Describe a Maximally Ethical Person

@engineer,

you make me miss my high school english comp teacher.

we spent a lot of time not composing...

(damn. top of page)

0 Replies

@engineer,

Yep, those are the questions I ran into when constructing the maximally ethical person, which was part of why I thought it was an interesting exercise.

For example -- at first I had "donate 90% of any money left over after necessities to charity." But then led me down a rabbit hole... "After thoroughly investigating the charity to make sure it does what it's supposed to do." Then I thought of administrative costs, and amended it to just conveying the money to the end user yourself. Then I thought of the people who work at actual important non-profits, and how an organization can accomplish more (by buying in bulk, say), than an individual. Etc.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

We were trying to figure out what a maximally-ethical person would be like. [. . .] So, how would you describe a maximally ethical person?

The first adjective that comes to mind is "non-existent".

If such persons existed, one thing I'd now about them is what they wouldn't care about: sex. Lots of ideologies that call themselves "ethical" are obsessed with sex. But as I see it, sex raises no ethical issues unique to itself. So our maximally-ethical persons wouldn't care about it per se.

What would they care about? In my opinion, they would ---

avoid consuming animal products, up to the point where their suffering from additional deprivation balances the additional animal suffering avoided. So in practical terms, they'd be strict vegans. Those who believe in plant suffering would even be fruitarians.
donate money to the poorest people in the world. Again, this goes up to the point where their suffering from additional deprivation balances the additional suffering avoided among the world's poorest. Assuming the maximally-ethical people make an average American income, I'd guess they'd donate ninety percent and change to Oxfam, CARE, and so forth.
refrain from preferring family members and other loved ones over "outsiders". That is discrimination, no matter how warm and fuzzy our feelings about motherhood, family, and other such bigotry.
run the closest thing to a zero-waste household that they can, up to the point where extra deprivation hurts them more than it benefits the environment.
voluntarily commit suicide just at the moment where the cost of keeping them alive exceeds the benefit to them and their loved ones of continuing to live.
take precautions that their remains be properly composted rather than burned, lest the needless CO2 from cremation increase global warming.

That's all I can think of for now. It's almost too easy!

4 Replies

@Thomas,

Ha! Yes, I agree with most of that.

I didn't have a Point when I started this, but the two main elements are:

1. The thought experiment was interesting and I was curious what people would come up with.

2. The vegetarian debate has been in the ether (NYT essay contest, here, other places too), and I realized this was one of the best ways I've found to articulate my own position.

0 Replies

..if electricity is out that I have to do away with candles is not a valid argument to preventing electricity from coming right back to work...
...the suffering arguments is even worse as not acknowledging the whole of reality works the other way around is close to demential...our only moral obligations is to protect the group we are inserted with...the larger the group the less obligations we have although the more fundamental.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

refrain from preferring family members and other loved ones over "outsiders". That is discrimination, no matter how warm and fuzzy our feelings about motherhood, family, and other such bigotry.

I couldn't disagree with this more.

Imagine if I told my daughter, "I love you the same as I love any other child in the world". She would be crushed. This isn't ethical at all. Instead, I tell my daughter, "you are the most special girl in the world to me", and I mean it. It is the fact that she is special to me that makes our relationship so meaningful.

I don't give a crap that Mother Theresa loves me (although since I am someone and she loves everyone I am sure she does). It means nothing to me.

My kids, my parents and my close friends love me in a way that is meaningful. There love is for me, as a unique individual, in a way that isn't extended to every human on the planet.

If you are looking to minimize suffering, getting rid of meaningful relationships isn't the way to do it.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I've been reading a little about the Oneida folks lately.

interesting spin they put on it...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I am agreeing with Setanta here: cars per se are not ethical, it's the driver and how he conducts himself on the road. I guess the reckless driver would be a 1, whereas a description of plain un-ethical is more appropriate.

Describing eating meat as unethical is not any different than a vegetarian eating eggs, or a vegan eating vegetables. A meat eater can be highly ethical in his conduct of every day life while a vegan could be the reckless driver who commits a hit and run accident. It all comes down to ones action in a wider sense.

0 Replies

So, I gave myself a 5 for using the digital library and reducing my carbon footprint, but then I had to deduct a point since I used my mostly plastic (oil friendly) computer. Should probably deduct another point or two for the cable that may use filament glass and let's not forget the radio waves that may or may not create tumors. Argh! I'm back to a 1 !!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Did you forget donations of your organs when you no longer need them?

1 Reply

Matthew 19:17
"...Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Isaiah 64:6
"...all our righteous acts are like filthy rags..."

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

I am not a big fan of Mother Theresa. Her motivation was a fanatical devotion to religion. To me motivation is a big part of ethics. If you helping people out of a pure care for them is ethical. Helping people because of your religion or devotion to a religious ideal is not.

In the case of Mother Theresa, her religious devotion often got in the way of her truly helping people in an ethical way. For example, she would refuse to give anesthesia to people in severe pain because her religious mythology told her that pain would bring people closer to Jesus. If this is an example of ethics, it is a twisted one.

I don't consider it "ethics" when people do good things with the goal of marketing. I supposed the good things are still okay, but starting orphanages to get popularity for your church isn't an example of ethics.

The true heroes are people who are doing good deeds with no motivation other than to help people. Of course, these people don't have time for marketing and you and I never hear about them.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Did you forget donations of your organs when you no longer need them?

I did. Good point!

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Imagine if I told my daughter, "I love you the same as I love any other child in the world". She would be crushed. This isn't ethical at all. Instead, I tell my daughter, "you are the most special girl in the world to me", and I mean it. It is the fact that she is special to me that makes our relationship so meaningful.

I see your point. But to me, ethics is not about what you say, it's about what you do. You can imagine a moral dilemma where you have to choose between your daughter's life and two children's life in the Third World. Protecting your daughter's life at almost any cost would be the more understandable choice; sacrificing your daughter's life to protect the two others would be the more moral one.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Wow, Thomas. What a monstrous proposition--but I agree. Fortunately I do not have to do the moral thing every time.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Quote:

- Give up my car entirely (though we have only one, and we walk/ bike a lot)
- Give up my comfortable-but-not-huge house and move into a space that's 500 sq feet or less
- Stop using electricity
- Generate zero garbage
- Wear a mask, Jain-style, to avoid inhaling and accidentally killing insects

Are you equating "ethical" with "non-existent"? If someone exists they are bound to make an impact on their environment. Some influence it a little, others dominate it.

Ethics is about socially acceptable conduct among humans. In some cultures euthanasia is the ethical thing to do, while in others, ending a human life is not at all justifiable. There is no simple criteria for ethical conduct, it is continuously negotiated.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

You can imagine a moral dilemma where you have to choose between your daughter's life and two children's life in the Third World.

This is not a moral dilemma at all. I am a father, my duty is to love and protect my kids. I have no problem saying that my kids are more important than any other kids. If I didn't say this, I would be incapable of being an ethical father. If I had to choose between my kid's life and someone else's kid I would not only choose my kid in a heartbeat, but it would be the only possible ethical choice for me to do so.

The greatest good in human nature is relationships-- specifically exclusive relationships. Most of us had parents who were our parents (perhaps shared by one or two). Most of us have romantic relationships that are our partner. We aren't supposed to share them with anyone.

Imagine life with no special relationships. You would have no romance. You would have no special bond between parent and child or brother and brother.

This wouldn't be a world I would want to live in.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Yes, in some cultures euthanasia is an ethical thing to do - and a humane one as well, in case of tremendous physical illness. Other cultures see it as unethical, even murder.

Now we're back to fresco's question about global/cultural ethics.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is not a moral dilemma at all. I am a father, my duty is to love and protect my kids.

Duty has nothing to do with it. The hormones that a parent's body releases because of childcare are powerful, habit-forming drugs. In favoring your kids above everyone else, you are feeding a drug habit, not fulfilling a duty.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Matthew 19:17
"...Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Isaiah 64:6
"...all our righteous acts are like filthy rags..."

Snood, I have always struggled with quotes like the one in Matthew. If you take it seriously, what do Christians mean when they say "God is good", or words to that effect? Are they just stating a tautology ("God is whichever way God is")? Are they saying that their god meets some standard of goodness independent of himself? In the first case, why bother? In the second, why not cut the middle man and work directly from that standard?

0 Replies

Describe a Maximally Ethical Person

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know