Bad things happen to victims

[bunny]

It seems to me that a necessary, but not sufficient condition for an immoral or unethical act is that it must cause harm to a sentient being. Is this right?

[guesswest]

I'd agree with that, provided you accept animals as sentient beings (which I do, but some people don't), and provided you accept that the impact on a sentient being can be indirect.

[New001]

Does consenting sex between two people (perhaps unmarried, or perhaps teenagers, or homosexuals, all of which I think are considered immoral or unethical by many) cause harm to a sentient being? It's certainly possible, but I don't think it's necessary.

[guesswest]

And bunny - excellent post.

New: I don't consider any of those actions unethical personally. But if you did, you could argue that they did indeed necessarily cause harm to sentient beings, whether it's self-harm, harm to the family, harm to social structure and thus ostensibly unconnected people etc...

[New001]

I don't find any of those actions immoral either, but I know many do.

I don't agree with you though. The acts themselves don't cause any harm (it's only sex), obviously any kind of disease and pregnancy aside. Sometimes there might be "emotional harm" and sometimes not. I think the other "harm" you mentioned is largely because the act is considered immoral, not because the act is harmful.

Basically: this act (use consenting unmarried sex, for example) is immoral because it causes harm, and it causes harm because it is immoral. Can you clarify what you mean if this isn't quite it, or correct my misunderstanding?

[guesswest]

Well, I agree with you that they don't necessarily cause harm, but I also believe those actions not to be unethical (and probably for that reason), so I'm not the one to ask - it doesn't impact on the validity of the original condition bunny suggested in terms of my own ethical code.

To continue using sex as an example, the two activities that are almost universally viewed as immoral - rape and child molestation. The immediate difference with these two activities is that they do, without any doubt, cause harm to sentient beings.

You bring up an interesting idea though, in so far as is an action that wouldn't be morally ok if the repercussions were realized, then morally ok if you 'get away with it'? - which is counter intuitive to most people, including me. But that would be the case if you applied realised direct harm as a necessary condition.

For instance, I view cheating on your spouse (under normal circumstances) as immoral, and I don't think getting caught makes it more or less so. To that end I'd want to modify bunny's original claim to something like 'the clear potential to cause harm to a sentient being'.

[pilliwinks]

I can think of several things which I consider to be unethical which do not cause harm.

If you have two children and give one two lollies and the other one, no harm is done, only good. Yet the injustice makes it unethical. Those interested can check Matthew 20 for an alternative view on this.

I also consider it unethical to incite harm or to deliberately circulate information or material intended to be used unethically. No direct damage is done, but the desire for harm is unethical. Somehow the mine manufacturers ignore this one.

I also regard schadenfreude as unethical. I know the huge ratings for Funniest Home Video indicate that I'm in a minority here, but taking pleasure in the suffering of others strikes me as immoral, though it causes no harm.

I'm sure there are loads of others even before you get into the grey area of how to assess whether you are damaged by some activities.

[guesswest]

pilli - I'm struggling to see how you view any of those activities as not causing harm. Perhaps not 'direct' harm, but that was never part of the language to begin with.

Do agree with you on schadenfreude though - shows like that irritate the hell out of me also. Though I'm not sure the unethical part is the reaction, it's more collecting and distributing the materials to elicit it - I'd say 'being amused' by something is ethically neutral in so far as we can't really control it.

[pilliwinks]

Unequal undeserved generosity seems unethical to me. Nobody is harmed by undeserved generosity.

If I didn't tell you that I was being more generous to someone else, you clearly wouldn't object to my generosity. But all the same I would feel that I was being unethical, despite the fact that both recipients are delighted by my actions.

On the subject of indirect harm, it is widely argued that it is not immoral to provide weapons or training to nations with dubious human rights records. Every major nation I can think of does it. Perhaps not Canada, still, every major nation.

They claim that their intent is to support justice and the rule of law. They claim that _they_ are not hurting anyone, so they are not acting unethically. The fact that the recipients choose to behave badly is not their fault, indeed they make every effort to condemn such action. There is clearly no causal relationship between the action of supplying batons, and the brutalising of protestors. There is an act of free will in between. Nonetheless, I regard such actions as unethical.

I agree that being amused when people fall over is natural, but plenty of our natural reactions are unethical. I'd say choosing to watch or produce such programs is ethically suspect, though more along the lines of 'ungentlemanly' than 'reprehensible'.

[ElaineMonster]

I happen to agree with the OP for the most part, but consider:

1. Someone intends to do wrong to someone but somehow that wrong deed doesn't actually harm the victim and instead benefits him. MeanGuy robs Victim of TV. Victim never watched TV in the first place, always hated TV, doesn't even notice it's missing, instead finds hidden treasure burried in wall where TV used to be. Is the action of stealing still immoral? If so, your theory must provide for intent or values rather than pure consequences.

2. Some horrible bad thing for one person is actually extremely good for ALL other people. I'm not a utilitarian so it's hard for me to come up with a good example, but let's just say, there really is a god and he really does like it when you sacrifice a virgin every year or month. He makes the world a better place each time some innocent 14 year old is killed by the village. Would killing these kids be wrong?

3. When there are only two choices of behavior and BOTH lead to harm, ought you choose the action that results in the least harm or the action that results in the most good?

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
....ought you choose the action that results in the least harm or the action that results in the most good?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not clear to me how these two options differ, is one not just a synonym for the other?

[cambraceres]

Two qualitative terms that are subjective to this level do not exist as a zero sum game does. These things exist on their own sliding scale.

Cambraceres

[guesswest]

I'm not sure I agree with that either - the implication is that moral decisions occur in a vacumn. I'd contend that if you're making a singular ethical choice that necessarily impacts multiple variables, in so far as ethics is concerned, you're only making a decision on one issue - which would be some kind of aggregate of all those variables.

[Lestat]

What if a 66 year old man merely lusts over a 12 year old child? Is this immoral?

[DougShrapnel]

Good post Elaine, I think that actions that cause suffering are more easly identified as unethical. But there are complicated senarios that may result in zero suffering that are still unethical. Cheating on a test, Cheating on a loved one that doesn't find out and never will, dishonesty, greed, sloth, gluttony, and some self destructive behaviors. Unethical actions can create pleasure(cheating on a loved one), or be pain/pleasure neutral(cheating on a test).

Also an action that causes less suffering can still be unethical. A doctor with 5 patients. 4 will die, and 1 is perfectly healty. A doctor could use the 1 healty patient to fix the 4 fatal ones. If the doctor did this he would be reducing suffering. It is still unethical.

[Mrs. Utah]

How are you defining immoral or unethical? Do you mean from a social contract type meaning or a good/evil natural law type meaning?

How do you define harm?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But there are complicated senarios that may result in zero suffering that are still unethical. Cheating on a test, Cheating on a loved one that doesn't find out and never will, dishonesty, greed, sloth, gluttony, and some self destructive behaviors. Unethical actions can create pleasure(cheating on a loved one), or be pain/pleasure neutral(cheating on a test).

[/ QUOTE ]
It has to be the likelyhood of harm rather than definite harm and in these examples the immorality of the action is linked to the likely harm.

If the test has value then cheating harms those who don't cheat.

If you cheat on a spouse then the likelyhood is that it will effect your relationship adversly (finding out, suspicion, lack of attention etc).

Sloth is not immoral /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What if a 66 year old man merely lusts over a 12 year old child? Is this immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the argument would be that the lusting is more likely to lead to a situation in which children are harmed, either directly by the luster or by the luster using child pornography.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a necessary, but not sufficient condition for an immoral or unethical act is that it must cause harm to a sentient being. Is this right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Although I agree, I actully completely disagree. Its all about what we want and I don't want to harm people so, for me (and I belive most humans) harming people goes against what we want and that's what we label immoral.

Telling someone who wants to harm people that to do so is immoral is satisfying but is just saying they are fundementally different to us in what they want.

Ethics is different. My Dad thinks its unethical not to wear a tie.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
It has to be the likelyhood of harm rather than definite harm and in these examples the immorality of the action is linked to the likely harm.

[/ QUOTE ] We can certainly create a situation where there is zero likelyhood of harm. Does that then mean that it is moral? You are away on a trip, a women propositions you, she also has a means of erasing the memory and then replacing it with wonderfull thoughts about your wife. Is this no longer unethical?

[Sharkey]

The whole issue turns on whether one accepts the existence of inherent rights. If so, then an immoral act occurs whenever someone violates another’s inherent rights.

[DougShrapnel]

You don't need inherent rights, they do help to think about ethics. But ethics is a means of correct and incorect actions. All you need are actions, and sentient beings to judge those actions, within the context of the nature of a society.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if a 66 year old man merely lusts over a 12 year old child? Is this immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the argument would be that the lusting is more likely to lead to a situation in which children are harmed, either directly by the luster or by the luster using child pornography.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't lusting for a child an immoral act? Except if you're a priest of course. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has to be the likelyhood of harm rather than definite harm and in these examples the immorality of the action is linked to the likely harm.

[/ QUOTE ] We can certainly create a situation where there is zero likelyhood of harm. Does that then mean that it is moral? You are away on a trip, a women propositions you, she also has a means of erasing the memory and then replacing it with wonderfull thoughts about your wife. Is this no longer unethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to claim that constructing these sorts of examples shows why its the harm caused by the act that makes it immoral.

What the examples do is make the amount of harm tend to zero but they do so by making doing the act tend to the same as not doing it.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to claim that constructing these sorts of examples shows why its the harm caused by the act that makes it immoral.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, lets take the tie example. Your father thinks it is unethical not to wear a tie. He is correct. What we wear is for the benefit of others as they are the ones that have to look at us. It is an act of selfishness, that causes no harm to anyone not to wear a tie.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to claim that constructing these sorts of examples shows why its the harm caused by the act that makes it immoral.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, lets take the tie example. Your father thinks it is unethical not to wear a tie. He is correct. What we wear is for the benefit of others as they are the ones that have to look at us. It is an act of selfishness, that causes no harm to anyone not to wear a tie.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would strongly argue that wearing a tie or not harms nobody (not sure I can muster the enthusiasm to do so /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

One of my greatest acheivements at school was being the only one banned from wearing the school tie.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to claim that constructing these sorts of examples shows why its the harm caused by the act that makes it immoral.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, lets take the tie example. Your father thinks it is unethical not to wear a tie. He is correct. What we wear is for the benefit of others as they are the ones that have to look at us. It is an act of selfishness, that causes no harm to anyone not to wear a tie.

[/ QUOTE ]
Another example that springs to mind for some reason:

Posting whilst playing poker could be unethical but not immoral.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

Clearly I'm thinking about ethics and you are thinking about morals. I've used them interchangably up until now. [ QUOTE ]
Posting whilst playing poker could be unethical but not immoral.


[/ QUOTE ] Neither unethical or immoral. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly I'm thinking about ethics and you are thinking about morals. I've used them interchangably up until now. [ QUOTE ]
Posting whilst playing poker could be unethical but not immoral.


[/ QUOTE ] Neither unethical or immoral. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn, I bet myself that the 'thi' came from 'this' and it must have come from 'thinking'.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I would strongly argue that wearing a tie or not harms nobody (not sure I can muster the enthusiasm to do so )

[/ QUOTE ] I would agree with you, it is unethical tho.

[ QUOTE ]
One of my greatest acheivements at school was being the only one banned from wearing the school tie.

[/ QUOTE ] Let's hear it.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Damn, I bet myself that the 'thi' came from 'this' and it must have come from 'thinking'.

[/ QUOTE ] Now you have just comfused me, I'm sure it's funny for the life of me I just cann't figure out how.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would strongly argue that wearing a tie or not harms nobody (not sure I can muster the enthusiasm to do so )

[/ QUOTE ] I would agree with you, it is unethical tho.

[ QUOTE ]
One of my greatest acheivements at school was being the only one banned from wearing the school tie.

[/ QUOTE ] Let's here it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The full story will have to wait for the book I'm never going to write but it boils down to them arguing that wearing a tie looks smart and me proving them wrong.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Does consenting sex between two people (perhaps unmarried, or perhaps teenagers, or homosexuals, all of which I think are considered immoral or unethical by many) cause harm to a sentient being? It's certainly possible, but I don't think it's necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is not unethical or immoral and doesnt cause harm.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of several things which I consider to be unethical which do not cause harm.

If you have two children and give one two lollies and the other one, no harm is done, only good. Yet the injustice makes it unethical. Those interested can check Matthew 20 for an alternative view on this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wonder whether you are withholding half a lollie from the second child and thus harming them.

[ QUOTE ]
I also consider it unethical to incite harm or to deliberately circulate information or material intended to be used unethically. No direct damage is done, but the desire for harm is unethical. Somehow the mine manufacturers ignore this one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are causing harm by making bad things more likely to happen. Although you dont bear full responsibility if some rioter does something bad later as a result of your material, you are partly responsible.

[ QUOTE ]
I also regard schadenfreude as unethical. I know the huge ratings for Funniest Home Video indicate that I'm in a minority here, but taking pleasure in the suffering of others strikes me as immoral, though it causes no harm.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is unethical or immoral, as long as you are mocking them privately - ie not damaging their self-esteem or reputation.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Unequal undeserved generosity seems unethical to me. Nobody is harmed by undeserved generosity.

If I didn't tell you that I was being more generous to someone else, you clearly wouldn't object to my generosity. But all the same I would feel that I was being unethical, despite the fact that both recipients are delighted by my actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it is required that the harmed person knows they are being harmed.

[ QUOTE ]
On the subject of indirect harm, it is widely argued that it is not immoral to provide weapons or training to nations with dubious human rights records. Every major nation I can think of does it. Perhaps not Canada, still, every major nation.

They claim that their intent is to support justice and the rule of law. They claim that _they_ are not hurting anyone, so they are not acting unethically. The fact that the recipients choose to behave badly is not their fault, indeed they make every effort to condemn such action. There is clearly no causal relationship between the action of supplying batons, and the brutalising of protestors. There is an act of free will in between. Nonetheless, I regard such actions as unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they have made it easier for bad acts to happen and thus bear some of the responsibility and have done something unethical.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to agree with the OP for the most part, but consider:

1. Someone intends to do wrong to someone but somehow that wrong deed doesn't actually harm the victim and instead benefits him. MeanGuy robs Victim of TV. Victim never watched TV in the first place, always hated TV, doesn't even notice it's missing, instead finds hidden treasure burried in wall where TV used to be. Is the action of stealing still immoral? If so, your theory must provide for intent or values rather than pure consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is immoral - stealing something that the person is truly better off without seems like a charitable act to me.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Some horrible bad thing for one person is actually extremely good for ALL other people. I'm not a utilitarian so it's hard for me to come up with a good example, but let's just say, there really is a god and he really does like it when you sacrifice a virgin every year or month. He makes the world a better place each time some innocent 14 year old is killed by the village. Would killing these kids be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think not - I think the harm is necessary for an unethical act but not sufficient.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
What if a 66 year old man merely lusts over a 12 year old child? Is this immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think not if it is a purely internal thought with no effect on the outside world (ie he doesnt act on his feelings).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you defining immoral or unethical? Do you mean from a social contract type meaning or a good/evil natural law type meaning?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am new to ethics but I am a moral realist (I think).

[ QUOTE ]
How do you define harm?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt want to get bogged down in technical details unless it was necessary, was just hoping you would "know what I mean". I certainly mean for you to interpret the term broadly though.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if a 66 year old man merely lusts over a 12 year old child? Is this immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the argument would be that the lusting is more likely to lead to a situation in which children are harmed, either directly by the luster or by the luster using child pornography.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't lusting for a child an immoral act? Except if you're a priest of course. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
And here I was mentally congratulating everyone on keeping religion out of it... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole issue turns on whether one accepts the existence of inherent rights. If so, then an immoral act occurs whenever someone violates another’s inherent rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if there is a difference between "violating someone's inherent rights" and "suffering harm". I think they are referring to the same acts.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole issue turns on whether one accepts the existence of inherent rights. If so, then an immoral act occurs whenever someone violates another’s inherent rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know if there is a difference between "violating someone's inherent rights" and "suffering harm". I think they are referring to the same acts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose they are basically the same. The concept of inherent rights allows the harm to be described in a sort of legalese.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need inherent rights, they do help to think about ethics. But ethics is a means of correct and incorect actions. All you need are actions, and sentient beings to judge those actions, within the context of the nature of a society

[/ QUOTE ]I agree with this except the part about inherent rights helping the thinking of ethics.

[Lestat]

So there is no such thing as an immoral thought?

I guess this is exactly what you said in the OP. That it must cause harm to a sentient being. But why do you feel immorality is confined to the physical world? I don't equate morality with legality or law. Morality goes deeper than that. I suppose you can't be a crimminal without committing a physical crime. But I do believe you can be immoral without cause and effect. A while back (I think before you arrived), there was an interesting post where a guy asked...

Suppose he was going to Vegas and a friend of his gave him $5 to run through a slot machine. If the slot machine hit for a $$ million $$, and his friend would never know about it, would it be ok if he just gave his friend 100k or so? After all, his friend wouldn't be hurt at all. He makes out great and would certainly be very happy.

What do you think Bunny? I called the guy a louse! Even though everyone would be happy, the fact he could live with himself knowing he broke his word and dishonestly betrayed a friend makes a guy sub-human in my book. In other words, it would be IMMORAL! And there's an instance where no one is physically harmed, isn't it?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if a 66 year old man merely lusts over a 12 year old child? Is this immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the argument would be that the lusting is more likely to lead to a situation in which children are harmed, either directly by the luster or by the luster using child pornography.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't lusting for a child an immoral act? Except if you're a priest of course. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
And here I was mentally congratulating everyone on keeping religion out of it... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon! How could I resist that?!

Don't I get some credit for at least waiting until half-way through the thread? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So there is no such thing as an immoral thought?

I guess this is exactly what you said in the OP. That it must cause harm to a sentient being. But why do you feel immorality is confined to the physical world? I don't equate morality with legality or law. Morality goes deeper than that. I suppose you can't be a crimminal without committing a physical crime. But I do believe you can be immoral without cause and effect. A while back (I think before you arrived), there was an interesting post where a guy asked...

Suppose he was going to Vegas and a friend of his gave him $5 to run through a slot machine. If the slot machine hit for a $$ million $$, and his friend would never know about it, would it be ok if he just gave his friend 100k or so? After all, his friend wouldn't be hurt at all. He makes out great and would certainly be very happy.

What do you think Bunny? I called the guy a louse! Even though everyone would be happy, the fact he could live with himself knowing he broke his word and dishonestly betrayed a friend makes a guy sub-human in my book. In other words, it would be IMMORAL! And there's an instance where no one is physically harmed, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's how I see it.

If the louse has no conception that what he is doing is a bad thing then his amoral not immoral.

If he believes that what he is doing is wrong then its immoral and its likely that a great deal of harm is being done to himself and those he interacts with (even if he can't get caught this time).

chez

[Lestat]

I agree chez, that if you don't know it's wrong then it's amoral and not immoral, but...

Anyone with a brain would know that this million dollars rightfully belongs to the friend. You can twist things to make yourself feel better about it (and doesn't that go on a lot in this world?), but you gotta know that keeping 90% of the money isn't the moral thing to do.

Actually, I've been in this situation. Not pulling a winning slot, but going to Vegas with money a friend has given me to play a slot or place a longshot bet for them. I let them know right there that if it hits, I get 10%. No one has ever said, "No" yet.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree chez, that if you don't know it's wrong then it's amoral and not immoral, but...

Anyone with a brain would know that this million dollars rightfully belongs to the friend. You can twist things to make yourself feel better about it (and doesn't that go on a lot in this world?), but you gotta know that keeping 90% of the money isn't the moral thing to do.

Actually, I've been in this situation. Not pulling a winning slot, but going to Vegas with money a friend has given me to play a slot or place a longshot bet for them. I let them know right there that if it hits, I get 10%. No one has ever said, "No" yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, I can't seriously envisage a human not realising its wrong though I suppose its possible.

However, even if its the perfect crime it does cause harm. Doing stuff that we believe to be wrong is harmful to ourself. This may sound unimportant but its one of the two key reasons to be moral (the other being quid pro quo).

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
So there is no such thing as an immoral thought?

I guess this is exactly what you said in the OP. That it must cause harm to a sentient being. But why do you feel immorality is confined to the physical world? I don't equate morality with legality or law. Morality goes deeper than that. I suppose you can't be a crimminal without committing a physical crime. But I do believe you can be immoral without cause and effect. A while back (I think before you arrived), there was an interesting post where a guy asked...

Suppose he was going to Vegas and a friend of his gave him $5 to run through a slot machine. If the slot machine hit for a $$ million $$, and his friend would never know about it, would it be ok if he just gave his friend 100k or so? After all, his friend wouldn't be hurt at all. He makes out great and would certainly be very happy.

What do you think Bunny? I called the guy a louse! Even though everyone would be happy, the fact he could live with himself knowing he broke his word and dishonestly betrayed a friend makes a guy sub-human in my book. In other words, it would be IMMORAL! And there's an instance where no one is physically harmed, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt mean to restrict it to the physical world - (didnt I say outside world?). In this situation I think the guy has behaved unethically since he has stolen $900,000 from the guy who owned the $5. It doesnt matter to me that the guy doesnt know he's been harmed - he still has.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…the other being quid pro quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

There you go again using English colloquialisms in a forum with predominantly American posters. We use dollars here not quid. Quid for Quo? And who is Quo? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
…the other being quid pro quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

There you go again using English colloquialisms in a forum with predominantly American posters. We use dollars here not quid. Quid for Quo? And who is Quo? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
Gor Blimey my old china, its a bleedin' Lional rabbiting with you woodens.

chez

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unequal undeserved generosity seems unethical to me. Nobody is harmed by undeserved generosity.

If I didn't tell you that I was being more generous to someone else, you clearly wouldn't object to my generosity. But all the same I would feel that I was being unethical, despite the fact that both recipients are delighted by my actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it is required that the harmed person knows they are being harmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it is necessary that they are actually harmed. The only possible harm that comes from unequal unmerited generosity is the knowledge of the injustice. If there is no knowledge of the injustice, I cannot see how anybody has been harmed. Except the perhaps the donor . /images/graemlins/grin.gif

If your brother wins the lottery and gives you $10k, you are not harmed. If you later find out he gave your sister $20k you may feel justifiably aggrieved, but without that information, the unethical behaviour caused no harm.

By your definition, the unethical step would be to tell, not the unequal division!

I am surprised that no-one has specifically mentioned abstaining from doing good. I expect you would want your definition of harm to include abstaining from doing good. In this sad selfish age many may argue that it is not unethical to abstain from taking an opportunity to help, but it certainly used to fall into the category of 'sin'.

It is not clear to me that failing to do good overlaps 100% with causing harm - perhaps you would assert that where it does not, it is not unethical?

[bunny]

My claim is that harm is necessary but not sufficient, so that any instance of unethical or immoral behaviour includes a sentient being suffering harm but there are instances of harm resulting from behaviour that is not unethical or immoral.

With your example of unequal generosity I dont think this is an instance of unethical behaviour. If my brother wins the lottery and gives me 10k and my sister 20k I dont think he is being unethical - I think he has the right to do what he wants with his money.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I am surprised that no-one has specifically mentioned abstaining from doing good. I expect you would want your definition of harm to include abstaining from doing good. In this sad selfish age many may argue that it is not unethical to abstain from taking an opportunity to help, but it certainly used to fall into the category of 'sin'.

It is not clear to me that failing to do good overlaps 100% with causing harm - perhaps you would assert that where it does not, it is not unethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would include abstaining from action and thus causing harm within this discussion. Consequently, I would also claim that failing to act is not unethical or immoral if no harm is done.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a necessary, but not sufficient condition for an immoral or unethical act is that it must cause harm to a sentient being. Is this right?

[/ QUOTE ] No, preventing harm is often ethically required as well, at least when it does not come at a great cost to ourselves. I agree with bunny's amendment, and prefer his way of putting it.

If this was not the case, we could walk past and ignore the drowning baby, walk past and ignore the person having a heart attack when a simple cell phone call might save him, on our way to the Armani shop without having done anything wrong.

However, this means the guy who won the lottery now fits into our discussion: giving that 20k to his sister or keeping it for himself when it could have gone towards prevention of starvation in a poor country, as an example.

That said, I don't even agree with Mill's harm principle in toto even when applied only to it's original subject: government action. Maybe I'll elaborate later.

Ok: Most if not all of the thing I would consider unethical could fit under the harm principle but it would be more accurate in some cases to say they are unethical for a different reason.

E.G.-We might say that some people are required by Justice to do their fair share in providing some public benefit, even if the public benefit would be provided if some citizens were able to "free ride" on the contributions of others. We might still want to say that it is unethical for a business owner to pollute a river, even if that will not destroy the river and the benefit that the river brings to others, because if everyone who owned a business on that river polluted, then it would be destroyed, and his action is unfair given that everyone else is doing their part in abstaining from polluting the river. We also might say people have a duty to give blood on the same grounds, or to vote. It could be argued that we all have an obligation to do our part in sustaining our electoral democracy, and that non-voters are free riding on the sacrifices incurred by voters.

These examples show us part of the reason why Kant's Categorical Imperative(s) has some plausibility.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if a 66 year old man merely lusts over a 12 year old child? Is this immoral?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think not if it is a purely internal thought with no effect on the outside world (ie he doesnt act on his feelings).

[/ QUOTE ] What if we change this to voyuerism: the old man watches the 12 year old changing, but no harm is done because the 12 year old never catches the peeping tom looking in.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if a 66 year old man merely lusts over a 12 year old child? Is this immoral?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think not if it is a purely internal thought with no effect on the outside world (ie he doesnt act on his feelings).

[/ QUOTE ] What if we change this to voyuerism: the old man watches the 12 year old changing, but no harm is done because the 12 year old never catches the peeping tom looking in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say you'd then be changing the meaning completely. If he's a peeping tom and manages not to cause harm it's only because he 'got away with it'. If it's the previous example, he's not IMO doing anything wrong, you're talking about a 'thought crime' - I have a hard time considering thought without action as unethical. If I was given a day in prison for every instance I've thought of doing something unethical I wouldn't be getting out in this lifetime.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am surprised that no-one has specifically mentioned abstaining from doing good. I expect you would want your definition of harm to include abstaining from doing good.
It is not clear to me that failing to do good overlaps 100% with causing harm - perhaps you would assert that where it does not, it is not unethical?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would include abstaining from action and thus causing harm within this discussion. Consequently, I would also claim that failing to act is not unethical or immoral if no harm is done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I'm trying to make a distinction between failing to do good and failing to prevent harm (which is manifestly unethical). I would consider failing to do good also unethical, but it is not clear to me that harm is done here. The examples are where you choose to spend your disposable income: on your own whims or on charities. It is stretching a definition to breaking point to say that by going to the movies I am 'harming' everybody who does not have excess money. Nonetheless I would consider it to be unethical to spend all my disposable income on selfish ephemera. Again, I suspect I am in a minority here.

For what it's worth, I think that ethics is a terribly subjective issue, pace Kant. That's not to say anything goes, but rather that it is unethical for me to do anything I consider bad (not just harmful to sentients). And inevitably people differ on what they consider bad. Even after studying philosophy people differ. Even people who adore the same philosopher differ. If you happen to be a sadist, your definition of 'harm' will be rather different to mine. Likewise if you are of a particular faith you may consider eating some foods to be wicked, though no obvious harm is done to sentients.

In this respect schadenfreude is my favourite example, because at certain periods in our culture it was regarded as deeply immoral. So perverse that we didn't even have a word for it. Not so now. The action and the results have not changed.

Those who believe in God, however, have an external unchanging standard to refer to, and I suspect he has an opinion about most of the issues raised in this thread.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If this was not the case, we could walk past and ignore the drowning baby, walk past and ignore the person having a heart attack when a simple cell phone call might save him, on our way to the Armani shop without having done anything wrong.

However, this means the guy who won the lottery now fits into our discussion: giving that 20k to his sister or keeping it for himself when it could have gone towards prevention of starvation in a poor country, as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is the only hard part of understanding morality. It being immoral not to save the baby does not imply it being immoral to not give the 20,000 to prevent starvation.

I think I speak for most people when I say I would attempt to save a baby and believe it moral to do so, but would not give the 20,000 to prevent starvation and would not consider that wrong. I appreciate you didn't suggest that this implication existed but the question is why not?

The simplest hard example I can think of is:

Scenario 1: profiting 20,000 by causing starvation
Scenario 2: paying 20,000 to prevent the starvation

Generally the first is immoral and the second isn't. the only argument I see against this view (which is commonly observed) is that sins of ommission = sins of commision but I don't see why we should believe that is true.

chez

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a necessary, but not sufficient condition for an immoral or unethical act is that it must cause harm to a sentient being. Is this right?

[/ QUOTE ]There are two parts to this that I disagree with. The first is the idea of causation, since acts of omission seem as immoral as any causal acts. The second is that it must be a sentient being. I think living creature works better. Imagine that there is a planet full of (what many would consider) beautiful landscape, plants, etc., but no sentient beings. It seems that eradicating it using the Death Star would be immoral.

Not sure what I think of the notion of "harm". Suppose someone molests a young child (suppose that this is "consensual"). Had the person been older, though, they would not have consented. Later, he or she will repress the memory and there will be no lasting ill effects. The act seems to be unethical, and the child seems unharmed.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two parts to this that I disagree with. The first is the idea of causation, since acts of omission seem as immoral as any causal acts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt make this clear but I meant for failing to act and thus causing harm to be included in the definition of an act causing harm.

[ QUOTE ]
The second is that it must be a sentient being. I think living creature works better. Imagine that there is a planet full of (what many would consider) beautiful landscape, plants, etc., but no sentient beings. It seems that eradicating it using the Death Star would be immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was the reason for my question - it doesnt seem clear to me that this is immoral. I think it is an aesthetic thing (as it is possible to prefer the destroyed planet to the "beautiful" landscapes and plants, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what I think of the notion of "harm". Suppose someone molests a young child (suppose that this is "consensual"). Had the person been older, though, they would not have consented. Later, he or she will repress the memory and there will be no lasting ill effects. The act seems to be unethical, and the child seems unharmed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think you have to have knowledge of the harm to be harmed. I acknowledge it is a woolly term but I think if someone talks behind your back at work and you are passed over for a promotion you otherwise would have got you have been harmed - even if the whole thing is invisible to you and everyone you know.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
This was the reason for my question - it doesnt seem clear to me that this is immoral. I think it is an aesthetic thing (as it is possible to prefer the destroyed planet to the "beautiful" landscapes and plants, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is interesting. I agree that aesthetics is different from ethics, although both seem to be normative sciences. Presumably there is some indirect harm that comes to sentient out of aesthetically valued things being destroyed, in that they can no longer appreciate their value. But I still think it may be unethical to cause harm to living things rather than just sentient beings. Suppose you found an planet filled with benign bacteria--not beautiful in any way, essentially just a rock. It seems to me it would be unethical to kill the bacteria merely for the sake of killing them.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think you have to have knowledge of the harm to be harmed. I acknowledge it is a woolly term but I think if someone talks behind your back at work and you are passed over for a promotion you otherwise would have got you have been harmed - even if the whole thing is invisible to you and everyone you know.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree with this entirely, but note that my example doesn't turn on whether the child knows whether or not they are harmed but whether they are actually harmed or not. The affair where the significant other never finds out is another good example. Has any harm actually been done here? I don't think so, but I may be wrong.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what I think of the notion of "harm". Suppose someone molests a young child (suppose that this is "consensual"). Had the person been older, though, they would not have consented. Later, he or she will repress the memory and there will be no lasting ill effects. The act seems to be unethical, and the child seems unharmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you can come up with actions which are unethical because of the likelihood of harm, but may not always result in harm - which is why most on this thread wanted the criteria modified to 'likely potential' harm or something like that. But I think that's a very poor example of such a situation.

Firstly, I'd dispute that a child has the mental faculty to form consent, so I'd suggest you're talking about 'ostensible' consent or something like that, which is entirely different.

But, setting that aside, there is massive harm done there. people very rarely fully repress significant memories outside of movies - and even where they do, that process is hugely psychologically damaging. And even if somehow, miraculously, none of that applied - you'd still be harming the child at the time.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
But, setting that aside, there is massive harm done there. people very rarely fully repress significant memories outside of movies - and even where they do, that process is hugely psychologically damaging.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I'm well aware of this, but consider it just a stipulation for the example.

[ QUOTE ]
And even if somehow, miraculously, none of that applied - you'd still be harming the child at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]This is a possible reply--I'm not sure what to make of it, though. It's not obvious to me that there is harm.

[guesswest]

It's like stipulating 'what if you cut someone's head off, but they remained physicially unharmed'.

As far as the last comment goes - I meant that even if the child somehow immediately forgot you'd done this and it never impacted on their future life. You're still harming them for the duration of the attack, which is what it'd be regardless of 'consent'.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like stipulating 'what if you cut someone's head off, but they remained physicially unharmed'.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think so. Cutting off someone's head logically entails that they are physically harmed. I don't think that molestation logically entails that someone will go through major psychological trauma, even if a large majority of others do.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the last comment goes - I meant that even if the child somehow immediately forgot you'd done this and it never impacted on their future life. You're still harming them for the duration of the attack, which is what it'd be regardless of 'consent'.

[/ QUOTE ]This just isn't obvious to me, even if it is right. You could take the affair example if you prefer, which I think has all the same philosophical force--is anyone harmed?

[bearly]

2 questions: might it not make things easier to seperate "moral" and "ethical"? second: wouldn't the insertion of the word "potentially" in front of "cause" help?.........b

[bunny]

Yes to the second question - this thread has clarified that for me. With regard to the first, I dont know if it's necessary to distinguish between ethical and moral in this case - my claim was that harm to a sentient is necessary for both but not sufficient for either.

[pilliwinks]

You get problems if you use 'potentially cause harm'.

The obvious cases are where clear benefit is certain, with the risk of some harm. Ie, you will die if I don't operate, if I do, you may be badly damaged.

In this case it is hard to see that it would be unethical to operate on the basis of potential harm. But perhaps you meant potential net harm, when you weigh up all the consequences.

But even here you have to balance unlikely excellent outcomes against probable harmful ones. While this is not too challenging in poker, in other situations it is close to impossible to either know the potential outcomes or assign probabilities to them, or assess the relative benefits.

Consequently, as a test for ethical action, 'the potential to cause harm' is tough to use.

[bunny]

My query is more metaphysical, I think. I dont really care if my definition doesnt help me decide what to do I'm more just pondering about "what's going on" when we make choices. It arose from wondering which choices we make involve ethical or moral judgements and which are something else.

[pilliwinks]

Fair enough. If you feel, on balance, that an action is likely to do more harm than good, I think we all agree that would be unethical.

I would still say that there are plenty of other situations in which you could confidently say 'no harm in that', but I would still consider it unethical. In fact it is often when people say 'there's no harm in that' that I become suspicious of their ethics, particularly business ethics.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's like stipulating 'what if you cut someone's head off, but they remained physicially unharmed'.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think so. Cutting off someone's head logically entails that they are physically harmed. I don't think that molestation logically entails that someone will go through major psychological trauma, even if a large majority of others do.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the last comment goes - I meant that even if the child somehow immediately forgot you'd done this and it never impacted on their future life. You're still harming them for the duration of the attack, which is what it'd be regardless of 'consent'.

[/ QUOTE ]This just isn't obvious to me, even if it is right. You could take the affair example if you prefer, which I think has all the same philosophical force--is anyone harmed?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said originally, I don't disagree with the underlying purpose of this example - that unethical actions can result in no actual harm. I believe I was the person who initially brought up the affair example in this thread. I just think this is a bad example. The word 'molest' doesn't even make sense linguistically without harm.

You're essentially asking 'if I molest a child without harming them have I harmed them?' - well then naturally the answer is no, but it's not a real question either it's just a misapplication of language. What if I drop a nucleur bomb on Manhattan without harming anyone?

[madnak]

Personally I'm completely in favor of harmless nuclear weapons.

Is it necessarily harmful if I molest a watermelon? I just can't help it, all those sexy curves...

I don't think I'm trying to make a point here.