructions (who would want to follow and comply with a stuttering leader). Also Partner A insulted and offended Partner B. It is a generally accepted social standard that if someone offends you, you are completely justified in immediately ceasing all communication with the offender, or "ex-communicating" them from your life. The harm that is done is totally irrelevant. Partner B is not to blame for the resulting harm of his actions, and any harm done as a result of Partner B's conduct is solely the fault of Partner A.

That's absurd. No one but a blithering idiot will accept the argument that you offended someone as absolving you for the financial responsibilities you have towards those persons. If my banker offends me, that gives me the right to stop paying my mortgage? Even ignoring Partner B's gross negligence and poor performance (which is the root of the whole problem to begin with), that is the central consideration of the case. Moreover, what was Partner A supposed to do under the circumstances? Since he's a poor leader that means that there is nothing he can do to improve the situation at that point? Partner B seems to be in need of a stern talking to at the very least--had it been Boss A and Employee B then the latter should've been fired long before it got to this point.

I would also like to add that this person believes that any leader that has issue communicating, stutters, has a soft voice, or is strange in some way, is by definition a bad leader and others are completely justified in not respecting his authority and not cooperating with him (and pretty much being assholes to him).

MJ, I've disagreed with some of your ethical viewpoints in the past, but you're completely right here. I don't even understand your friend's position as a self-consistent system, much less one that someone can reasonably advocate.

[Master of Ossus]

The guy is arguing that the action is not wrong if it is a response to another's action, and is a commonly accepted belief that the action is justifed. If that criteria is met, a person is justified in doing the action without regard for the effects or harm done and is blameless for the harm.

1. No reasonably person will agree with Person B's deriliction of duty and gross misconduct in terms of his job performance.

Frankly, his argument that Person B's feelings getting hurt gives Person B a free pass on his financial responsibilities, which should certainly be contractually and legally stipulated, is shocking. Which law school did you say this guy graduated from?

2. Many reasonable people will think that a chewing-out is EASILY justified, given the circumstances, and therefore his system appears to vindicate Person A (even if that wasn't a foregone conclusion, earlier). Frankly, Person B's conduct makes me wonder about the type of contract that they entered into when they became partners, since the original scenario as written makes it seem as if Person B has little financial capital at risk in the venture, yet his performance (or lack thereof) seems to be critical to its success. I think it's a good example of poor risk-sharing, if that is the case.

[Lord MJ]

That's absurd. No one but a blithering idiot will accept the argument that you offended someone as absolving you for the financial responsibilities you have towards those persons. If my banker offends me, that gives me the right to stop paying my mortgage? Even ignoring Partner B's gross negligence and poor performance (which is the root of the whole problem to begin with), that is the central consideration of the case. Moreover, what was Partner A supposed to do under the circumstances? Since he's a poor leader that means that there is nothing he can do to improve the situation at that point? Partner B seems to be in need of a stern talking to at the very least--had it been Boss A and Employee B then the latter should've been fired long before it got to this point.

He disputes the notion the Partner B's negligence and performance are the root cause of the problem. The real root cause of the problem is the fact that Partner A is strange and annoying. In a start up in which there is no immediate financial benefits (all money comes in the future), and Partner B has cause to not respect Partner A, what motivation does Partner B have to perform well? In his mind there is no reason for Partner B to cooperate with Partner A under those conditions. Thus the very root of the issue is with Partner A. Furthermore the combination of Partner A already being annoying and Partner A saying things that offend Partner B gives him more than enough justification to run off. Even if Partner A hadn't offended Partner B, Partner A's strangeness alone is a valid reason for Partner B to run off....

After hearing that, I wonder how this person comes up with these crazy values. It's really just a mindless appeal to common practice, since the majority of people act like assholes, sociology says people would act like assholes, then its okay to act like an asshole and he'll act like an asshole. Of course in his mind since that behavior is commonplace and normal it's not really acting like an asshole....

Many reasonable people will think that a chewing-out is EASILY justified, given the circumstances, and therefore his system appears to vindicate Person A (even if that wasn't a foregone conclusion, earlier). Frankly, Person B's conduct makes me wonder about the type of contract that they entered into when they became partners, since the original scenario as written makes it seem as if Person B has little financial capital at risk in the venture, yet his performance (or lack thereof) seems to be critical to its success. I think it's a good example of poor risk-sharing, if that is the case.

Definately an example of poor risk sharing and overreliance on trust on Partner A's part. The naive belief that people will behave ethically....

But my friend would argue that Partner A may thing that a chewing-out is justified, but in Partner B's mind Partner A's conduct is offensive, rude, and unprofessional. And people are perfectly justified in "ex-communicating" somone that offends them. He would ask the question, why should Partner B have to put up with Partner A's behavior if he thinks it's crazy?

[PeZook]

I'm sorry, MJ, but it's not even an appeal to common practice. Maybe it's just me, but people like Partner B are considered total assholes in my society. Are things significantly different in the US in this regard? Over here, while Partner B may be able to hold a circle of asshole friends, there'd be a significant chunk of the people around them who'd point to him and go "Jesus, this guy is such a prick". Not to mention that any businessman who hears things like these would never want to work with B.

[Lord MJ]

I'm sorry, MJ, but it's not even an appeal to common practice. Maybe it's just me, but people like Partner B are considered total assholes in my society. Are things significantly different in the US in this regard? Over here, while Partner B may be able to hold a circle of asshole friends, there'd be a significant chunk of the people around them who'd point to him and go "Jesus, this guy is such a prick". Not to mention that any businessman who hears things like these would never want to work with B.

Well the thing is that people like my friend and partner B are generally likable people. They are the kind of people that others would like to be around. Furthermore many people would be alienated by someone like Partner A. Most people wouldn't even know about Partner B's irresponsible nature, and since most people are not like Partner A, most people would never encounter said nature. People would be naturally sympathetic to Partner B "since he's a nice guy." While without knowing the gritty details of what Partner B did, people would look at Partner A as the asshole (for the things that he said.) Most would assume that Partner B had a good reason for doing what he did, and there isn't anything unethical about Partner B since he's a "good guy." They would literally fish for excuses to explain his behavior, or Partner B would be able to convince people that he's justified just by pointing and saying "Look at me, a normal likable guy, and look at Partner A, a guy who it is painful to even listen to," and elicit sympathy that way.

[Master of Ossus]

He disputes the notion the Partner B's negligence and performance are the root cause of the problem. The real root cause of the problem is the fact that Partner A is strange and annoying.

Sorry, but no one will buy his bullshit that someone else being "strange and annoying" somehow voids others' financial and ethical obligations towards those people.

In a start up in which there is no immediate financial benefits (all money comes in the future), and Partner B has cause to not respect Partner A, what motivation does Partner B have to perform well? In his mind there is no reason for Partner B to cooperate with Partner A under those conditions. Thus the very root of the issue is with Partner A.

Even then, the root of the issue is the poor legal enforcement that the two put together. At the very least, Partner B should inform Partner A that he no longer wishes to work with him, do the grown-up thing, and quit.

Furthermore the combination of Partner A already being annoying and Partner A saying things that offend Partner B gives him more than enough justification to run off. Even if Partner A hadn't offended Partner B, Partner A's strangeness alone is a valid reason for Partner B to run off....

Right, to me this is the height of bullshit. If my banker is strange and annoying, this does not absolve me of my responsibility to pay the mortgage every month. We're not talking about breaking off a friendship, here--a partnership is a legal and financial entity that one has obligations towards. Partners A & B clearly don't get along well, and it would be fine if they stopped going out for beers every Friday, but we're dealing with financial and legal obligations, and you don't get out of them just because you don't like the person you owe them to.

After hearing that, I wonder how this person comes up with these crazy values. It's really just a mindless appeal to common practice, since the majority of people act like assholes, sociology says people would act like assholes, then its okay to act like an asshole and he'll act like an asshole. Of course in his mind since that behavior is commonplace and normal it's not really acting like an asshole....

And, of course, his bullshit theory that someone being "strange and annoying" makes it okay to ignore one's legal and financial obligations towards them would open up the courts to all manner of bullshit "He did something that I didn't like" arguments. Again, where did this guy go to law school? Remind me never to retain any of their graduates.

Definately an example of poor risk sharing and overreliance on trust on Partner A's part. The naive belief that people will behave ethically....

But my friend would argue that Partner A may thing that a chewing-out is justified, but in Partner B's mind Partner A's conduct is offensive, rude, and unprofessional.

But that's a central flaw in his ethical system--both people can feel completely vindicated under such a system even though everyone agrees that one party or the other massively screwed up. I would also have to say that his apologism for Person B is pretty ridiculous--he knew or he should have known, going into it, what Person A was like.

And people are perfectly justified in "ex-communicating" somone that offends them. He would ask the question, why should Partner B have to put up with Partner A's behavior if he thinks it's crazy?

Because they're fucking partners! Again, it would be one thing if these guys were just friends--you're not obligated to hang out with people you don't like. But these two are partners, and they have financial and legal obligations towards one another. It's ridiculous to try and weasel out of these by making vague claims of irritation (which could be just as much Partner B's fault--calling one's partner on the phone for regular updates is not unreasonable behavior in a business relationship).