Case study in ethics

You didn’t attribute the quotes correctly.

It seems disrespectful to me to build a shopping mall around a burial site, even though the solution does avoid sacrilege.

I would build a structure around the site, an architectural marker of some kind, to allow people to visit and honor or at the least be aware of the site, have it in their conscious. This would be a celebration of life.

Yes, thank you. I apologize to all for any confusion caused. That was a gaffe on my part.

Serendipper gets the credit for the quotes. He earns a high Morality score!
Pedro and other contributors to this thread are also ethically sensitive as well.

For more case studies to analyze and solve, see:
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-studies

.

Here, for example, is a super-dilemma with which to grapple:
Banning burkas; is it freedom or is it discrimination?
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/wp-co … nation.pdf

Also, you may enjoy reading this essay on ethical facts and applying the theory:

myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … ncepts.pdf

I’m not sure if less pain resulted, but possibly more pain because the natives took on the pain of the scientists via empathy. Of course, in the video, Sarah Anzick was feeling pain as well because of her empathy, so she wanted to alleviate her pain by reducing the natives pain by helping them understand the situation. So, empathy on both sides saved the day and we’re lucky it happened that way.

[i]Both Doyle and Anzick (who notes that she is acting for her family, not NIH) say they are agonizing over how, and how soon, the child should be reburied. They worry that reburial will destroy data that might be retrieved years from now with better genetic techniques continue to improve. Schurr agrees: “This is why scientists are fighting against NAGPRA repatriations of Paleoamerican remains, as much can be learned from these ancient samples.”

But Doyle and Anzick insist that the child should be reburied out of respect for his Native American descendants. “The boy has given us an amazing gift,” Doyle says. “Now we must repay that by putting him back where he belongs.”[/i] sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/ … ontana-boy

That’s probably the crux of ethics: make an effort to understand my side of it; relate. We can’t have a relationship without relating otherwise it’s a sinking ship.

Freedom is having no opinion on burkas. To either sanction or ban burkas is discriminatory.

The ones that cover the face though, those are fucking creepy. They must be banned on grounds of disturbing the peace. Like a guy walking around with his cock out. It’s just not done in polite society.

Greetings, Pedro

I know how you feel.

It is done, though, in the U.S.A. if not in France.

The policy here is complete freedom to dress any way you want and not to impose on religion - unless maybe if they start to set up Sharia Law for their neighborhood.

Actually, I hold that this “let them wear a full body bag if they want to” is the best, the most moral, policy. In Chicago the women who only show their eyes and their hands seem to be a very tiny minority. You are free to avert your eyes from them, thus giving them no recognition.

If one such-attired woman ever spoke to me, I would give her my full attention; I would see how I could help. For that is the Ethical thing to do.

It is true that a terrorist strapped with bombs and a detonator may wear, for a disguise, a full-length burka; but to be filled with fearfulness that this may happen at any moment it is not a moral way to live.

It is better to live courageously and hopefully. Be an optimist! Seek out the good. Let’s put our emphasis on what is going well. Let’s look forward to a brighter future – and work to make it happen :exclamation:

Would you please give us some examples of that, Karpel?

If you would be kind enough to do so, it may prove to be quite instructive.

The US deciding to join WW2. They killed many many thousands,including many civilians and children, but perhaps it would have been worse if they had not joined. I think most mainstream historians would argue that it would have been much worse. But it did lead to Dreseden, Hiroshima, fire bombing Tokyo, etc.

I think there would have been less death if the US had stayed out. Hitler just wanted to rebuild Germany and it was the resistance to that which caused the death. The concentration camps were likely victims to disease and starvation due to the bombing of supply lines. If Hitler were left alone, he would have come and gone like everyone else. The US joining the war was the manifestation of “the road to hell being paved with good intentions.” It was a righteous war.

I don’t agree with your sense of what would have happened if Hitler won or what was going on in the camps. But we can set that aside and focus on the general issue.

Here was my exchange with thinkdr

He asked me for examples.

I think that it is not always the case that one chooses the option that does the least harm. That the harm can be outweighed by a greater benefit.

A doctor could leave a bullet inside a body even though it is near an artery, in order to avoid the harm to the body by operating and removing it rather than just closing up the wounds and giving antibiotics. But since removing the bullet while entailing more harm to the body in the moment reduces the liklihood of greater harm coming soon.

(and I agree with your concerns that often good intentions leads to all sorts of problems, but still…)

Can you think of any instances where you think a good decision might lead to more harm but this greater harm is offset by the greater good done by that decision?

I don’t want to put forward a solution. I have two different main critiques of consequentialism - they are not of the same category: 1) I find most consequentialists a) overrate their ability or this or that organizations ability to track consequences, and closely related to that b) have a tendency to decide that effects that are hard to track do not exist and 2) they are critical of deontologists, but they are, at root, deontologists, since they have to have axiomatic values - often vague ones like the greatest good for the greatest number (the value hiding in ‘good’ for example).

I use a mixed approach, with both deontological and consequentialist heuristics. Though I don’t really believe in morals, there are things I prefer and things I dislike.

thinkdr

France?

  • But France was the most inhibiting of the rebuilding!

World War I?

Sure, “if they want to”.

That’s the part which is unclear. Do they actually want to wear those clothes or are they forced to. If they had a “free” choice, what would they wear?

If one looks at Iran when the “clothes police” were not around, women mostly adopted western clothing with perhaps a light head covering. So, I suspect that’s generally what they want.

Oh yes, I get your point and it’s a good point. I was just saying. It’s an offtopic conversation and I doubt many would agree with me, but it’s interesting to think about.

To bring it back ontopic, there are two kinds of wars: the good old fashioned wars of greed and the righteous wars. The latter are horrific because they don’t preserve the goods they plunder, but destroy everything and every last man out of righteousness. I see WWII as the latter… a righteous war against nazism. Followed by the righteous war against communism. And now the righteous war against terrorism, drugs, vice. Think of how many lives we ruin trying to punish people for using a drug.

Ya know, I’ve actually had guys wanting to kill me because I refused to wear a helmet for my own safety. Can you imagine that? lol

How does neat division into two categories work in the case of Nazi expansion to the East? They wanted to destroy the evil communists - the righteous war. But they also wanted to seize the land for their own use and to enslave the population - the greedy war.

Or how about the Nazi “war” against the Jews? Both saving the world from the international Jewish conspiracy and making a good profit by taking their property.

Then there is the Soviet POV - The Great Patriotic War - a fight for their own survival against the Nazis.

Good comparison.
The problem with it is indeed the obscenity.

I think that falls under the heading of greed. Idk, but I’m under the impression that Hitler merely wanted to rebuild Germany and I don’t think I’ve seen evidence that Hitler intended to take over the world. I’m not even sure Hitler started the war (something Pat Buchanan said; I don’t remember.).

Germany used to be much larger: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deut … 1-1918.png

Countries were growing and shrinking throughout history: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ac.prussiamap3.png

It’s just nature at work like lions kill gazelles, countries eat other countries. So, Hitler was about to have dinner when everyone flipped out lol. It would be like the cameraman defending the gazelle and then launching war against all lions for being monsters!

Even if Germany had no right to take its territory back, it would still only be a war of greed rather than righteous crusade.

Maybe, but I think it was more about rebuilding Germany. That was the general theme like Make America Great Again, put Germany back how it used to be in terms of geography, population, values, and wealth.

Good, but long video

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Nt14AImq0[/youtube]

I think they just wanted them out of the country like Americans want the Mexicans out. I guess that is a righteous war, but not total extermination like what happened to the nazis.

Yeah lol

But that’s defense. I was talking about offense. The reasons to attack someone are greed and righteousness.

Well there is this :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum