How retarded are your ethics?

[DerDrache]

Everyday I'm baffled at just how insane some people's ethics and morality are.

A guy I know wanted to try taking Adderall and commented, "It's not unethical, I don't think". I was at a party a few weeks ago and some guys I know were doing coke. Everyone at the party was drunk and/or high on weed, yet these guys were essentially "shunned" because they were seen doing coke. It's really crazy how people have been manipulated into making extremely negative judgements on relatively insignificant things. A cocaine high for instance isn't much different than drinking a lot of coffee. The only difference is that it's short-lived and you don't feel ill like you do with caffeine. Marijuana has a much stronger, more dehabilitating effect, yet cocaine is viewed as downright "bad". Indeed, people are strangely discriminant of chemicals. They'll guzzle down synthetic food, candy, pop, and juices, but a "drug"? "Better not try that!"

I also find it distressing how people view others' character in terms of black and white (not racially). In general, one bad act is enough to permanently condemn a man (either literally or figuratively), yet 100 good acts are hardly given any consideration. If a person kills another in cold blood, but saves other people's lives, many still would view the person as an unquestionable scumbag. People also have an easy time accepting that a person can "go bad", but the idea of the person becoming "good" again seems far-fetched.

In general, I think "good and bad" are ridiculous terms for describing a person, namely because every single one of us is capable of being a vicious animal or a saint. I think the Stanford Prison experiments, Milgram's experiments, and Abu-Graihb provide pretty good support for that.

Anyways...what do you guys think? What are your morals and ethics like? How do you make judgements of things and people?

In a word: I think every single human being is both "good" and "evil" (I'm aware that these are completely arbitrary qualities outside of human society), and the real measure of a person's character is not just what they do, but whether they keep doing it. If Joe Blo kills an innocent person, feels remorse, and then never does it again, I would likely not let that "evil act" taint my image of him permanently. If Joe Schmoe kills someone, feels bad (or feels nothing), and then does it again...that's when I'd start solidifying my judgement of him being a bad person.

EDIT: In practical terms, I understand that if someone has already committed a given act, then you know their personality would allow them to do it again. So, I certainly wouldn't want to hang out with a convicted murderer, but in principle, I wouldn't judge their moral character soley on isolated behavior.

[alooha from hell]

you are thinking of things in terms of aristotelian ethics, and as such you have to accept that there are natural born slaves, or people who will never lead an ethically moral life - these are the people at the party whom you view down upon, and the same people who can view one act as "good" and another as "bad" in whatever context they come through.

as for my own ethics - i try to be like kant, and simply use reason to dictate what the "right" thing to do. however, i am also very skeptical of every action and it's consequence, and the notion that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to do something is not anything i readily accept - how can you say that one action is better than another, ever?

[DerDrache]

Originally Posted by alooha from hell

as for my own ethics - i try to be like kant, and simply use reason to dictate what the "right" thing to do. however, i am also very skeptical of every action and it's consequence, and the notion that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to do something is not anything i readily accept - how can you say that one action is better than another, ever?

I like that.

How would that apply to situations involving murder (ie. something that's pretty much always viewed as "wrong")? If a person had a reason to get rid of another person, and opted to kill them (even though there were other options), what would be your judgement of them?

[alooha from hell]

Originally Posted by DerDrache

I like that.

How would that apply to situations involving murder (ie. something that's pretty much always viewed as "wrong")? If a person had a reason to get rid of another person, and opted to kill them (even though there were other options), what would be your judgement of them?

it depends on which vantage point you have - and as an outsider to the murder itself, we are inclined to say that murder is wrong based upon society deeming it so.

let's say that "joe" murders "sam". under just this sentence, the outsider would say that joe is "bad" and "sam" is the victim.

but let's look at it from joe's perspective. sam turns out to be a drug dealer, and his drugs lead to joe's daughter's death. under this new vantage point, we now know that joe didn't just senselessly kill "sam" - instead he was out for revenge, or out on a vigilante spree. his viewpoint and his logic lead to the conclusion that killing another man was the right thing to do, so that there wouldn't be more victims such as his daughter, or so he could have peace of mind to move on. joe turns out to be a victim as well, in another context.

but now let's look at sam's point of view. he only has to sell drugs because of a huge loan he has to pay - and being a two-time convicted felon means that he cannot hold a stable job, but does have good connections for drugs. so without anything else to do to let himself survive in america, he must sell drugs. the loss of people's daughters in this case, was overcome by his own living actions, and deemed the right choice. the consequences then, he sees as wrong - he was just making a living. sam also turns out to be a victim in some sense as well, not only in the fact that he got shot.

this is only three of several vantage points we can take into such a situation, and in every murder situation, there are reasons, pros and cons, and consequences that make up things. but everyone only has their own vantage point from which to get information. as an outsider to the problem, i cannot say whether someone is right or wrong, because i don't know enough to say so; it could turn out that both persons are "right" or that both are "wrong".

[ramoo]

I actually raised an issue similar to this during a discussion with my consciousness. (At the time I was on the gym bike and listening to meditative trances to help me establish a connection with my foreign spiritual side). Anyway at some point in the meeting I, or my consciousness made an astute remark about human behavior. The response was "Everyone has different ways of showing their lack of common sense" in regard to alcoholics being judgmental of stoners. Hope that helps.

[DerDrache]

Originally Posted by ramoo

I actually raised an issue similar to up during a discussion with my consciousness. (At the time I was on the gym bike and listening to meditative trances to help me establish a connection with my foreign spiritual side). Anyway at some point in the meeting I, or my consciousness made an astute remark about human behavior. The response was "Everyone has different ways of showing their lack of common sense" in regard to alcoholics being judgmental of stoners. Hope that helps.

That's pretty good.

[KikoSanchez]

Eww, Kantian Deontology. Barf. Though I do agree with his "treat others as an end, rather than as a means" and that the scope for this should be expanded to all sentient beings. In fact, I tend to enjoy Reagan over Singer when it comes to animal ethics. Anyhow, universalizing maxims is a big no no in my book. It would destroy those S&Mers for good I don't know what my ethics are, other than they are very contextual, with a wide scope, and try to entail the concepts of pain, pleasure, and Utilitarianism.

As for looking down at someone for doing x drug, I don't make any moral judgment based on such, though if I see someone that is clearly addicted, to anything, I do feel quite bad for them and think they should probably give it a serious look over. I think people have such negative feelings toward coke users because they often view them, tautologically, as being addicts to a very debilitating drug. Even if it isn't always true, it is just the stereotype. Weed smokers are just the coke heads of the 80's, though I agree it's a much better drug of choice.

[merciless mercenary]

you should stop posting here derdache

[ChickenOfDoom]

My ethics are based on an approximation of the structure of my relevant emotions. Specifically, they have a lot to do with individual freedom, but that's because of how I feel about it.

I get the sense that deep down that's true for most people. Some systems of morality are more complicated than others, but whether you're just relying on a blacklist of 'bad things' or determining whether something contributes to the greater social good, whether something is right or wrong is intimately connected to how you feel about it or things associated with it. Even if it didn't come from you, if it's based on religion or something, if someone really believes in a system of ethics it's because they feel strongly about its implications and consequences.

[Psycedelic Blues Brother]

To all above: how do you trust your own ethics? In the sense that, to be espousing such grand and eloquent statements as there are above, is to place supreme faith in your own perceptions of those you judge. Do none of you admit to any prejudices or presupposition?