A question of ethics

[saizai]

Is it OK to be unethical to someone who is unethical to you, except to the minimum extent necessary to defend yourself (or those you protect) from harm?

[Ryokan]

In general, no.

What kind of society would we have if it was?

[Dancing David]

Is it OK to be unethical to someone who is unethical to you, except to the minimum extent necessary to defend yourself (or those you protect) from harm?

Of course that would depend upon the ethical frame work, but I would say no. As a rational nihilist buddhist pagan, i would say that the main reason to behave ehthicaly is the benefit it has in your own life. So behaving ethicaly is a selfish motive, and a persoanl perogative.

To phrase it poorly and rudely, would you crap on your kitchen table because someone else did?

But equality of exploitation seems to be often viewed as ethical by many, like stealing something from a business that you feel ripped you off. Bad personal choice.

[saizai]

dd - In that case what about when you'll be punished for behaving ethically? Still should do it or no? Would be hard to justify by utilitarian means.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Of course not. If this behavior was allowed by whatever ethical system you were in, it wouldn't be unethical. If it weren't allowed, obviously it wouldn't be okay. If you are asking whther it's okay to be unethical in certain circumstances as an ethical question, you are essentially asking whether there are situations where it is ethical to be unethical. The whole idea is a contradiction, so obviously not. THe specifics of what your particular system thinks is ethical are irrelevant.

[slingblade]

There is one person against whom I would like some form of non-lethal, non-injurious revenge. Some solid public humiliation, perhaps, or a bit of come-uppance.

Other than that one, no. I don't usually get anything positive out of doing unto others the harm they've done unto me. I feel lessened by it.

[qayak]

Is it OK to be unethical to someone who is unethical to you, except to the minimum extent necessary to defend yourself (or those you protect) from harm?

Yes, that is the basis of the Tit-for-Tat Rule.

[Godmode]

Is it ok to be unethical?? Are you actually asking if it's ethical to be unethical? Or are you asking if it's acceptable to be unethical?
Obviously it's not ethical to be unethical. Ever. Whether or not it's acceptable to be unethical is a matter of debate. Clearly there is a large segment of the poplation that believes the end justifies the means. I'm not generally one of them, but I suppose it's possable I might be persuaded otherwise in certain situations.

Of course one must always remember that ethics are completely subjective. What I consider ethical may or may not match what you consider to be ethical.

[qayak]

Is it ok to be unethical?? Are you actually asking if it's ethical to be unethical? Or are you asking if it's acceptable to be unethical?
Obviously it's not ethical to be unethical. Ever.

I disagree. If someone steals it is common practice to punish them by confiscating their property. Confiscating someone's property is unethical but not if it is a penalty for some other crime. This can also be said for personal matters as opposed to criminal ones.

So, it is often ethical to be unethical and it is definitely acceptable in our society.

[Godmode]

I disagree. If someone steals it is common practice to punish them by confiscating their property. Confiscating someone's property is unethical but not if it is a penalty for some other crime. This can also be said for personal matters as opposed to criminal ones.

So, it is often ethical to be unethical and it is definitely acceptable in our society.

I disagree completely. It may in some areas of the world be accectable to employ an "eye for an eye" mentality in regards to criminals and others. That does not imply it is ethical. But as I said before, ethics are subjective.

Also, there are a lot of things that are common practice that I don't consider to be ethical, regardless of how acceptable they've become in society.

[PenguinWarrior]

I disagree. If someone steals it is common practice to punish them by confiscating their property. Confiscating someone's property is unethical but not if it is a penalty for some other crime. This can also be said for personal matters as opposed to criminal ones.

So, it is often ethical to be unethical and it is definitely acceptable in our society.

It can never be ethical to be unethical. By definition. It's like saying "Can the impossible ever be possible?"

Of course, this does not mean that actions that are in one case unethical cannot be ethical in another. For example, taking a person by force and holding them captive would generally be considered by nearly all systems to be unethical generally, but if that person is a criminal then locking them up has the benefit of protecting society from them and of hopefully providing a deterrant for future criminals, and this outweighs the harm done to the said individual (I'm a utilitarian, BTW. Other ethical systems would see the punishment as "Justice" and ethical for that reason too, but I disagree. Jutice in this context is just revenge in its respectable get up).

As to whether unethical actions can be considered to be OK by society in general, then yes, of course. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

As to when you'll be punished for behaving ethically, it would depend on whether the harm done to you by the punishment would outweigh the harm done to the victim of your unethical actions.

[qayak]

It can never be ethical to be unethical. By definition. It's like saying "Can the impossible ever be possible?"

You are wrong. Possible and impossible are mutually exclusive while ethical and unethical do not have to be. They depend on your point of view in a given situation. There are also degrees of ethical behaviour with no real dividing line on issues, only people's own thoughts on where an act changes from being ethical to being unethical.

Possible and impossible are black and white concepts. Ethics is a fuzzy concept.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Using a deontological approach we may see something of this sort........

We live within a particular ethical realm in which the norm should be that we all treat each other as ends rather than as means toward an end. If, however, someone were to break the ethical realm and treat another as a means to an end (an unethical actor) -- say for the sake of argument a man is raping a woman at the end of an alleyway -- then we must decide how to act. If we treat the unethical actor as an end (allow him to rape), then we necessarily treat his victim as a means, or allow the unethical actor to treat her as a means to an end. If we interfere, then we treat the woman as a means to an end (as she would want to be treated) but not the rapist. From the prespective of the ethical realm (in Kant's form of deontology), there is no proper solution. When the ethical realm is broken by someone we must act so as to return it to its rightful sphere -- we must treat the unethical actor as a means to an end and stop his behavior with the least force possible.

If we lived in a perfect world it would be unethical to break the precepts of the ethical realm. But this world is not perfect, so it becomes necessary to break those precepts from time to time so as to return to the ethical realm. Such action is technically unethical (manhandling another human being) from the perspective of the ethical realm but not unethical from the larger perspective of how we must act to return things to rights (manhandling a rapist so as to stop the rape).

This perspective, by the way, helps answer all those pesky questions about Nazis at the door.

**knock knock**

[Dancing David]

dd - In that case what about when you'll be punished for behaving ethically? Still should do it or no? Would be hard to justify by utilitarian means.

I understand but if it is to preserve life then unethical behavior might be acceptable. Depends on what harm is done as a consequence, lying to hide fugitives from unjust persecution is probably okay.

The problem I have is this is the 'dire emergency' scenario for G.W. Bush, since terrorists are trying to kill us and pose an 'asymetrical threat', he says that torture is okay, as is illegal detention.(No I will not debate those items.) So I feel, as a personal opinions, that for anypresident to overturn the restraints upon government in the Constitution of the United States is a huge mistake. And is an ethical and moral violation.

But back to your question, if you are pusnished for behaving ethicaly that is a tough situation, I have lost two jobs for doing so, it hurts and is no fun, but I would not call the Inspector General and make a false report just to get revenge.

[blutoski]

Is it OK to be unethical to someone who is unethical to you, except to the minimum extent necessary to defend yourself (or those you protect) from harm?

I found the wording of this question confusing. Are you asking if you have the right to defend yourself? The right to reciprocate? Or the right to escalate a dispute?

A question, then, would be: what did this person do, and were they already punished for it? If not: why not? eg: is there a debate as to whether you were actually wronged?

[Steven Howard]

Is it OK to be unethical to someone who is unethical to you, except to the minimum extent necessary to defend yourself (or those you protect) from harm?

Could you vague that up for me a little bit?

[saizai]

Rephrasing the question:

Is "tit for tat" ethical and/or acceptable and/or justified, beyond pure minimalist selfdefense?

Simple low-intensity example: someone is consistently very rude. OK to be rude back?

[qayak]

Is "tit for tat" ethical and/or acceptable and/or justified, beyond pure minimalist selfdefense?

In Canada, according to the criminal code, it is even legal! :can:

[politas]

You are wrong. Possible and impossible are mutually exclusive while ethical and unethical do not have to be. They depend on your point of view in a given situation. There are also degrees of ethical behaviour with no real dividing line on issues, only people's own thoughts on where an act changes from being ethical to being unethical.

Possible and impossible are black and white concepts. Ethics is a fuzzy concept.

You are confusing actions (as a category) and action-events (as an instatiation of a category). A single action-event is either ethical or unethical. Different people may have different opinions about it, but a single person cannot think that a single action-event is both.

On the other hand, a particular action can be either ethical or unethical according to the circumstances.

Sticking a knife in someone's chest is an unethical action if it is done in order to take the person's wallet, but an ethical action if it is done to alleviate a pnuemothorax.

[politas]

Rephrasing the question:

Is "tit for tat" ethical and/or acceptable and/or justified, beyond pure minimalist selfdefense?

Simple low-intensity example: someone is consistently very rude. OK to be rude back?

I would certainly say that a person's actions have an effect on my societal obligations towards them. Whether that involves meeting their unethical behavior with matching behaviour, or taking some other action that I would consider unethical if taken against a person who was not breaching what I consider the social contract of the society I live in, is hard to say. It would depend on circumstances.

Someone who is consistently very rude, for instance, I would most likely shun, rather than be rude to them.

[saizai]

politas - I would agree that it is ethical to withdraw priviledges you grant (e.g. your interaction/presence) from someone who breaks social contract. This in itself is not unethical; it is a conditional bonus being granted and thus can be withdrawn if the conditions are violated.

However, taking active harm (eg being rude at minimum intensity) goes beyond this into the at least potentially (or necessarily?) unethical.

Or is "being rude" the default state when the additional priviledges are withdrawn? (This would get harder and harder to justify with increased intensities...)

[RandFan]

Rephrasing the question:

Is "tit for tat" ethical and/or acceptable and/or justified, beyond pure minimalist selfdefense?

Simple low-intensity example: someone is consistently very rude. OK to be rude back?Since morality and ethics are relative then it would depend on who you ask. I can only assume you are talking social ethics in which case, AIU, it's considered appropriate by many in New York City but frowned on in many parts of the South. I grew up in a small town in Utah and it was definitely considered inappropriate to be rude regardless of the situation. Don't sink to the other person's level was a well worn phrase. Small town folk prided themselves on being polite to rude city folk. This is not to say that there were no rude small town folk, there were.

[politas]

politas - I would agree that it is ethical to withdraw priviledges you grant (e.g. your interaction/presence) from someone who breaks social contract. This in itself is not unethical; it is a conditional bonus being granted and thus can be withdrawn if the conditions are violated.

However, taking active harm (eg being rude at minimum intensity) goes beyond this into the at least potentially (or necessarily?) unethical.

Or is "being rude" the default state when the additional priviledges are withdrawn? (This would get harder and harder to justify with increased intensities...)
Sorry, can you define what you mean by "being rude".

To me, ignoring someone who talks to me is rude. Saying "please go away and never speak to me again" is rude. I consider it perfectly ethical behaviour when telemarketers call when I'm sleeping in between night shifts, though.

[blutoski]

Rephrasing the question:

Is "tit for tat" ethical and/or acceptable and/or justified, beyond pure minimalist selfdefense?

Simple low-intensity example: someone is consistently very rude. OK to be rude back?

It may be OK, but it depends on what 'rude' means - is he calling at 4am and waking up your family? Doesn't give you the right to disturb his kids.

Also, it depends on your objective - is this an emotional release, or will being rude actually achieve something?

My family motto is very personal to me, as a Kantian: Remember the End. Do everything with purpose. Would setting an example be more productive? Would leaving him as the only rude person in the exchange be its own victory? Would it elevate you and your life choices in the view of others who are aware of the exchanges?

[rwp]

In general, no.

What kind of society would we have if it was?

A blind, toothless one.