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

[PeZook]

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.

So? Ask this idiot if the fact nobody knows about his assholishness makes it ethical ; if a serial murderer was a "generally likable man" and nobody in his social circle "encountered" his murderous nature, does it make murder okay?

If people knew the entire story Partner B would be generally considered a complete prick in my society, and I don't think Americans would think very highly of him. The fact most of the time people he talked with would have no idea of his previous actions does not make these actions ethical.

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."

The question is not what most people would assume without full information ; the question is that if people knew the entire story, they'd consider Partner B to be the asshole. He's just inventing self-contradictory excuses now. So first, whatever is convenient to someone is the ethical choice ; then actions are ethical as long as they conform to widely accepted social norms ; and now any action can be ethical as long as you can hide it and smile to people?

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.

So? The fact he can spin the story in his favor is irrelevant for the purposes of the ethical judgement ; Press him against the wall and make him make a fucking decision. What is his ethical system? Because what I'm reading now is the third version.

If he can't answer the question seriously, and in a self-consistent manner, that means he has no ethical system and should fucking try to develop one for a change.

[Lord MJ]

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.

I'm thinking a good appeal to emotion, describing how irritating Partner A is would convince the average joe of his argument. Really doesn't reflect well on our society as a whole.

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.

Attached to that would be Partner B going through a formal separation and transition process. Or if the venture was shutting down, him taking part in the shutdown activities and handling his share of the firms liabilities. Of course my friend would argue that Partner B would have no ethical obligation to do those activities and it would be harassment if Partner A pursued Partner B to do his part.

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.

My friend spun a bunch of bullshit on this, "Well if in reality Partner B didn't do any of these things, and feels perfectly justified in not doing so, then what? Partner A should recognize his fault in the whole matter instead of expecting people like Partner B to continue to deal with him"

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.

Actually graduated from the big Carolina Schools (Duke, UNC). Values seem to be from his views of self interest or from his sociology background being a so called "expert" of human behavior. From a legal perspective he would probably appeal to a jury that conditions were so unbearable that Partner B had to do what he did. Also would appeal that a partnership/startup is a voluntary association that one person is free to leave at any time for any reason... I know ignores the whole fiduciary responsibility to ones partners/co shareholders, the duty of care, any specific terms of the contract/firms governing documents, and almost anything else associated with being in a business relationship.

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.

My friend says that people like Partner A aren't that annoying in the beginning, but after months of dealing with the way they talk, it can become painful and maddening.

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).

I've learned from personal experience that people don't care if someone irritating them is their own fault. The only thing they care about is the fact they are being irritated. People in general look down very heavily on attempts of people to justify their irritated behavior or blame it all on the "victim." If a person is being irritated, annoyed, harassed, they will always consider it a act of wrong doing and not care whether the person irritating them has just cause.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

MJ, can you explain something to me. I don't understand the point of him mentioning a sociology background. I don't see how he can get any values from the study of sociology, as sociology isn't normative. At best, it just provides what people do, not what people ought to do.

How can one derive values from a purely descriptive system? Is he high?

[Lord MJ]

MJ, can you explain something to me. I don't understand the point of him mentioning a sociology background. I don't see how he can get any values from the study of sociology, as sociology isn't normative. At best, it just provides what people do, not what people ought to do.

How can one derive values from a purely descriptive system? Is he high?

Its a few things. First he feels that if people generally behave a certain way, then he can use that fact to counter any argument of such behavior being unethical. (And if said behaviors cause harm, he can use it to counter the whole notion that a behavior is unethical if it causes harm.)

If people in general behave a certain way, then he would see no problem behaving the same way, in fact we would think it would be strange not to.

Taking this to the partner situation. If Partner B's responses to Partner A are how people would generally behave. Then he feels that he could absolve Partner B of all fault, and show that Partner A is completely at fault.

Finally, while he doesn't think people need sociology degrees to determine ethics, he does think that great knowledge and experience of how people handle themselves is key, and if one doesn't possess such knowledge or experience, he has no place making ethical judgements about other people's behavior and is incapable of behaving ethically.

[PeZook]

Its a few things. First he feels that if people generally behave a certain way, then he can use that fact to counter any argument of such behavior being unethical. (And if said behaviors cause harm, he can use it to counter the whole notion that a behavior is unethical if it causes harm.)

It's clear he is simply repeating his earlier point at this stage and doesn't even bother to back it up ; I really don't think there is a point in arguing with him, MJ.

You could try demonstrating how retarded this line of thought is with another example (though I don't think it will work, frankly)

Let's say that a country exists on Earth that's called X. In this country, the law of the land is that when a man sees a woman on the street who doesn't have her hair shaved off, he must kill her immediately and deliver her head to the nearest Morality Police Precinct. It is a commonly accepted practice, and everybody there does it.

Now, a man comes in to this country from country Y. His country does not condone murdering women, and in fact considers it abhorrent and punishes it as a capital crime. The man sees a prostitute who didn't shave her hair and doesn't murder her. He is arrested and shot at dawn.

Accordin to his ethical system, who was acting ethically here? If he is to stay consistent, he should say that the morality police was acting completely ethically, since in country X, everybody does what theyd did. Also, the tourist was acting completely unethically.

If he says otherwise, he's not only an idiot, but a weaselling, self-contradicting hipocrite. But I guess we know that already.

If people in general behave a certain way, then he would see no problem behaving the same way, in fact we would think it would be strange not to.

See above ; if he found himself in the above situation, would he murder the prostitute, chop off her head and bring it to a precinct?

Finally, while he doesn't think people need sociology degrees to determine ethics, he does think that great knowledge and experience of how people handle themselves is key, and if one doesn't possess such knowledge or experience, he has no place making ethical judgements about other people's behavior and is incapable of behaving ethically.

What? Even in his retarded system it's entirely possible to act "ethically" if you have no fucking idea how people handle themselves. What does the above phrase even mean? You can't call an asshole an asshole unless you have extensive experience with how people act? How can you even draw such conclusions when living in the US, with 200 million people and dozens of local cultures?

[Lord MJ]

So yeah, had a follow up conversation with the guy.

Aparantly now he believes in Moral Relativism (not by name but his beliefs echo what the moral relativist doctrine says.) Basically saying that my whole system of ethics is flawed by virtue of the fact that (it's not cut and dry, what you believe to be totally wrong might be perfectly justified in someone else's belief system). What's right and wrong is a factor of someone's beliefs and cultural and religious values, and his upbringing. You can't definitively say somethings right or wrong. The only things that can be reasonably determined to be wrong or things that the the majority of people across different value systems believe to be wrong.

So the whole idea of "harm" determining whether an action is right or wrong is flawed since there are people that would feel justified in certain actions that would cause harm.

Didn't get a chance to mention that under his system, anything I might do that would be considered wrong can't be considered wrong if my value system says its ok.

Regarding the scenario regarding the partners and the project leader, his take on the matter is still, Partner B has no obligation whatsoever to be offended, and if he feels disrespected then he has every right to immediately excommunicate Partner A. It is unethical for Partner A to use a financial arrangement or legal arrangement to force Partner B to endure such behavior, and there is no reason for Partner B to endure such conditions if he doesn't feel he's benefiting enough to warrant enduring those conditions.

When I asked "What if Partner B's own irresponsible behavior is the reason why Partner A is going apeshit on him." He responded that it doesn't matter because Parter A might think Partner B is behaving irresponsibly, but Partner B might think he is acting properly, and partner B is under no obligation to submit to Partner A's beliefs and endure being offended. Also he said that it doesn't really matter if Partner B was irresponsible or not, Partner B is under no obligation to tolerate being disrespected regardless of how much harm he is causing...

And this is a person that can say these things with a straight face and not think there is anything wrong with it, while he can look at my reasoning and thing that there is something wrong with me.

I did want to go into a discussion thread about moral relativism, but I think I will start a new thread to talk about that since this one is bordering on necromancy since it wasn't updated for three week till now.

[PeZook]

Oh, wow. So his belief system is still completely fucking useless in society.

Man 1: "You can't rape and kill my daughter! It's wrong! Judge, tell him!"

Judge: "I'm sorry Man 1, Man 2 believes he has a right to rape and kill any woman he sees. Therefore, he is completely justified in doing that."

Man 2: "Oh, and also, my culture believes it is all right to take all your stuff, Man 1."

Man 1: "Oh dear..."

[Astarial]

What's right and wrong is a factor of someone's beliefs and cultural and religious values, and his upbringing. You can't definitively say somethings right or wrong.

That's completely not true.

Something that causes harm is wrong, but not all actions are wrong in all instances (irrelevant of society's perception).

Take, for example, rape. In western society and most if not all others, there is the belief in ownership of one's body and the right to be secure in that. If the body is violated against the owner's consent and that causes demonstrable and measurable harm to the owner, it is wrong - even if society has no law against a man forcing himself on a woman. (As an example [and please forgive me if this is no longer the case; I got this from my anthro textbook and I don't know when it was written], in Inuit society, if a man wants to have sex with a woman and she says no, he has the right to force her.)

However, if you take a theoretical society (theoretical because I do not currently know of any that have this belief) that does not use the concept of individuality, where one does not own one's body but is owned by society as a whole, what we call rape would not be ethically wrong because the person has no concept of the right to be secure in "their" body. There would be no harm done. (To continue the example from above, the Inuits still have the belief that one owns one's own body, and therefore the legal rape of women still causes demonstrable harm to the affected women, so does not qualify as harmless.)

[Astarial]

What's right and wrong is a factor of someone's beliefs and cultural and religious values, and his upbringing. You can't definitively say somethings right or wrong.

That's completely not true.

Something that causes harm is wrong, but not all actions are wrong in all instances (irrelevant of society's perception, as actions can cause harm in some situations but not in others).

Take, for example, rape. In western society and most if not all others, there is the belief in ownership of one's body and the right to be secure in that. If the body is violated against the owner's consent and that causes demonstrable and measurable harm to the owner, it is wrong - even if society has no law against a man forcing himself on a woman. (As an example [and please forgive me if this is no longer the case; I got this from my anthro textbook and I don't know when it was written], in Inuit society, if a man wants to have sex with a woman and she says no, he has the right to force her.)

However, if you take a theoretical society (theoretical because I do not currently know of any that have this belief) that does not use the concept of individuality, where one does not own one's body but is owned by society as a whole, what we call rape would not be ethically wrong because the person has no concept of the right to be secure in "their" body. There would be no harm done. (To continue the example from above, the Inuits still have the belief that one owns one's own body, and therefore the legal rape of women still causes demonstrable harm to the affected women, so does not qualify as harmless.)

[Astarial]

Ack, double post, hit "quote" thinking it was "edit"