Indirect Consequences and Moral Choices of Inaction

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Have you ever had a moral argument with someone who claims that, as long as the consequences of the actions are distant and indirect, and if the person didn't intend for bad consequences to result, it doesn't matter if they do? They have no responsibility.

I got into a discussion about the ethics of consumption patterns in countries with superabundance, and she entirely denies any moral responsibility between choices of inaction which lead indirectly to deaths of people, yet somehow simultaneously believes it is "seriously wrong" to kill a zygote because it's got a "right to life as a human being." I don't get it.

If people can help save the lives of others at little cost to themselves (as in they could still live comfortably and contribute to society), yet donate to help others, wouldn't that hypothetically be a moral obligation from a view of utility?

This is the type of person who will have a perfectly fine TV, yet go out and buy a new one just to have it new or piss away money on something else just to have the newest gadget, and feels nothing about that waste.

I would think one would have some partial responsibility for negative results befalling other feeling people, despite not intending for it to happen and directly instead of deliberate "malice" killings, if you can otherwise prevent it. There's always some manner of not being able to do anything, and that's fully understandable, but if you deliberately choose NOT to do something, thus leading to consequence X, is that so morally different from choosing to do something which leads to the same type of result?

This person also claims there's no moral responsibility for someone who sees a baby in a fountain, but doesn't want to get his feet wet, so he does nothing and walks by. Even if the baby dies through inaction, that falls under indirect consequences, inaction, and they "didn't intend to kill the baby." I don't see how.

Can someone explain this? Inherently, I don't see a huge moral difference between killing someone through inaction and action, if the result will be the same, and if it's far away or nearby if and only if you can help without significant sacrifice as a whole. Obviously SOME spending would be necessary, but many people could help more, but choose not to, and it wouldn't hurt the system significantly.

[Singular Intellect]

The problem here is morality is subjective, and you're trying to impose your version of morality as the 'right' one.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

So if morality is subjective, would you say the same thing about murder? Is that just an imposition of a moral system no better on someone who thinks murder would be ok?

[Singular Intellect]

So if morality is subjective, would you say the same thing about murder? Is that just an imposition of a moral system no better on someone who thinks murder would be ok?

Of course murder can be justified morally. That's why it's subjective. That's why we have laws for things like murder, and are ideally impartial with their implementation.

[Darth Wong]

The problem here is morality is subjective, and you're trying to impose your version of morality as the 'right' one.

Morality is only subjective as long as you choose to make it subjective. If you define a system of morality with measurable goals, then it becomes quite objective.

[Singular Intellect]

The problem here is morality is subjective, and you're trying to impose your version of morality as the 'right' one.

Morality is only subjective as long as you choose to make it subjective. If you define a system of morality with measurable goals, then it becomes quite objective.

I can agree there, but my impression is the OP is talking about his own personal morality, not a commonly accepted form of it.

[Darth Wong]

The problem here is morality is subjective, and you're trying to impose your version of morality as the 'right' one.

Morality is only subjective as long as you choose to make it subjective. If you define a system of morality with measurable goals, then it becomes quite objective.

I can agree there, but my impression is the OP is talking about his own personal morality, not a commonly accepted form of it.

Why should a personal moral code not be objective?

[Singular Intellect]

Morality is only subjective as long as you choose to make it subjective. If you define a system of morality with measurable goals, then it becomes quite objective.

I can agree there, but my impression is the OP is talking about his own personal morality, not a commonly accepted form of it.

Why should a personal moral code not be objective?

Alright, my bad for implying such.

What I was trying to say is that a common trait of morality could be "murder is bad", while a personal one would be "instead of buying a computer part I'll donate that money to someone in more need than me".

I agree with the first, but not the second.

[Darth Wong]

What I was trying to say is that a common trait of morality could be "murder is bad", while a personal one would be "instead of buying a computer part I'll donate that money to someone in more need than me".

I agree with the first, but not the second.

Ah; you are drawing a distinction between social morality (moral codes that regulate interaction between people in a society) and personal morality (moral codes that regulate one's own behaviour, independently of social rules). Fair enough. But in the case of the person mentioned in the OP, he is clearly talking about social morality, since it deals with consequences affecting other people in society.

[Kuroneko]

Well, that's quite routine for someone subscribing to sociopa--ah, egoist ethics, e.g., those of Ayn Rand. Your interlocutor appears to have a more creative mix of ethical principles than that, but the denial of duty to other people qua people is sadly not at all uncommon. Your perspective is that of a utilitarianism, which (in its pure form) denies that there can be such a thing as a supererogatory action, since it is a duty to maximize utility. The position your describe in the next-to-last paragraph reverses that exactly, with no good actions being obligatory and therefore all of them supererogatory.

... as long as the consequences of the actions are distant and indirect, and if the person didn't intend for bad consequences to result, it doesn't matter if they do? They have no responsibility.

The closest sane stance has an important qualifier and is fairly widespread, although the only formal name for it that comes to mind is the Catholic 'invincible ignorance'. Under this and related views, normally immoral acts cease to be immoral if the actor is genuinely unaware of the consequences and could not be reasonably expected to become aware of them. But neither willful ignorance nor negligence constitute any waiver of responsibility, like they would under the above position.

[Singular Intellect]

What I was trying to say is that a common trait of morality could be "murder is bad", while a personal one would be "instead of buying a computer part I'll donate that money to someone in more need than me".

I agree with the first, but not the second.

Ah; you are drawing a distinction between social morality (moral codes that regulate interaction between people in a society) and personal morality (moral codes that regulate one's own behaviour, independently of social rules). Fair enough. But in the case of the person mentioned in the OP, he is clearly talking about social morality, since it deals with consequences affecting other people in society.

Then I honestly fail to see his point. I am not responsible for bad situations and misfortunes befalling other people near or far, nor am I obligated to seek out and help them. As far as I'm concerned, my social morality is very much satisfied by my taxes that (in Canada) provide a great many services intented to support and help all people in my society.

As you've said yourself Mike, you don't give a dime to beggers on the street, because you know that your taxes are going toward a very generous welfare system in our country (you're already helping them, even if you wouldn't actively do so if you had a choice). Neither of us is going to be wandering around for the specific purpose of trying to find life threatened individuals and rescue them. And neither of us (I'm assuming I'm correct in regards to you) is actively looking around for people who are genuinely in need through no fault of their own just to help them.

We're entitled to our lives and I see no reason to feel guilty if my life is better than someone else's, especially if that is do to their own choices.

[Darth Wong]

What I was trying to say is that a common trait of morality could be "murder is bad", while a personal one would be "instead of buying a computer part I'll donate that money to someone in more need than me".

I agree with the first, but not the second.

Ah; you are drawing a distinction between social morality (moral codes that regulate interaction between people in a society) and personal morality (moral codes that regulate one's own behaviour, independently of social rules). Fair enough. But in the case of the person mentioned in the OP, he is clearly talking about social morality, since it deals with consequences affecting other people in society.

Then I honestly fail to see his point. I am not responsible for bad situations and misfortunes befalling other people near or far, nor am I obligated to seek out and help them. As far as I'm concerned, my social morality is very much satisfied by my taxes that (in Canada) provide a great many services intented to support and help all people in my society.

As you've said yourself Mike, you don't give a dime to beggers on the street, because you know that your taxes are going toward a very generous welfare system in our country (you're already helping them, even if you wouldn't actively do so if you had a choice). Neither of us is going to be wandering around for the specific purpose of trying to find life threatened individuals and rescue them. And neither of us (I'm assuming I'm correct in regards to you) is actively looking around for people who are genuinely in need through no fault of their own just to help them.

We're entitled to our lives and I see no reason to feel guilty if my life is better than someone else's, especially if that is do to their own choices.

The second part of your argument contradicts the first. If you feel that you are committing some moral good by contributing to social welfare systems, then you are not decrying all responsibility for other people in society. You are simply choosing to fulfill your social responsibilities through a different mechanism, rather than denying the existence of those responsibilities.

[Singular Intellect]

Ah; you are drawing a distinction between social morality (moral codes that regulate interaction between people in a society) and personal morality (moral codes that regulate one's own behaviour, independently of social rules). Fair enough. But in the case of the person mentioned in the OP, he is clearly talking about social morality, since it deals with consequences affecting other people in society.

Then I honestly fail to see his point. I am not responsible for bad situations and misfortunes befalling other people near or far, nor am I obligated to seek out and help them. As far as I'm concerned, my social morality is very much satisfied by my taxes that (in Canada) provide a great many services intented to support and help all people in my society.

As you've said yourself Mike, you don't give a dime to beggers on the street, because you know that your taxes are going toward a very generous welfare system in our country (you're already helping them, even if you wouldn't actively do so if you had a choice). Neither of us is going to be wandering around for the specific purpose of trying to find life threatened individuals and rescue them. And neither of us (I'm assuming I'm correct in regards to you) is actively looking around for people who are genuinely in need through no fault of their own just to help them.

We're entitled to our lives and I see no reason to feel guilty if my life is better than someone else's, especially if that is do to their own choices.

The second part of your argument contradicts the first. If you feel that you are committing some moral good by contributing to social welfare systems, then you are not decrying all responsibility for other people in society. You are simply choosing to fulfill your social responsibilities through a different mechanism, rather than denying the existence of those responsibilities.

Except I didn't chose to pay taxes and contribute to this system, I'm merely part of it by default having been born into it. To me this nullifies any 'moral' aspect of it. I'm merely a wheel in the system that recognizes the personal benefit of moving forward without squeaking, because one day I may need to hitch a ride with all the other wheels still turning.

I suspect I might not be quite getting across what I'm trying to say (my fault obviously), so I'll try thinking it out a bit more. Unless you did make sense of what I said there...

[Darth Wong]

Except I didn't chose to pay taxes and contribute to this system, I'm merely part of it by default having been born into it. To me this nullifies any 'moral' aspect of it. I'm merely a wheel in the system that recognizes the personal benefit of moving forward without squeaking, because one day I may need to hitch a ride with all the other wheels still turning.

So are you saying that you would say "fuck everyone but me" if you had a choice, and that you would feel that this is a totally moral choice? Do you make voting decisions based on who will save you the most money and leave the poor as destitute as possible?

I suspect I might not be quite getting across what I'm trying to say (my fault obviously), so I'll try thinking it out a bit more. Unless you did make sense of what I said there...

If you honestly feel that you should have no social obligation to anyone, then why did you bring up your contribution to tax-supported social welfare programs as a mitigating factor for your callousness toward the suffering of others?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I should probably add that I don't give money to pan handlers either. I was more thinking along the lines of people in countries that don't have the significant welfare systems or support structures.

I was reading in Oxfam's publication about how so many children die because they lack simple oral hydration packets, and they indicated they were fairly cheap and could save many lives, yet they hadn't enough of them.

But the next day, I saw some lady walk a dog who was wearing a coat and mittens and I felt it was disturbing how some people's dogs in the first world have better living conditions than others. It was sobering.

I can't say I am a saint or anything or live like a ascetic, but I think what I do sometimes Is at least wrong when I could do better. I tend to give to Oxfam, but I don't know of any better ones.

[Nova Andromeda]

I do not tend to give to beggers, most charities, etc. One needs to consider how the money given to X compares to the same amount given to Y in terms of whatever moral code they subscribe to. This includes factors such as ability to give, impact of giving on one's personal well being (e.g., how would Mr. Wong giving up an extra couple sex toys impact his work efficiency), one's ability to judge the impact of their giving (very hard most of the time), etc. In the end, I've decided that giving to charities that fix symptoms (starvation, disease, etc.) far less worthy than giving to organizations that lean toward fixing the problem. These days it means supporting organizations that can influence goverments (perhaps not directly though).

[Singular Intellect]

So are you saying that you would say "fuck everyone but me" if you had a choice, and that you would feel that this is a totally moral choice?

I honestly can't say I would.

Do you make voting decisions based on who will save you the most money and leave the poor as destitute as possible?

I'll admit I'm someone who practically never votes. (although at least while I'll complain about stupid policies and the stupidiity of any particular politician, I won't suggest I have a right to complain about them being in office since I clearly forego my say in the matter).

That said, as an individual, I'd like to vote for whichever particular option I thought benefited the largest number of people the most. However I'm sure the first factor would be which choice best favors myself first.

If you honestly feel that you should have no social obligation to anyone, then why did you bring up your contribution to tax-supported social welfare programs as a mitigating factor for your callousness toward the suffering of others?

Perhaps I should redefine my position (and hopefully a consistent one!).

As an individual and part of my society, I'll recognize a certain responsibility to that society (ie: valid contributions, proper conduct and behavior, following laws, etc). However, I don't consider that responsibility being equally applicable to every individual of that society.

To cite an example, if someone in my community suffers some injury through no particular fault of their own, then yes, I'm all for myself as part of society being responsible for that person's welfare (whereas my tax funded services comes in).

On the other hand, if some dipshit choses to do drugs and play chicken on the highway with fast moving cars, no, I do not feel responsible for that person. And in that example I would employ the mentality of "Fuck em!".

Of course it doesn't work that way, but that is how I perceive my responsibility to society.

[K. A. Pital]

For me it's quite simple. Knowing that your inaction is causing deaths is criminal neglience. If one is unaware that his actions do cause death and suffering, then he is less likely to have moral questions about it.

Note how First World countries don't show any connection between their obscene overconsumption in face of a crisis in world redistribution. It's because if one would show that, it might cause moral questions for the wider public. Which would be damaging to the current situation.

And the real thing is choosing the method of resource application. I would too more gladly donate, or work for, a group whom I know are concerned with political, economic and social actions to improve well-being of people (or lessen their suffering), than to a symptom-alleviating group, like a charity.

Opposing those who want to increase suffering with all the resources you have is also a possible course of action.

[Kanastrous]

The problem here is morality is subjective, and you're trying to impose your version of morality as the 'right' one.

Morality is only subjective as long as you choose to make it subjective. If you define a system of morality with measurable goals, then it becomes quite objective.

If we're talking about the subjectivity of morality between separate and/or competing moral systems, then having 'measurable goals' doesn't impress me as evidence of objectivity.

For example, a Wahhabist has established a measurable goal, when he indicates that all women in town should be subject to khimar. But that measurable goal is an extension of texts and traditions whose validity is purely subjective.

I don't quite track the proposition that simply establishing goals within a moral framework, makes the criteria or system for establishing those goals objective.

Unless all we're talking about is internal consistency within a single system.

[Darth Wong]

If we're talking about the subjectivity of morality between separate and/or competing moral systems, then having 'measurable goals' doesn't impress me as evidence of objectivity.

That's because you don't understand the concept.

For example, a Wahhabist has established a measurable goal, when he indicates that all women in town should be subject to khimar. But that measurable goal is an extension of texts and traditions whose validity is purely subjective.

Wrong. His system of morality does NOT have measurable goals. Its goal is to please an imaginary deity. The "goals" you mention are not end-goals of the Wahhabist moral system; they are merely attempts to attain the actual end-goals of the system.

What you're doing is very much akin to saying that the goal of a hockey player is to move his stick around.

I don't quite track the proposition that simply establishing goals within a moral framework, makes the criteria or system for establishing those goals objective.

If you define a morality system so that its end goal is objective, then the morality system itself can be said to be objective.

[Kanastrous]

Clearer now. Thanks.

[Justforfun000]

For me it's quite simple. Knowing that your inaction is causing deaths is criminal neglience. If one is unaware that his actions do cause death and suffering, then he is less likely to have moral questions about it.

But it's not quite that simple either. I know that if I sent money to a starving kid in Africa, I might save his life. My inaction means he could die. Am I responsible?

That situations a lot easier to argue because of the distance and degree, but it still shows that you have to draw a line somewhere...

[Darth Wong]

For me it's quite simple. Knowing that your inaction is causing deaths is criminal neglience. If one is unaware that his actions do cause death and suffering, then he is less likely to have moral questions about it.

But it's not quite that simple either. I know that if I sent money to a starving kid in Africa, I might save his life. My inaction means he could die. Am I responsible?

Africa is a complicated situation. Foreign food aid is not really solving anything in the long term, and arguably causes problems (for example, local farmers often run into serious business trouble because of free food aid pouring into the region which they obviously can't compete with, thus weakening the local agricultural industry).

That situations a lot easier to argue because of the distance and degree, but it still shows that you have to draw a line somewhere...

As with most things in reality, you can't draw a hard and fast line, but it's a sliding scale based on size of benefit and difficulty of helping.

[Justforfun000]

Darth Wong Wrote:

Africa is a complicated situation. Foreign food aid is not really solving anything in the long term, and arguably causes problems (for example, local farmers often run into serious business trouble because of free food aid pouring into the region which they obviously can't compete with, thus weakening the local agricultural industry).

I wondered about that myself. I'm a little confused what the overall problem is when it comes to food shortage because other then places like Egypt that is practically all desert, I thought Africa was a fairly fertile land? Is it just overpopulation and poor agriculture techniques?

What would be the best long-term method to enable them to be self sufficient?

[Singular Intellect]

I don't see the logic in supplying free food to starving nations. They obviously don't have the capacity to feed themselves, so why are we feeding them so they can produce more offspring and have a larger starving population dependent upon foreign aid? You're just making the problem that much worse.

If we really want to help them, send aid in the form of educational tools and resources to help establish their own independent infrastructure that can support their current population and potential growth.

If their current occupied land is just too piss poor in terms of resources, then help relocate them somewhere where it isn't. Those that refuse the option of relocation can then be esily and morally dismissed as "they declined our offer of help".

If you have a large group of people stupidly fucking like rabbits and producing plenty of kids when there isn't enough food around for everyone already alive, I'm hardly going to be feeling sorry for the adults (the kids I obviously would, since it wasn't their fault, until they grow up and perform the same behavior)