Ethics - How ethical are you and how ethical is everyone else?

[Crimson Wizard]

Ethical values are a subjective thing. For example:

Let someone endure emotional scars for the rest of his/her life -1 ethical. Remove emotional scars: +1 ethical

What if a person believes that those scars = a challenge = a chance to strengthen one's spirit = good thing?

[Andail]

I'll shoot. I will try not to kill him, because the laws of the country require that the man is given a punishment by the court (which may not be death sentence). But if he will die, I'll take this as a manifestation of natural justice: responsibility for one's actions.

You'll shoot and then blame nature? Which ethical position is this? If you do shoot and kill him, you'll be guilty of manslaughter/murder.

I definitely wouldn't shoot, as that would likely wound/kill the person in a way that isn't stipulated in our nation's laws. I refuse to be both jury and executioner, especially with only a few seconds to act. I think interrupting the rape and calling the police would be enough a heroic deed.

[Crimson Wizard]

I'll shoot. I will try not to kill him, because the laws of the country require that the man is given a punishment by the court (which may not be death sentence). But if he will die, I'll take this as a manifestation of natural justice: responsibility for one's actions.

You'll shoot and then blame nature? Which ethical position is this? If you do shoot and kill him, you'll be guilty of manslaughter/murder.

I will not "blame nature". I won't blame anyone, because if there's one who is responsible for the death it will be me.
What I mean is: this guy made his choice and he should have been ready to get the consequences.

I think interrupting the rape and calling the police would be enough a heroic deed.

I do not think heroism is something that a man should be considering in such situation anyway.

[Ali]

I think for the interrupted rape scenario to be useful, we have to assume that not shooting the assailant will mean he will never be caught.
(Obviously, in reality the victim is likely to know who he is, and with an eye witness it's likely he'd be prosecuted.)

However I don't understand buy the maths of this:

You see a woman in the process of getting raped. You have a gun. Mathematical deduction:
A. Preventing the rape +1 ethical. Not preventing the rape -1 ethical
B. Killing anyone -1 ethical. Letting someone live +1 ethical;
C. Let someone endure emotional scars for the rest of his/her life -1 ethical. Remove emotional scars: +1 ethical

options:
kill assailant: (A+B+C) = +1-1-1 = -1
kill girl:      (A+B+C) = +1-1+1 =  1

conclusion:
killing the girl is more ethical than killing her assailant.

Killing someone is not the same as removing emotional scars. If you kill someone there is no person to remove emotional scars from.

[Misj']

Killing someone is not the same as removing emotional scars. If you kill someone there is no person to remove emotional scars from.

I created a very simple very stupid robot that assumed that if someone is dead he or she does not have any emotional scars anymore. - I followed the movie i Robot on this one where the 'endlosung' was to remove the human factor.

The thing that I wanted to point out was this: purely rationally there is no difference between the value of the victim's and the assailant's live (compare the train example), and one can - pure mathematically not humanly - come to the conclusion that the best solution is to kill either of them.

This is of course not the human conclusion because we weight our options, the consequences, and the variables involved (independent of your ethical views). But the question then arises: what is the basis of this weight? - Is it a set of (fuzzy) rules like: protect the innocent, or is it a feeling of justice (which in itself is some sort of ruleset), is it purely game theory, or is it something else?

We all agree that raping is unethical (at least I hope we do). But why would the different ethical views share that opinion?
- Virtue Ethics: there are no inherently wrong *actions* but that the morality of a situation is derived from the agents. ... Try and be a good person and then do what feels right. --> Is rape ethically wrong, if it feels right to the person committing it?
- Deontology: It is characterised as following a strict set of guidelines and never deviating -> if one has no rules against rape, is raping then ethically wrong to the person committing it?
- Consequentialism: ones morality should be based upon the consequences of the actions -> if the person who commits rape would otherwise be so sexually frustrated that he'd go on a killing frenzy, would rape of a few women then not be the better alternative and thus be the ethical decision?
- Pragmatism: It's similar to consequentialism in that it deals with consequences but if differs in that it deals with *current* consequences that do not apply universally -> similar argument to consequentialism.

If we stop the rape (and we should) doesn't that also mean that we judge someone elses ethics and morality? - What gives us that right? - Is it our own ethical superiority? - Don't get me wrong, I believe we should judge immoral behaviour. And I'm very glad we have a criminal justice system that takes care of a lot of that on a larger scale. But what should we do if the person in line in front of us is hiding some groceries at the checkout (I've seen that happen, and I didn't intervene...which I still think was unethical but also the sanest and best decision in this case (considering the appearance of these people in front of me)).

Just some discussion-points...

EDIT: This is about all the time I have for now...I'll check back later today or tomorrow.

[Crimson Wizard]

If we stop the rape (and we should) doesn't that also mean that we judge someone elses ethics and morality? - What gives us that right? - Is it our own ethical superiority? - Don't get me wrong, I believe we should judge immoral behaviour.

...And by saying that aren't you assuming that "we" ARE ethically superior?
Speaking of right to judge, the only real right is the one of the strongest. All other rights are convention between people that believe their statements are correct or at least find them conceivable. In other words, they are a matter of belief as well. This is very similar thing I pointed few hours ago: we do not have a base, an absolute reference point here.
Hence why can't a man base his judgements on his beliefs? Seriously, why?

But what should we do if the person in line in front of us is hiding some groceries at the checkout

Well, I won't shoot them, that's for sure.
In fact my idealistic hypothetical self would probably ignore this as well. Unless this is a city under siege, where food supplies is limited and stealing ones may cause someone's elses death wit high probability. The fact that some people have to steal food is a shame of society in whole.

[Calin Leafshade]

If we stop the rape (and we should) doesn't that also mean that we judge someone elses ethics and morality? - What gives us that right? - Is it our own ethical superiority?

All (secular) moral frameworks are, at their core, axiomatic. That is to say we make declarations about human experience that have no real basis in fact. We make those declarations because they are useful mostly. Generally that axiom is "suffering is bad". Bear in mind that we have no real basis to say that in a moral perspective.

This is called the is-ought problem which says, in brief, that one cannot derive what ought be the case from what is the case.

i.e
Premise - Torture causes suffering
Premise - Suffering is bad. (??)
Conclusion - Torture is bad.

We have no basis to say that suffering is bad. You could argue that it is unpleasant but so is going to the dentist. It doesnt make it morally wrong to make someone go to the dentist.

The problem with axiomatic systems like this is that it creates what many westerners would believe are moral absurdities. For instance, let us assume that you are being attacked. Is it moral for you to fight back? If you don't fight back then you will suffer but if you do fight back then they will suffer. Jains believe that if you were to fight back you are committing a moral evil because you are inflicting suffering on another. Two wrongs dont make a right.

Just food for thought.

[ddq]

My system of ethics has changed greatly in the last few years, morphing from what was a fairly standard, simplified form of virtue ethics that boiled down to "don't be a dick and be excellent to each other" into something, well, completely indefensible. In short, I completely stopped caring, to the point where my philosophy now takes the form of misanthropic nihilism. I suppose it stems from my deep, seething hatred of every human being, but when faced with an ethical dilemma, my first inclination is just to kill everyone involved. The thing is, I know this is wrong and I don't hope that anyone would share such a twisted view of the world, because they would clearly be terrible person. Which I am. So what I am working on now is attempting to remove these feelings somehow and root myself in a reasonable and not-sociopathic moral theory.

[Calin Leafshade]

Thats a different, discredited school of moral thought called "Teenagerism"

[ddq]

In Linkin Park We Trust

[Baron]

You guys think too much.  The train is coming, the rapist is in action, Hitler has bent down to tie his shoe next to the rushing traffic of the autobahn.... by the time you reconcile your ethical stance to your intended actions the moment for action has long passed.  Many a great moral action has no doubt been killed in utero by this deer-in-the-headlights phenomenon.  I would submit to you that most actions are just reactions: like the spine jerking the arm away from a hot pot, or instinct suddenly seizing control.  Afterwards we rationalize and justify, according to our ethical schema, and most of us are probably pretty good at either:

1) determining that we made the right decision (whether or not it was objectively "right"), or

2) determining that we didn't make the right decision but assuming the consequences (real world penalties, internal remorse... what have you).

Anyone who could not justify themselves as righteous or could not rue and repent would either be evil ("yeah, it's bad, so what?"), or incapable of higher self-awareness (due to age, developmental delay, mental illness, etc.), and I'm not even sure evil people would fit into this category because it lacks motive for continued action: wouldn't you just get sick and tired of it all?

So ethics I say would be relative to the ability of the actor to self-delude in 90% of the cases where "the moment" just happens.  In those few cases where a pre-meditated action has to be considered, I will concede there may be an element of ethical dilemma, but again how many ethical philosophers go around committing grave acts?  This would be like Hamlet plotting the demise of his uncle: he over analyses the ethics behind the action to the point where no action is taken (I would argue that events caught up with him in the end, and it was in a fit of passion that he finally murders Claudius).  How many of the posters in this thread have killed a villainous rogue or an innocent bystander?  Most people would probably base their intended actions on social acceptance (essentially tribalism: "my friends said it was ok"), greed ("I wanted something") or fear ("if I don't do this, things will be bad").  So the guy who has time to think about saving his wife or the five people would save his wife because he is greedy, or the Nazi death camp worker would flip the switch because he's shit scared of the tribal repercussions if he doesn't (note that this isn't consequentialism -he knows it's wrong).  All of these more instinctual motivations could later be justified as virtual ethics, deontology, consequentialism, or pragmatism depending on the bent of the person involved.

In summation, ethics as a determinant of action are often a revisionist mental construct.  Ethics as a yardstick for evaluating actions after the fact (ie passing judgement) are relative in that they are susceptible the persuasive abilities of the advocate.  Ethics can help the human mind interpret what is right, but interpretation itself is subject to the faults and fancies of the human mind.  Therefore ethics are in absolute terms only an illusion, although it sure makes you sound impressive when you quote Kant (so you will probably succeed in persuading people of your righteousness, no matter what it is you actually did).   

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

A. Preventing the rape +1 ethical. Not preventing the rape -1 ethical
B. Killing anyone -1 ethical. Letting someone live +1 ethical;
C. Let someone endure emotional scars for the rest of his/her life -1 ethical. Remove emotional scars: +1 ethical

options:
kill assailant: (A+B+C) = +1-1-1 = -1
kill girl:      (A+B+C) = +1-1+1 =  1

This is interesting because I would actually present those equations differently when supplied with the same options:

Kill Assailant:  A + B - B + C = 2

Kill girl:  A + (B-B) -C = 0

Using the above calculations, B will always cancel itself out as you are killing someone AND allowing someone to live, but when killing the girl you may be sparing her from emotional turmoil but not the would-be rapist, who has to deal with what he just saw for the rest of his life (and his actions).

Of course I disagree with your moral equation at base value as I do not equate a loss of ethics merely for killing 'anyone' and I believe there are circumstances where saving a life, even your own, is an ethical reason to end another.  I also don't think one can so simply quantify ethics into a series of checks and balances, which is why I tend to fall somewhere between deontology and pragmatism in my ethical structure.  I strongly believe in ethics and doing the right thing, but often it is a matter of knowing what exactly IS the right thing and analyzing your surroundings to best understand the situation and circumstances before making an ethical 'choice'.

[SSH]

The Only Way Is Ethics...