Do you think that that’s necessarily true? Living up to what we consider to be an ethical life is not always that easy, is it?
I think that BEING ethical is more based on how we follow our rule of ethics, in other words, actions speak louder than words. It’s easy to think that we value people but the proof of that is how we go about it - our actions. under particular circumstances, that might fall short.
Give me an example of this? The Ten Commandments are built on ethics and morality.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.
Supposing you find a wallet on the ground with a thousand dollars in it and the name of the owner.
A truly ethical person would return that money and wallet even though they were maybe one or two months overdue on their rent.
Do you think that an ethical person would not be tempted at all about that money - that their only thought would be to give it back?
True, you wouldn’t want to harm them. Insofar as “hurting someone’s feelings” is concerned, honesty is important. No, not to deliberately go out of your way to hurt someone’s feelings but if something has to be said, say it in a way that is honest but if it does have to be said, not to say it would be sacrificing growth in the name of sentimentality. Do you agree or disagree with this?
For instance? Are you saying that in all cases you would put people first, and not yourself?
For me, that one conscious human lifee would also have to be an 'innocent" of sorts.
Define “better”?
So how does one do this without making others suffer?
[/quote]
For one and all? There would be no conflict there?
For one and all? There would be no conflict there?
[/quote] Study up on Axionics, and on the rest of Ethics. Then give others the best education, counseling, and coaching that you know how. Cross bridges when you come to them instead of worrying in advance. Be very specific in your questions, and speak from your actual experience when asking. Others still may suffer. There will be conflicts. Conflict is okay; but don’t go to war over it. Don’t use violence. Be dedicated to resolving conflicts by moral (nonviolent) means.
This is a standard game theory question.
Each of the persons, with the same information has to consider what would be their response to the situation.
You are already queered your pitch by placing the desirable criteria on "co-operation+, where none such thing exists.
Person 1 might think that 2 also wants co-operation. However he might think that s would rather kill 1 to make sure he does not have to share one or more of the limited resources. Further such resources might be abundant now, but what about when the seasons change; the climate the weather etc.
So for an uncertain future 1 or 2 might conclude that the other might make try to reserve all resources for himself.
Game theory suggests that the end game here is that it is immediately necessary to kill the other person to ensure your own survival.
The likelihood that co-operation is possible requires that both think that way (unequivocally), and that both think that the other also thinks that way, as even if one thinks co-operation is better, it would only take the fact that one might want to kill the other for that to be the best option.
Thus the only viable conclusion would be to act to kill now!.
It was this dangerous logic that has led to more wars than not, and during the cold war it was only MAD that ensured that a nuke exchange never took place.
Ethics suggests that self preservation always trumps morality.
You can thank John Nash for that particular “game theory” of “kill first” (a Nobel Prize winner). And in USA courts, it is common to always favor the one who brought it to court (supporting the theory even further).
Yes, Muishkin, you are correct that the conclusion arrived at in that scenario is “dangerous logic.” Also, false Logic. [size=88] { In Katz - ETHICS: A College Course, cited earlier in a recent post, there is a section on Ethical Fallacies. Check it out.}[/size]
You construct the situation so that there are either limited resources OR a strong lack of trust. This is what value-theoreticians have dubbed ‘dyssystemic thinking.’ It is a disjunction in which both alternatives are disvalues, both possibilities are losses of value. The system of Ethics that I am proposing directs us to ADD VALUE. We would, if we understood the benefits, and the obligation to comply with moral law, think in terms of value-added. We would be realists (having vision) rather than pessimists. [See the discussion of this in LIVING THE GOOD LIFE, a link to which you will find below in the signature.]
Either/or thinking - thinking everything is either black or white - leaves out the shades of gray and the colors of real life. Isn’t it possible that if the first individual projects a strong sense of identification with the second individual, and employs satyagraha, (truth force), that they could relate as brothers? (or sisters, as the case may be. Or both.) You give us another reason why people need education in Ethics, the new paradigm.
And, furthermore, you assume that the game, Prisoners Dilemma, with its arbitrary selected payoffs assigned, and its stark alternatives, is true to life.
Wikipedia has an extensive article on the Prisoners Dilemma game, and concludes with this creative bit of research - resulting in a situation that is far more 'true-to-life; far more likely to occur in the real world. I shall quote the passage from Wiki:
"Iterated snowdrift
Researchers from the University of Lausanne and the University of Edinburgh have suggested that the “Iterated Snowdrift Game” may more closely reflect real-world social situations. Although this model is actually a chicken game, it will be described here. In this model, the risk of being exploited through defection is lower, and individuals always gain from taking the cooperative choice. The snowdrift game imagines two drivers who are stuck on opposite sides of a snowdrift, each of whom is given the option of shoveling snow to clear a path, or remaining in their car. A player’s highest payoff comes from leaving the opponent to clear all the snow by themselves, but the opponent is still nominally rewarded for their work.
This may better reflect real world scenarios, the researchers giving the example of two scientists collaborating on a report, both of whom would benefit if the other worked harder. “But when your collaborator doesn’t do any work, it’s probably better for you to do all the work yourself. You’ll still end up with a completed project.”]" Citation: Kümmerli, Rolf, Colliard, Caroline, Fiechter, Nicolas, Petitpierre, Blaise, Russier, Flavien, and Keller, Laurent. “Human cooperation in social dilemmas: comparing the Snowdrift game with the Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Proc. R. Soc. B, doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0793.
My conclusion is that even if we play along with Game Theory as having models relevant to real life, cooperation on shared goals is still the best policy - both from a pragmatic standpoint and an Ethical one.
When people bet on other people cheating, lying, and/or stealing, they create a society of wealthy criminals. Those who “play the odds” against altruism, destroy the future for everyone concerned. If a terrorist doesn’t appear, inspire them to appear else you lose your bet. That is the current state of the West, if not the entire world.
You are talking about an ideal situation in which people assume everyone is cuddly and warm.
What planet are you from?
The fact is that there is no basis for trust is the baseline for all survival. and limited resources, or as likely unlimited greed is also the standard assumption for the survivalist.
To beat the tiger you have to out-tiger the tiger.
This is the norm on planet earth since the dawn of life.
That is why Israel is killing babies right now.
Instead of choosing lesser evils, the system I am proposing recommends that we choose among greater goods. It finds that Pessimists are a little bit sick: Here is why: By definition, a pessimist names things so that they turn out to be bad - under the name he puts on them. He is always out of kilter with reality. Always whining, complaining, feeling like a victim… E.g., The posts on this website move too fast. Sam is too young to start a new business. Etc.
The Optimist names things so that they turn out to be good. E.g., that horse is a good nag. These buildings are a good slum. I’ve got a good headache! Etc. The Optimist calls a spade a spade - and is thus able to be creative and behave ethically. {What the Pessimist calls “a bad banana” the Optimist might speak of as “Good mush that will make good compost, so let’s put it in the compost heap.” The Optimist is thus constructive, and will ‘build not burn.’ …not likely to kill any babies (any uncountably-high values.)
It doesn’t occur to those who lack vision that they could pressure. and lobby, and demonstrate, and fund, efforts to get wealthy nations to bring the Palestinians standard of living up to a level where they are all in the middle class; and thus would have much less incentive to ‘rock the boat’, to violently attack anyone. Comfortable people rarely feel like going to war.
Life in Israel is insecure more than for most peoples elsewhere. This is because they believe in violence, vengeance and retaliation - instead of nonviolent direct action and truth-force (what in Sanskrit is called satyagraha.) Once again, ignorance is the cause of problems.
That is why folks need to re-read, and study carefully, both the o.p. in this thread, and the booklet, Katz - BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach.
Here is a link to it: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
It is still true that “Without vision the people perish.” Let’s go to it and begin doing the things that will fulfill the ultimate purpose for mankind: To provide well-being, health, a Quality Life for one and all.
You can recommend all you like. But when you tell your enemy that you want the greater good, he will immediately choose the lesser of two evils and take all you have to give and deprive you of your life. And he will manage to justify it in terms of the greater good.
One man’s evil is another’s good.
As for Israel. “Ignorance” is not a cause it is a reflective condition that you have applied to them to satisfy your own position. They would probably use the same term on you too.
Let’s look at ignorance. ~ I’m willing to bet that Israelis and Palestinians are not ignorant about their situation and know a damn sight more about it than either you or I.
And from what you are saying about it, it is clear to me that you are woefully ignorant of the situation; and the suggestion to bring the Palestinians up to the ‘middle class’ is risible.
A society is only as strong as its weakest link. We also look out for others and help them to learn to look out for themselves because of WHO they are. It isn’t solely about self-respect.
The Chinese (?) proverb comes to mind: “If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime”. That’s not to say that while he is learning, he cannot be helped along.
i’m not so sure that we CAN give people joy, bliss, serenity but we can speak to them of how we ourselves come to these things. But considering how many in the world live, I don’t think these things are of the utmost importance though they are important. Everyone lives differently. To expect some to have these emotions when they’re struggling to put food on their table amonst other things is not too realistic. Emotional support is important.
What are the benefits to someone acting ethically?
Do you really think that a “truly” ethical person would have this attitude? In the first place, the money does not belong to the one who found it…whether they found it or not. It belongs to the one who lost it. The way I look at it, keeping a hundred dollars for one’s self would be stealing and compounding that with a lie - ethical? Your thought really is not justified and it is just rationalization.
Your scenario - this is the point at which ethics flies out the window. There is more justification for a mother to steal a loaf of bread for a starving child.
Being tempted is human - being ethical is transcending temptation.
Neither would we want to rationallize to our selves that because we found their money, we have some of it coming to us. Let’s say the person who lost the money was a woman and she had two little children in tow with her. Would you accept a hundred dollars simply because you found the money or might you realize that since she had two little children, she might need it - and nobly say no thank you. The money belongs to you and i want nothing.
Really? No cross-examination? Aed and Aed really gets at the truth of it, doesn’t it?
Arcturus, you are more of a saint than I - or a lot of others I know. Yes, you are so right about the possibility that a struggling mother may have been the one who lost the wallet …even tho it contained $1000.
Yes, we ought rise above short-term selfish considerations. I am all for transcending temptations. We need to learn better techniques for how this is done with a minimum of suffering entailed.
Thanks again for a good post.
Lincoln said: “The best way to get rid of enemies is to turn them into friends.” I strongly and wholeheartedly agree.
[size=75]p.s. Lev, Shalom. I read over twice Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech to the Knesset, a speech which thanked the head of Hamas for unifying the people of Israel. I am thrilled that Egypt has now proposed to intervene with a Cease-fire proposal. I have a niece that settled in Israel 20 years ago, joined a Kibbutz on the Golan Heights, had 9 boys and one girl. She told me at length how Israel sees itself, and its position in the world. Hiney ma tov umanayim !![/size]
Trust me, I am no saint. There is absolutely no fun in that.
“more of a saint than I”? Do you consider yourself to be a saint, zinnat?
That was just a scenario. But it might have been a struggling mother with two children whose rent is $1,000.
I could be wrong here but your statement kind of implied that a struggling mother wouldn’t have $1,000. :-"
Of course, I realize that you may have just been playing around with me when you gave me the $100s scenario.
The point I was trying to make is that, ethically speaking, it isn’t up to us to decide we need a reward or what that reward would be.
But would the situation be any different if the wallet and money had belonged to, let’s say, Bill Gates? I’m sure many people woud say so.
But one never knows what a random event such as finding money might do toward the quality of one’s life. Let’s say Bill Gates so admired someone who handed in that $1000 that he offered him/her a job - which in the long run would turn out to be far more lucrative than the money found.
We may not always regard it as so, but honesty, at least in this case is the best policy.
Also, doing unto others what you would have them do unto you is too.
I’m not saying that something “good” (short of returning the money) necessarily has to come from “doing the right thing” but one really never knows.
Contrary to popular belief, possession is NOT 99%(?) of the law.
A truly ethical person, at least in my book, would not have assumed that because he found the money, he could put a certain amount of it aside for himself. That’s an arrrogant assumption.
That poses a question: Who is it who is doing the suffering? The person who gives back the money? They didn’t have it to begin with.
But the person who lost it may in some way or another suffer. Perhaps it belonged to the father of a teenage boy - a boy who would have beaten by his father for losing it.
Let’s say that there was $70,000 in a wallet - much more of a temptation then I’d say. But that money may have been for a down-payment on a house or something.
There are any number of possibilities one could consider insofar as the lost money not being returned affecting someone’s life.
Ethics isn’t always about short-term consideration. We have to consider long term what “stealing” that money might do to another person’s life.
You are quite welcome.
That quote is for another thread. How to go about making your enemy your friend.
But, zinnat, you are a far far far cry away from being my enemy.
They’re both calm individuals who express high esteem for care and love. Their contributions to this forum, align very well.
Perhaps you interact with them for the same reasons, so as you’re communicating to thinkdr, you’re unconsciously drawing the connection strongly enough to confuse the two.
No problem.
For the record, I wasn’t trying to laugh at your expense. (It looked that way, I had a bad feeling when posting it)
I laughed because I could related to the confusion. When I initially began reading the post, I didn’t see an error because I made the freudian slip described above.
Aed and Aed really gets at the truth of it, doesn’t it?
