Moral vs. Ethical

[The Terrible Sweal]

Thelonious, why would you undertake a task if the effort exerted was greater than the benefit received? To my mind, that's foolish and, let me say, immoral.

Well, not only should one not undertake a task if there is no 'net pleasure', no-one ever does (except by mistake).

[The Terrible Sweal]

Let’s try a case. At 11:30 at night, I was about to climb into bed after a long day’s work, and a friend called me to talk about her problems. For three hours she talked about her problems. She was not willing to hear any advice or accept any help. She just wanted me to know how badly she hurts. She got no benefit from it.

Clarification necessary! She got no benefit, or she PERCEIVED no benefit?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Thelonious, why would you undertake a task if the effort exerted was greater than the benefit received? To my mind, that's foolish and, let me say, immoral.

Ask someone who feels under-paid.

effort exerted was greater than the benefit received

This would depend on the case. The benefits may not yet be tangible, but one is working toward some 'change'. The definition it would give from 'in of itself' would be 'failure'. So, it may be 'morally relative' to work towards 'failure', but I would call it 'crazy'.

[DAC]

  Clarification necessary! She got no benefit, or she PERCEIVED no benefit?

She may have perceived a benefit - I’m not a mind-reader, but in my opinion she received no benefit. Both on the basis of my principial understanding of the dynamic of dealing with problems, and on the basis of my observation in later contacts with the person in question. I don’t think she received any benefit.

As August suggested, I think we both would have been better off to go to sleep at least two hours earlier.

However, you are right, August, in that both of us hope for some benefit - for her. I listened for three hours in the hope that if I listen to her long enough, she may eventually be open to receive what help I can offer her. I suppose you could say that this would benefit me because if she gets the help she needs she’ll stop calling me like that, but I could achieve that simply by saying, “Sorry, this is going nowhere. Goodbye.” I hang in there for her sake, not mine. I don’t think that fits with the pragmatic definition of ethics you proposed. Yet I doubt there are many who would say it was not a good ethical choice. Possibly foolish - blind optimism [], but ethical.

[DAC]

You claim your propositions are useful for everybody. I don’t find them useful.

I think you have yet to give them thorough logical assessment.

I’m afraid that’s a cop-out. If I disagree, it’s my fault, you say. So no disagreement can counter your claim that they are useful for everybody.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here. What do you mean by 'pragmatic goals'? If you have a goal which strongly conflicts with the goals of those around you, it is not a pragmatic goal, as they will prevent you from acheiving it.

Politico A’s pragmatic goal is to rip me off. My pragmatic goal is to keep him from ripping me off. We both try to prevent the other from achieving his goals. But your definition seems to make both efforts highly ethical. That’s a pretty strange ethic!

If you think everybody should accept your propositions, then if you really are logical, you should be able to show why they should, not just say again in other terms that they should.

How would you propose I 'show' you that?

By using the logic you claim to hold to.

The a priori approach: show some axiomatic principle(s) which lead(s) logically to your propositions, or some principle which is so attractive that everybody will want to hold to it, which does that.

Alternatively, show logically how those propositions lead to universally desirable solution to ethical problems. How do they speak to us when tempted to steal or kill? What do they lead us to do when we contract to do a job, but then decide that the pay is not sufficient? How do they resolve the tensions between a woman’s concerns and her unborn child’s well-being? You have claimed they are a basis for ethics, but you have given no reason why I or anybody else should accept them in the first place, nor have you shown how they lead to ethical action. Until you do that, your claim is an authority statement.

In other words, don’t just claim people ought to accept them. Demonstrate it.

[August1991]

I'll read these recent posts more carefully but DAC's comment made me think.

Politico A’s pragmatic goal is to rip me off. My pragmatic goal is to keep him from ripping me off. We both try to prevent the other from achieving his goals. But your definition seems to make both efforts highly ethical. That’s a pretty strange ethic!

Strange it is, and immoral too I think. As presented, both you and the politician are exerting effort for no perceivable benefit.

A thief threatens to steal from your home. You install a lock. The thief goes away. The lock requires effort producing no benefit. (It just returns you to where you were before.) IMV, this is the reason that theft is immoral.

[idealisttotheend]

I listened for three hours in the hope that if I listen to her long enough, she may eventually be open to receive what help I can offer her. I suppose you could say that this would benefit me because if she gets the help she needs she’ll stop calling me like that, but I could achieve that simply by saying, “Sorry, this is going nowhere. Goodbye.” I hang in there for her sake, not mine. I don’t think that fits with the pragmatic definition of ethics you proposed. Yet I doubt there are many who would say it was not a good ethical choice. Possibly foolish - blind optimism [], but ethical.

And so we have the answer to what benefit you recieved. You hoped that you could do something, you held on to that hope throughtout the conversation. Furthermore, if you are anything like me, even though your experience told you that you would likely not going to help her you didn't have the heart to just hang up on her. Heart would translate into an emotional needs.

Therefore a utilitarian ethic decrees that your emotional need were to try to help her even if you couldn't and you met this need. A "humans are always selfish" utilitarian could argue sucessfully that you gained more (or in this case possibly lost less ) than you would have if you had not taken the time because of that emotional need to hope to help her. You garnered no 'practical' benefit from this 'transaction' (too many libertarian economic articles for me ) but you did gain (or not lose) emotionally. You may indeed have acted pragmatically from a utilitarian perspective.

Why is Politico A's pragmatic goal to rip you off? Might his pragmatic goal be to selflessly serve the populace to meet his emotional needs in the form of public duty or a sense of Right? Is it possible that this is his goal? Might this not be the basis for a morality to compare him favourably to one that just wants the greatest amount of money? Is wanting to feel good about oneself a pragmatic goal.

AugustL  A thief threatens to steal from your home. You install a lock. The thief goes away. The lock requires effort producing no benefit. (It just returns you to where you were before.) IMV, this is the reason that theft is immoral.

Consider this case:

A society requires it's members to contribute to it in order to earn standing within in it and determine that members allocation of scarce resources. That society runs out of productive occupations due to efficencies gained through various means. Making locks gives some members a chance to contribute where before they had none and determines how many resources they ought to recieve. Is lock making thus moral?

[The Terrible Sweal]

  Clarification necessary! She got no benefit, or she PERCEIVED no benefit?

She may have perceived a benefit - I’m not a mind-reader, but in my opinion she received no benefit. Both on the basis of my principial understanding of the dynamic of dealing with problems, and on the basis of my observation in later contacts with the person in question. I don’t think she received any benefit.

As August suggested, I think we both would have been better off to go to sleep at least two hours earlier.

However, you are right, August, in that both of us hope for some benefit - for her. I listened for three hours in the hope that if I listen to her long enough, she may eventually be open to receive what help I can offer her. I suppose you could say that this would benefit me because if she gets the help she needs she’ll stop calling me like that, but I could achieve that simply by saying, “Sorry, this is going nowhere. Goodbye.” I hang in there for her sake, not mine. I don’t think that fits with the pragmatic definition of ethics you proposed. Yet I doubt there are many who would say it was not a good ethical choice. Possibly foolish - blind optimism [], but ethical.

It seems to me that if she perceived a benefit or potential benefit from talking to you, then she acted reasonably (based on her fact-set) in seeking you out.

Whether there is a tangible benefit in your estimation, or even hers, is not the question. She acted as she did (calling you) out of a pragmatic wish to maximize 'net pleasure' by acting to secure the benefit (such as it is) of your conversation.

[DAC]

I wrote:

Politico A's pragmatic goal is to rip me off. My pragmatic goal is to keep him from ripping me off. We both try to prevent the other from achieving his goals. But your definition seems to make both efforts highly ethical. That's a pretty strange ethic!

August responded:

Strange it is, and immoral too I think. As presented, both you and the politician are exerting effort for no perceivable benefit.

Actually, there is practical benefit one way or the other. If he succeeds in ripping me off, he benefits. If I succeed in preventing that, I benefit in that I do not lose what he would take. On the pragmatic approach to ethics that makes both actions "good". On the other hand, most of us would want to say that the attempt to rip me off is bad - I'll except the Terrible Sweal, who might be so irritated at me by now that he could feel that anything that takes me down a notch is good. []

Idealist wrote:

Why is Politico A's pragmatic goal to rip you off? Might his pragmatic goal be to selflessly serve the populace to meet his  emotional needs in the form of public duty or a sense of Right? Is it possible that this is his goal? Might this not be the basis for a morality to compare him favourably to one that just wants the greatest amount of money? Is wanting to feel good about oneself a pragmatic goal.

His goal is to rip me off for two reasons: because that attitude shows the point I want to make, that an ethic based on pragmatism makes evil out to be good; and because I think that most politicos today want to rip me off. I know not all do, but my experience tells me most do. And believe it or not, I'm known to everybody as an optimist.

[DAC]

Idealist wrote:

so we have the answer to what benefit you recieved. You hoped that you could do something, you held on to that hope throughtout the conversation. Furthermore, if you are anything like me, even though your experience told you that you would likely not going to help her you didn't have the heart to just hang up on her. Heart would translate into an emotional needs.

Therefore a utilitarian ethic decrees that your emotional need were to try to help her even if you couldn't and you met this need. A "humans are always selfish" utilitarian could argue sucessfully that you gained more (or in this case possibly lost less ) than you would have if you had not taken the time because of that emotional need to hope to help her. You garnered no 'practical' benefit from this 'transaction' (too many libertarian economic articles for me ) but you did gain (or not lose) emotionally. You may indeed have acted pragmatically from a utilitarian perspective.

I didn't hang up, because the ethics I work on (biblical) teach me to sacrifice myself for the good of others, at least under some circumstances. You can only give that a pragmatic value by first adopting my ethical system. If you do that, the pragmatic system is gone anyway. The Bible does not tell me that I get any benefit from it. Rather it tells me that since I have been so richly blessed, and will be so richly blessed, I ought to share the blessing.

Believe me, it was not emotional pressure which kept me on the phone! My emotions were screaming at me, "I'm exhausted, I want to go to bed! Just cut her off and hang up!" You have torn the utilitarian argument into shreds when you try to argue that the choice to sacrifice yourself for no benefit does have a benefit in making you feel good about yourself. For the record it didn't make me feel good about myself. It made me unhappy that I'm not a good enough counsellor to find some way to get past the barriers and actually help this friend.

Sweal wrote:

  It seems to me that if she perceived a benefit or potential benefit from talking to you, then she acted reasonably (based on her fact-set) in seeking you out. 

Yes, I agree. While I don't think she gained any real benefit, she no doubt thought she was gaining something by spending this time on the phone with me.

My point is that while most people would think it a good thing for me to listen, there was no utilitarian or pragmatic benefit to me. Given my opinion of the reality, I don't even have the benefit of thinking that she gained some benefit from it. The utilitarian ethic does not give a positive value in this instance, though most consider it a positive action.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal wrote:

  It seems to me that if she perceived a benefit or potential benefit from talking to you, then she acted reasonably (based on her fact-set) in seeking you out. 

Yes, I agree. While I don't think she gained any real benefit, she no doubt thought she was gaining something by spending this time on the phone with me.

My point is that while most people would think it a good thing for me to listen, there was no utilitarian or pragmatic benefit to me. Given my opinion of the reality, I don't even have the benefit of thinking that she gained some benefit from it. The utilitarian ethic does not give a positive value in this instance, though most consider it a positive action.

I think you derived a 'net pleasure' from not hanging up on her. If you did no perceive a net pleasure, you would have hung up.

Before you protest, tell me why you didn't hang up.

[August1991]

DAC: Politico A's pragmatic goal is to rip me off. My pragmatic goal is to keep him from ripping me off. We both try to prevent the other from achieving his goals. But your definition seems to make both efforts highly ethical. That's a pretty strange ethic! 

August: Strange it is, and immoral too I think. As presented, both you and the politician are exerting effort for no perceivable benefit.

DAC: Actually, there is practical benefit one way or the other. If he succeeds in ripping me off, he benefits. If I succeed in preventing that, I benefit in that I do not lose what he would take. On the pragmatic approach to ethics that makes both actions "good".

True, if a thief succeeds, he benefits - but at your expense. Every dollar a thief takes from you is one dollar less to you. But for society as a whole, there is no overall gain.

Think of all the effort a thief devotes to stealing from you and all the effort you exert to preventing the thief. None of these efforts create any wealth; they are simply efforts to cut the pie differently. These efforts are wasteful and IMV, immoral.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Think of all the effort a thief devotes to stealing from you and all the effort you exert to preventing the thief. None of these efforts create any wealth; they are simply efforts to cut the pie differently

Actually, the thief has created wealth. (and not moved it from elsewhere in the pie). If a thief breaks in to your home, and say, steals $100 cash and your vcr, lots of people benefit. The insurance company gets business, (they simply up your rates to recover the cost of your claim) the police get business, and the alarm company gets your business (if you go out and get one to help prevent further robberies).

The thief is now $100 dollars (tax free) richer, and will spend that money freely, helping the economy. The vcr, however, will get de-valued as it will be sold to a pawn shop for about 10% of its value. That would be the only loss in the equation.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If a thief breaks in to your home, and say, steals $100 cash and your vcr, lots of people benefit. The insurance company gets business, (they simply up your rates to recover the cost of your claim) the police get business, and the alarm company gets your business (if you go out and get one to help prevent further robberies).

The thief is now $100 dollars (tax free) richer, and will spend that money freely, helping the economy.

But none of these activities is productive (except in the welfare neutral GDP sense). They have 'value' only because they serve to prevent and avoid greater value loss.

Plus, the insurance company doesn't gain profits, it merely covers and increased cost. Moreover, I am doubly victimized by the loss of the money AND a higher premium.

And the police are not an entreprenuerial wealth-building business, they are government service. More police business costs taxpayers more money.

And I can spend my $100 just a well as the thief.

[August1991]

Actually, the thief has created wealth. (and not moved it from elsewhere in the pie). If a thief breaks in to your home, and say, steals $100 cash and your vcr, lots of people benefit. The insurance company gets business, (they simply up your rates to recover the cost of your claim) the police get business, and the alarm company gets your business (if you go out and get one to help prevent further robberies).

Thelonius, this is utter nonsense. By the same logic, hurricanes are good for the economy. (The Canadian economy needs a couple of hurricanes, just like Florida has had... we'll all get rich.)

This kind of argument is typical of the "Old Left". But Hubert Humphrey died a long time ago.

For once, I agree with TS.

[DAC]

Sweal:

  I think you derived a 'net pleasure' from not hanging up on her. If you did no perceive a net pleasure, you would have hung up.

Before you protest, tell me why you didn't hang up.

I told anybody who read what I posted why I didn’t hang up.

I didn't hang up, because the ethics I work on (biblical) teach me to sacrifice myself for the good of others, at least under some circumstances. You can only give that a pragmatic value by first adopting my ethical system. If you do that, the pragmatic system is gone anyway. The Bible does not tell me that I get any benefit from it. Rather it tells me that since I have been so richly blessed, and will be so richly blessed, I ought to share the blessing. 

You can claim that I derived “pleasure” all you like. I can’t stop you. It proves you don’t make it as a mind reader.

When someone is hurting, I try to help if I can. I agree that sometimes that gives me a good feeling. But not always. I raised this case because it was one where all I got was weariness and frustration. Yet all of you “pragmatists” want to maintain it was a good thing to do - & twist and squirm to find a pragmatic justification.

[DAC]

August1991:

True, if a thief succeeds, he benefits - but at your expense. Every dollar a thief takes from you is one dollar less to you. But for society as a whole, there is no overall gain.

Think of all the effort a thief devotes to stealing from you and all the effort you exert to preventing the thief. None of these efforts create any wealth; they are simply efforts to cut the pie differently. These efforts are wasteful and IMV, immoral.

Stop and think what you just said. It is immoral, on the ethical system you are promoting, for me to try to protect myself against a thief.

By the way, you should note that now you have revised your definition (at least this was not clear to me before) from something in which "the derived benefit is greater than the required effort" to something in which the derived benefit for the overall society is greater than the required effort. But you give no grounds for saying someone should consider the benefit of society as a whole rather than the benefit of himself alone. That's an assumption that is borrowed from Christian (or at least religious) teaching. It does not rise naturally out of the basic pragmatic cost-benefit analysis you proposed.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear DAC,

derived benefit for the overall society is greater than the required effort. But you give no grounds for saying someone should consider the benefit of society as a whole rather than the benefit of himself alone

I believe that was the point. Any bold consideration other than the 'sum' is a 'whimsical variable'.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Thelonius, this is utter nonsense. By the same logic, hurricanes are good for the economy.

Destruction is very good for the economy. Why do they think they use the word 'consumer' rather than 'curator'?

[August1991]

Stop and think what you just said. It is immoral, on the ethical system you are promoting, for me to try to protect myself against a thief.

I meant that the efforts to be a thief are immoral because they lead to efforts of no net benefit.

But consider this: If people did not protect themselves from theft, then thieves would be rampant. In fact, it would be better to be a thief than to use one's time in productive activities. What kind of wasteful world would that be?

By the way, you should note that now you have revised your definition (at least this was not clear to me before) from something in which "the derived benefit is greater than the required effort" to something in which the derived benefit for the overall society is greater than the required effort.

My original intent was that the net benefit should be for society at large. You are right that I was not explicit about this.

The issue here is how to add up the Cost to Person A and the Benefit to Person B to determine whether there is a Net Benefit for society.

In theory, Person B could compensate for the cost suffered by Person A.

In this sense, we still in principle have a morality that is objective.

But you give no grounds for saying someone should consider the benefit of society as a whole rather than the benefit of himself alone.

In an ideal world, if an action benefits me then it should also benefit society as a whole. (This would be the case if all relations were voluntary.)

That's an assumption that is borrowed from Christian (or at least religious) teaching. It does not rise naturally out of the basic pragmatic cost-benefit analysis you proposed.

It's an assumption borrowed from Adam Smith. If people act in their own self-interest (net benefit to themselves) and their actions with others are voluntary market transactions, then this will lead to a benefit for all.

This is counter-intuitive and certainly contrary to Christian teachings.

Destruction is very good for the economy. Why do they think they use the word 'consumer' rather than 'curator'?

Consumers' enjoy it when they consume (destroy) something. Hurricanes just destroy.

Thelonlius, the purpose of life is not to produce; the purpose of life is to consume. By consumption, I mean all the ways you can spend a delightful Sunday afternoon.

Many people in Florida have just lost their Sunday afternoons for the next several months.

Common sense says that hurricanes and wars are bad. Well, common sense is right.

[Curator? Why would anyone want to conserve anything unless the purpose was to consume it some time later?]

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Why would anyone want to conserve anything unless the purpose was to consume it some time later?

I can't imagine, I don't know what White Rhinoceroses taste like, dodo. Either.

The issue here is how to add up the Cost to Person A and the Benefit to Person B to determine whether there is a Net Benefit for society.

Sorry, I must have missed your point. It depends on what you consider a benefit to society. The creation of wealth ( to be circulated later)only? Then yes, theft and destruction create wealth for some that otherwise would not have been. As to the gain being more than the loss, I hope the loser had insurance. Or, they were extremely rich. A rich person could buy a house and torch it just for fun, as a hobby, say, and continue to do so as long as their net income was greater than the cost. You cannot really expect to argue that 'the insurance company loses' because they never lose. They are merely 'one time lenders' with lifelong usurious rates.

[August1991]

Why would anyone want to conserve anything unless the purpose was to consume it some time later?

I can't imagine, I don't know what White Rhinoceroses taste like, dodo. Either.

I assume you have a freezer. I also assume you keep your house in good repair. Finally, do you have any RRSPs?

More generally, Thelonious Monk, do you have kids (or nieces/nephews)? Surely you want to be a good "curator" for them.

Dodo and White Rhino? What about Atlantic cod? All are close to extinction. Why? No one stops anyone from getting what they want. (If foolishness is free, don't be surprised if there is much foolishness.)

I assume you keep your house in good repair because you know your kids or grandkids will get it. Another example? There are many Guernsey cows about. Why? "You take my cow, you're dead meat."

General Rule? Define ownership, let the world work.

The east coast fishery is a case in point. Horrifically sad. Trudeau and Ottawa bureaucrats destroyed it.

You cannot really expect to argue that 'the insurance company loses' because they never lose. They are merely 'one time lenders' with lifelong usurious rates.

Imagine a world without thieves. (Imagine you live in Iceland.) Theft insurance wouldn't exist. And insurance companies wouldn't need all those paper-pushers. The paper people could do something else more productive and enjoyable with their time - teach your children - and the world would be a better place.

[idealisttotheend]

August, can you answer this case, can you face the reality of the wage economy?

Consider this case:

A society requires it's members to contribute to it in order to earn standing within in it and determine that members allocation of scarce resources. That society runs out of productive occupations due to efficencies gained through various means. Making locks gives some members a chance to contribute where before they had none and determines how many resources they ought to recieve. Is lock making thus moral?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

General Rule? Define ownership, let the world work.

Ownership is having enough physical force [at your disposal]to deter ( or conquer) others who covet what you are the curator of, or who have what you want.

The First Nations peoples (or aboriginals, whatever the pc name is nowadays) laughed when they 'sold' their land to the white man. They said to themselves, "Foolish white man, you cannot own land. You can't pick it up and take it with you!"

So they felt they were 'taking advantage' of the white man by accepting a few dollars for millions of acres.

Looks like the joke was on them. We showed them what 'ownership' meant. It was the business end of a gun.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal:

  I think you derived a 'net pleasure' from not hanging up on her. If you did no perceive a net pleasure, you would have hung up.

Before you protest, tell me why you didn't hang up.

I told anybody who read what I posted why I didn’t hang up.

I didn't hang up, because the ethics I work on (biblical) teach me to sacrifice myself for the good of others, at least under some circumstances. You can only give that a pragmatic value by first adopting my ethical system. If you do that, the pragmatic system is gone anyway. The Bible does not tell me that I get any benefit from it. Rather it tells me that since I have been so richly blessed, and will be so richly blessed, I ought to share the blessing. 

You can claim that I derived “pleasure” all you like. I can’t stop you. It proves you don’t make it as a mind reader.

You see, here is something I don't like about discussion with you. I carefully apply and indicate a term 'net pleasure', but despite that you deliberately misconstrue it into "pleasure", is if you have no regard whatsoever for my comment. You know what? That's rude.

Now, back to the point, your description of why you didn't hang up suggests clearly an implicit 'net pleasure' you derived. You didn't hang up because you are serving an ethic (as you put it). Your choose to accept the displeasure of the conversation for to avoid the greater displeasure of not living up to your what your beliefs require of you. I don't need to adopt your beliefs to see the rationale that underlies your choice. I merely need to know that they may provide incentives for you outside of the displeasure involved endogenously in the conversation.