Ethical Question

[cnorman18]

There are various opinions on this. I'm not sure, myself. I'd be interested in seeing those of others.

A poor man comes up to another man and says, "Please help me; my children are hungry and I have no money."

The second man has little money himself; he has only a dollar, his last, but he gives it to the poor man, embraces him, and weeps because he can be of no more help than that.

The poor man than approaches a rich man, and makes the same request.

The rich man says, "I don't know you or your children at all, and I care about you even less. I'll give you this just to get out of my face and leave me alone. Now go away." He hands him a $100 bill because he has nothing smaller, and it's pocket change to him anyway.

Now, which man did the better act?

Christianity's answer is explicit, given by Jesus himself; the first man.

Jews aren't so sure. From the poor man's point of view, he can get more food for his children with $100 than with $1, and he's probably happier that he ran into the second man than the first.

The question remains unanswered.

Comments?

[Apology]

There are various opinions on this. I'm not sure, myself. I'd be interested in seeing those of others.

A poor man comes up to another man and says, "Please help me; my children are hungry and I have no money."

The second man has little money himself; he has only a dollar, his last, but he gives it to the poor man, embraces him, and weeps because he can be of no more help than that.

The poor man than approaches a rich man, and makes the same request.

The rich man says, "I don't know you or your children at all, and I care about you even less. I'll give you this just to get out of my face and leave me alone. Now go away." He hands him a $100 bill because he has nothing smaller, and it's pocket change to him anyway.

Now, which man did the better act?

Christianity's answer is explicit, given by Jesus himself; the first man.

Jews aren't so sure. From the poor man's point of view, he can get more food for his children with $100 than with $1, and he's probably happier that he ran into the second man than the first.

The question remains unanswered.

Comments?

The truth is, both men did a good deed, but it required more sacrifice on the part of the poorer man. That the beggar was more pleased with the rich man's contribution has no bearing on the ethics of the situation.

I propose that the poor man acted more ethically in this situation, since he acted from a sincere desire to help. However, intent is not relevant to the ethics of the situation either since the outcome is the same: they both gave money to the poor, a generally ethical act.

[Region Rat]

With no evidence that the second man has any more access or ability to generate money than the first man, is it really more ethical to for the second man to effectively trade places with the first man, however kind that may be, thereby becoming a burden to others himself?

The ethical act would be for the first man to refuse the last dollar of the second man and seek help elsewhere.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is not a mans decision as to which other man made a better charity.

Once you start counting you will find yourself always lacking.

I recommend not attempting to count, just attempt to give freely "good will" as best you can.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I guess the poor man made a much larger relative sacrifice, so I will say he did the better deed.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I guess the poor man made a much larger relative sacrifice, so I will say he did the better deed.

Is the reasoning behind the gift relevant to your choice?

[TX50]

The two poor guys should have rolled the rich guy for the rest of his cash,
the snooty, disdainful git.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The two poor guys should have rolled the rich guy for the rest of his cash,
the snooty, disdainful git.

Very funny!:)


BTW, what is a "git"?

[Mobyseven]

The first man the beggar asked should not have given away his money at all. You help no one by becoming a burden yourself - first earn so that you can survive, then give if you can afford (and if you want to).

[cnorman18]

Let's refine this just a bit to focus on what I perceive to be the intent of the question:

I would assume that the first giver is not destitute himself; that he has a job, etc., but simply has no more than a dollar available to him at the time. He will not become a burden himself by giving the poor man his dollar.

It seems to me that the question is this: What determines the relative rightness of a deed? Is it the motivation and attitude behind it, or the effect of the deed itself?

Does this boil down to the question of who is more important, the giver or the recipient?

Or perhaps whether "ethics" is about people, or about actions?

Saying that the two were ethically identical is obvious nonsense; the differences in attitude AND in effect were enormous.

Do we just cop out with "It depends on how you look at it"? If that's the only answer, I'm OK with it, but it seems a little vague to me.

[Mobyseven]

Well if we're now saying that the first person is able to continue being a productive member of society, but he only had a dollar on him at the time...then I have trouble really giving two bits worth. See, that dollar isn't going to impact on the life of the recipient, and it's not going to have an impact on the life of the person who gave it either. In effect, the amount of money involved in the transaction is so little as to have no effect at all - the man may as well not have given anything away. Certainly (without any more information) it is not an immoral act, but it is still a worthless act.

As for the rich man giving away a hundred dollars - that's not going to have an impact on the life of the rich man one bit. It is, as the question is phrased, pocket change to him. However it does have the potential, however unlikely, to in some way change the life of the homeless man. A hundred dollars is enough money to get cleaned up physically - shower, shave, brush teeth, haircut, etc. - and that in turn makes the homeless man immediately more employable. For this example I'm assuming that the homeless man is capable of picking himself up - that he's not severely incapacitated physically or mentally, just that he's on hard times.

All in all, the first man's action was worthless - it will have no impact on either man's life. The rich man's action has worth - it will have no impact on the rich man's life, but may have a positive impact on the life of the poor man. Therefore the rich man's action was, in this situation, the 'better' action.

Note that this does not necessarily reflect the character of the people involved, simply the worth of their actions in the particular instance you have set out.

[Region Rat]

Well, if you now say that the second man is indeed 'rich', in that he has more money and/or the means to make more money, I would say that if he truly wished he could give more, as evidenced by his tearful display, then he should have made arrangements to give more. He should have brought the first man home with him for a meal and a shower, dropped by the ATM, whatever. By not taking any more actions than he could at that very moment, he has proven to me that he is not very ethical.

On the other hand, the third man, who seems to have been placed in the situation to show the arrogance of wealth, gave enough to make an impact, even though he could have easily had his driver or bodyguard throw the first man to the curb for him so he could continue on the the country club for caviar and champagne, while banging his beautiful personal assistant. Because, see, the third man is not always so abrupt with people down on their luck, its just that ever since he worked himself up from the gutter by working 3 menial jobs, investing whatever money he could wisely, and rising through the ranks to eventually run his own company, he has been besieged by every manner of person trying to get what he has earned. He has, though his own generosity, given away a vast chunk of his wealth to con men and thieves, and has become somewhat distrustful of beggars in general. In spite of all that, he gave away a hard earned $100 to a person who could be one of those dishonest people. I would say that makes him more ethical.

Backstories are fun, aren't they?

[cnorman18]

Well, if you now say that the second man is indeed 'rich', in that he has more money and/or the means to make more money, I would say that if he truly wished he could give more, as evidenced by his tearful display, then he should have made arrangements to give more. He should have brought the first man home with him for a meal and a shower, dropped by the ATM, whatever. By not taking any more actions than he could at that very moment, he has proven to me that he is not very ethical.

On the other hand, the third man, who seems to have been placed in the situation to show the arrogance of wealth, gave enough to make an impact, even though he could have easily had his driver or bodyguard throw the first man to the curb for him so he could continue on the the country club for caviar and champagne, while banging his beautiful personal assistant. Because, see, the third man is not always so abrupt with people down on their luck, its just that ever since he worked himself up from the gutter by working 3 menial jobs, investing whatever money he could wisely, and rising through the ranks to eventually run his own company, he has been besieged by every manner of person trying to get what he has earned. He has, though his own generosity, given away a vast chunk of his wealth to con men and thieves, and has become somewhat distrustful of beggars in general. In spite of all that, he gave away a hard earned $100 to a person who could be one of those dishonest people. I would say that makes him more ethical.

Backstories are fun, aren't they?

I think they may be hardwired in. Humans seem to have a compulsion to finish an ambiguous picture or explain an ambiguous situation so they can make sense of it. Probably a survival trait, since so much of real life makes no sense at all.

[Region Rat]

I think they may be hardwired in. Humans seem to have a compulsion to finish an ambiguous picture or explain an ambiguous situation so they can make sense of it. Probably a survival trait, since so much of real life makes no sense at all.

You may have realized that I added my back story because the condition of the original hypothetical changed, seemingly because the 'right' answer wasn't reached. A man with only a dollar tearfully gives it away to a man who has none is more ethical than a man with many dollars begrudgingly gives it to a man who has none. Obviously this was meant to favor the tearful man with one dollar. Your 'redefinition' of the tearful man opened the door to more redefinition.

By the way, in the original hypothetical, there are just a little well poisoning, what with the tearful poor man and the abrupt nasty rich man. Just my opinion, of course.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Let's refine this just a bit to focus on what I perceive to be the intent of the question:

I would assume that the first giver is not destitute himself; that he has a job, etc., but simply has no more than a dollar available to him at the time. He will not become a burden himself by giving the poor man his dollar.

It seems to me that the question is this: What determines the relative rightness of a deed? Is it the motivation and attitude behind it, or the effect of the deed itself?

Does this boil down to the question of who is more important, the giver or the recipient?

Or perhaps whether "ethics" is about people, or about actions?

Saying that the two were ethically identical is obvious nonsense; the differences in attitude AND in effect were enormous.

Do we just cop out with "It depends on how you look at it"? If that's the only answer, I'm OK with it, but it seems a little vague to me.

I don't think it is necessarily a cop out. Most people do not seem to think in absolute terms. We seem to have different means of dealing with different issues. When it comes to ethics we appear to have at least two and probably three paradigms from which we make decisions. We separate these into different ethical "theories" -- virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology. Looked at from the viewpoint of intentions (if that is most important), then the first guy is most ethical. Looked at from the viewpoint of consequences, the second guy is more ethical/effective. Looked at from the viewpoint of virtue, the first guy is more ethical.

I guess you could say 2 out of 3 wins, so the first guy is more ethical; but that is just as arbitrary as total reliance on one or the other ethical theories. I'm afraid that the real answer is probably closer to the "cop out" position.

[Oroborus]

The real question is why the poor man didn't rob the silly prat after getting the hundred. ;P

[dahduh]

If one adopts the position of arguing purely on the basis of outcomes, the rich man did the better deed; but it was compromised by his offensive behaviour. The poor man may have done active harm if that dollar should have been reserved for his own dependents, but at least he had manners.

Ethical argments ultimately depend upon the values one chooses to apply in assessing the outcomes. If you greatly value respect for others, or you value altruism, you will probably think that the poor man did the better deed. If you think material well-being is most important, then the rich man did the better deed. But the most honest way of assessing outcomes is simply to ask the people involved; in this case, ask the poor man if he would rather get $1 from a polite bloke or $100 from an ********; and on the flip side, ask the poor man and the rich man to decide between them who would least like to make their respective contribution. I think I can guess the answer to that one.

[69dodge]

Now, which man did the better act?


I don't understand the question. What is the meaning of comparing the goodness of acts done by different people?

Every person can only choose what he himself will do. If there are a number of choices available to one person, it makes sense to ask which of them is better. The answer will determine how that person ought to act.

But what difference does the answer to your question make? Suppose the answer is "the first man". Ok. Now what? Or suppose the answer is "the second man". Again, now what?

[Apology]

It's a really "gray" question. Theoretically both donations are equal in ethics.

However, if you want to nitpick, it sounds like the poor man gave until it hurt. The rich man did not give so much that he did without later to make up for the shortfall. One can assume the poorer man had to economize to make up for the missing dollar. From this presumption I suppose one could make the argument that his donation was slightly more ethical.

There is some debate as to whether ethics is a black-and-white, either/or philosophy. Here's an analogy: two people are applying for the same job, and the job requires high ethical standards. Neither of them have a record of unethical behavior. One candidate seems more trustworthy than the other and gets hired. You can't say that the guy who didn't get the job is less ethical; neither of them had a record of doing anything unethical. Trust and ethics are related but not interchangeable.

Ethics requires no speculation. An act is either ethical or it is not. The act must happen before we can determine whether it is ethical or not. Trust allows one to discriminate against the potential for misbehavior that hasn't happened yet, and that's how it differs from ethics.

In our earlier example with the beggar, poor man, and rich man, if you change the question so that it reads "Who is more generous," I think it's clear that the poor man is the most generous. That is different from "ethical" though. I might even argue that it's impossible to be "more ethical" than another person who is also ethical. You are either ethical or you are not.

I have come full circle, and have returned to the position that both of the donations are equally ethical.

[Lucky]

I don't understand the question. What is the meaning of comparing the goodness of acts done by different people?

Every person can only choose what he himself will do. If there are a number of choices available to one person, it makes sense to ask which of them is better. The answer will determine how that person ought to act.

But what difference does the answer to your question make? Suppose the answer is "the first man". Ok. Now what? Or suppose the answer is "the second man". Again, now what?


Those were my thoughts.

OK, I was actually thinking: How do we generate a formula for the relative goodness of charitable acts by different people; where's the data we can use to derive the parameters? But you said it better.

[rocketdodger]

In this case, because the rich man didn't care about helping the beggar man out, even in return for something later (such as in the case of a loan with interest), I think it is easy to say that the poor guy acted more ethically than the rich one.

An ethical decision has nothing to do with actual outcomes, only intended outcomes. This scenario illustrates the problem with basing policy on ethics only -- the actual outcome of a less ethical act is in fact more beneficial to all parties involved, and so in a global sense is much better any way you look at it.

Futhermore, this scenario shows why people often actually do more harm than good when they act "ethically" according to their current knowledge. The poor man could have saved his dollar and done something else with it that may, in the long term, do more good than giving it to the beggar. The whole "give a man a fish..." thing. Yet, because he was sacrificing all that he had, the poor man would just "feel" like he was doing a great deed at the time.

[meg]

Rocketdodger wrote: An ethical decision has nothing to do with actual outcomes, only intended outcomes.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

Our morals, ethics, and sense of right and wrong are reflections of our natural inclinations toward altruism as well as our cultural/societal choices about how we should behave toward one another. But both our own sense of right and wrong and our societal rules about our behavior are weighted.

Just as we consider the difference between verbally assaulting someone and physically assaulting them as "bad" and "worse", there are levels of "good" in our minds that need to be considered.

I think it is true that in general most of us would probably agree with the statement "We should have compassion and empathy for fellow humans". But I think most of us would also rank "We should help people who are poor and hungry" higher. And I think most of us would rank "We should not let children go hungry" even higher than that.

While the first man showed empathy and compassion, which we consider generally "good", he really did not do anything to fix the bad situation. So all of his weeping and embracing and giving of $1 really is an empty act. He might as well just offer to pray for the poor family, - another act which supposedly shows compassion but doesn't actually do anything.

The rich man, though, actually fixed the bad situation. Because of his behavior, there was one less hungry family that day. And, as someone else said, he gave enough not only to feed the family, but maybe even help the poor man get cleaned up to get a job or something. His act, whether out of compassion or not, might have not only fixed the temporary problem, but fixed the problem for the long term.

Action and outcomes trump emotion and intent. "Intent to commit murder" is a lesser crime than "Murder". And equally "Weeping over and hugging poor hungry people" is a lesser good act than "Feeding poor hungry people".

The bottom line is that the poor family got to eat that day, all because of the rich man's act. Whether he intended to be "good" or not doesn't really matter. In our minds, it would have been a "better" act if he had given the $100 with compassion, but it doesn't lessen the impact and "goodness" of the $100 that he didn't.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Rocketdodger wrote: An ethical decision has nothing to do with actual outcomes, only intended outcomes.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

Our morals, ethics, and sense of right and wrong are reflections of our natural inclinations toward altruism as well as our cultural/societal choices about how we should behave toward one another. But both our own sense of right and wrong and our societal rules about our behavior are weighted.

Just as we consider the difference between verbally assaulting someone and physically assaulting them as "bad" and "worse", there are levels of "good" in our minds that need to be considered.

I think it is true that in general most of us would probably agree with the statement "We should have compassion and empathy for fellow humans". But I think most of us would also rank "We should help people who are poor and hungry" higher. And I think most of us would rank "We should not let children go hungry" even higher than that.

While the first man showed empathy and compassion, which we consider generally "good", he really did not do anything to fix the bad situation. So all of his weeping and embracing and giving of $1 really is an empty act. He might as well just offer to pray for the poor family, - another act which supposedly shows compassion but doesn't actually do anything.

The rich man, though, actually fixed the bad situation. Because of his behavior, there was one less hungry family that day. And, as someone else said, he gave enough not only to feed the family, but maybe even help the poor man get cleaned up to get a job or something. His act, whether out of compassion or not, might have not only fixed the temporary problem, but fixed the problem for the long term.

Action and outcomes trump emotion and intent. "Intent to commit murder" is a lesser crime than "Murder". And equally "Weeping over and hugging poor hungry people" is a lesser good act than "Feeding poor hungry people".

The bottom line is that the poor family got to eat that day, all because of the rich man's act. Whether he intended to be "good" or not doesn't really matter. In our minds, it would have been a "better" act if he had given the $100 with compassion, but it doesn't lessen the impact and "goodness" of the $100 that he didn't.

Suppose he dropped a $100 bill on the ground next to the poor guy without intending to help at all? He clearly helps but with no intention to do so. Does that even enter the ethical realm?

I think one of the big problems is that, as you argue, ethics is not one thing. It is simply not the case that intention is all that matters in ethics. Outcomes definitely matter. Another commonly used example is a truck driver who does not check his brakes. One day he goes out and has trouble stopping, but that's it. Is that unethical? But another day he has trouble stopping when a four year old runs into the street after his ball and the truck driver runs him over. Is that unethical? His earlier inaction led to the kid's death, but most of the time that inaction has no real-world consequence.

But intention is important for many ethical situations. I doubt that I need to enumerate them. It is certainly very clear from this thread that we have this sense.

Somehow we use some rubric to determine how to weigh these different factors. We know the brain area in which it occurs -- the anterior cingulate gyrus, a region tied to emotional reactions and cognition -- but we don't seem to have a clear sense of how we arrive at answers to these constructed ethical dilemmas. I think the latter is the case because different people use different weightings and arrive at different sorts of answers.

[rocketdodger]

While the first man showed empathy and compassion, which we consider generally "good", he really did not do anything to fix the bad situation. So all of his weeping and embracing and giving of $1 really is an empty act. He might as well just offer to pray for the poor family, - another act which supposedly shows compassion but doesn't actually do anything.


But he doesn't know it is an empty act. People wouldn't take the time to pray for others if they thought it was pointless. To the poor man giving his $1, and to people praying for others, they genuinely are trying to help.

You might claim that this makes the act both ethical to the decider and unethical (or at least neutral) to the beggar, but since the notion of "ethical" is relative to the one making the decision, it doesn't matter.


His act, whether out of compassion or not, might have not only fixed the temporary problem, but fixed the problem for the long term.

And I claim this outcome has nothing to do with the ethics of the decision at the time he made it.


Action and outcomes trump emotion and intent. "Intent to commit murder" is a lesser crime than "Murder".

Murder doesn't even exist unless there is intent, actually. Furthermore, can you tell me what typically gets longer prison times, intended murder or accidental manslaughter?


And equally "Weeping over and hugging poor hungry people" is a lesser good act than "Feeding poor hungry people".

But as I said, actual outcomes have nothing to do with whether a decision is ethical or not. Why? Because "ethicality," or whatever the term is, is not dynamic. If a decision is ethical at the time it is made, it is always ethical from then on. If not, it is never ethical.

Suppose that by gassing millions of Jews, it turns out hitler prevented some greater evil in the future. Does that make his decision ethical? Suppose mother Theresa actually did more harm than good. Does that make her behavior unethical?


The bottom line is that the poor family got to eat that day, all because of the rich man's act.

But they might not have, in every scenario. Suppose that because the rich man was a douche the beggar got depressed and spent all the money on alcohol. Suppose that the kindness of the poor man had a life altering impact on the beggar and he dug himself out of the gutter after the encounter. Then who was more ethical?

[Roboramma]

Now, which man did the better act? It's a bit of a difficult question. I would say that the second man accomplished the better act, while the first has demonstrated himself to be a better person.
We can see this based on what he would likely do if he were in a different situation - ie. rich.

Which is, I think, one reason that we often feel real gratitude to those who give when it is difficult for them to do so - because we know that the altruism that they have demonstrated is a part of their character which will likely stay with them in to good times.

[rocketdodger]

Outcomes definitely matter. Another commonly used example is a truck driver who does not check his brakes. One day he goes out and has trouble stopping, but that's it. Is that unethical?

Yes, for a truck driver it is, because there is a known high probability that someone will eventually get hurt as a result. They go through training to learn precisely that kind of stuff, they get reprimanded if they don't check their brakes precisely for that reason, and least of all they are adult humans who should be able to make that kind of inference. Even if they used stupidity and irresponsibility as an excuse, it doesn't matter -- those personality traits can be considered unethical in many areas of modern society.

For a child, a mentally handicapped individual, or a family pet, such a thing would not be unethical because such an individual is not expected to put two and two together. I dare say that is probably the reason we do not let such individuals drive trucks.

[cnorman18]

Wow! I thought this question might generate some interesting debate. I had no idea.

I really had no "correct" answer in mind; I was interested in seeing what others on this forum had to say--and I continue to be fascinated by the intelligence and thoughtfulness of its members. Even those who essentially dismissed the question as either meaningless or impractical did so in a thoughtful manner.

I think if anything has been established here, it's that ethical questions have more to do with perspective and human reason and judgment than with sets of rules or perhaps even hard-and-fast "principles".

It seems to me that a clearly ethical and praiseworthy act might be "spoiled" in some sense (perhaps aesthetically?) by being carried out with an un-praiseworthy attitude, while remaining admirable in itself. Just another thought to throw into the mix.

A remarkable discussion. Thanks.

[Lonewulf]

Neither. They gave the man money without actually helping him in the first place.

The trick is to get him a job and make him a contributing member of society instead of just a parasite.

(Before anyone jumps me on this, I should note that these kinds of ethical questions I really don't care much about; if I was really serious, I might give a more thoughtful answer, but right now this is all you'll get).

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, for a truck driver it is, because there is a known high probability that someone will eventually get hurt as a result. They go through training to learn precisely that kind of stuff, they get reprimanded if they don't check their brakes precisely for that reason, and least of all they are adult humans who should be able to make that kind of inference. Even if they used stupidity and irresponsibility as an excuse, it doesn't matter -- those personality traits can be considered unethical in many areas of modern society.

For a child, a mentally handicapped individual, or a family pet, such a thing would not be unethical because such an individual is not expected to put two and two together. I dare say that is probably the reason we do not let such individuals drive trucks.

So, would you reprimand a trucker who did not check his breaks precisely the same if there were no consequence as one who killed a child as a result?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Neither. They gave the man money without actually helping him in the first place.

The trick is to get him a job and make him a contributing member of society instead of just a parasite.

(Before anyone jumps me on this, I should note that these kinds of ethical questions I really don't care much about; if I was really serious, I might give a more thoughtful answer, but right now this is all you'll get).

You mean, sort of like, build a man a fire and he is warm for one night, set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life?*

*with apologies to Terry Pratchett

[Soapy Sam]

All three screwed up.

The first man , by giving him $1, encouraged him to beg.
The second man, by giving him $100 confirmed him in making a living by begging.

Better for the poor man to say "sorry" and the rich man to give him a job.

We can't compare moral acts unless we all share the same values. If we don't , it makes no more sense than comparing apples and bedsprings.

[Ichneumonwasp]

All three screwed up.

The first man , by giving him $1, encouraged him to beg.
The second man, by giving him $100 confirmed him in making a living by begging.

Better for the poor man to say "sorry" and the rich man to give him a job.

We can't compare moral acts unless we all share the same values. If we don't , it makes no more sense than comparing apples and bedsprings.

A truly excellent point.

[Beerina]

The truth is, both men did a good deed, but it required more sacrifice on the part of the poorer man. That the beggar was more pleased with the rich man's contribution has no bearing on the ethics of the situation.

I propose that the poor man acted more ethically in this situation, since he acted from a sincere desire to help. However, intent is not relevant to the ethics of the situation either since the outcome is the same: they both gave money to the poor, a generally ethical act.

Ancient moralities based on false theories of want and need and supply have no bearing on a modern, powerful economy based on freedom and government securing property rights and the rule of law.

The mountain god Yahweh would have done much better for humanity by having Jesus teach about securing property rights and instituting separation of church and state rather than buttering up the benifits of a poor man giving a dollar as being superior to a rich man giving a hundred.

[meg]

Ichneumonwasp wrote:Suppose he dropped a $100 bill on the ground next to the poor guy without intending to help at all? He clearly helps but with no intention to do so. Does that even enter the ethical realm?

I think it does.. but only on the part of the finder of the money. We have many ethical dilemas around finding lost things and what to do with them.

I get what you're saying though, that intent is an important factor in the decision making process about ethics. How does one ever really know a person's intent, though? I mean, in the OP we have a situation where a poor person asks a rich person for some help, and the rich person gives them $100. Does it matter what the rich person said? The bare facts of the case show that the rich person provided help to the poor person when requested.

And as to the poor person who gave $1 and wept for the beggar, how do we know what his true intent was? Did he give that dollar out of a genuine desire to help the beggar, or did he give it knowing full well it made no difference, but it helped him to feel good about himself?

rocketdodger wrote:Murder doesn't even exist unless there is intent, actually. Furthermore, can you tell me what typically gets longer prison times, intended murder or accidental manslaughter?
No. I can't. I do not know how our justice systems weighs the intentional killing of a person vs the accidental killing of a person while committing some other crime. I would guess it has a lot to do with how serious the other crime is, how regretful they may be, how negligent they may have been, how many people were harmed.. many factors.

rocketdodger wrote:But as I said, actual outcomes have nothing to do with whether a decision is ethical or not. Why? Because "ethicality," or whatever the term is, is not dynamic. If a decision is ethical at the time it is made, it is always ethical from then on. If not, it is never ethical.

I do not agree. I do not think that you can name any act or behavior that no matter the circumstance would always be ethical or inethical. We consider murder wrong, yet we engage in wars that kill people, or we consider "self defense" an okay excuse. We consider stealing unethical, however we don't think it's so bad, for example, if someone loots baby formula to feed an infant during a flood.

We always weigh each circumstance, and try to decipher which action serves the greater good as well as our personal interests. And usually we measure based on the outcome. Granted, we don't always guess the correct outcome. If Mother Teresa did not know that the person she nursed back to health was a serial rapist intent on murdering hundreds of women, her decision to nurse him back to health cannot be considered unethical. However, if she did know she was aiding a person intent on murdering many people, and she still chose to help him, that could be considered unethical.

Likewise, I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing a "good" thing. He probably thought killing millions of people was somehow serving the greater good. However, just because he might have had good intentions doesn't mean he behaved ethically. Society measured the outcome, and pretty much unanimously declared that individual human rights to life trump any possible perceived benefit of "racial purity", and we all declare that Hitler's behavior was unethical.

Intent alone does not make a good person, or a good action. We encourage each other to have empathy and compassion for other human beings not because those attributes are "good" all by themselves. We encourage those behaviors because it increases the likelihood that those members of society who need help will get it from those in a position to give help. Encouraging this behavior increases the survival rate of our clan/society/group/species. The "goodness" comes from the actions and their outcomes, not the intentions.

[Lonewulf]

I think that ethics is an illogical process in the end. You can make up a logical structure of ethics that follows lines of logic, but in the end it's a subjective process more based in emotion than anything else. I think that logic is essentially an attempt to structure already prevailing and personal beliefs, more than it is a way to reach actual ethical conclusions.

[rocketdodger]

So, would you reprimand a trucker who did not check his breaks precisely the same if there were no consequence as one who killed a child as a result?

No, because the punishment of something takes into account many more factors than just the ethicality of the decision that led to whatever happened.

I would claim that the ethicality of the decision is the same regardless. The fact that someone actually died in the second case just means the trucker is in alot more trouble.

[rocketdodger]

I do not agree. I do not think that you can name any act or behavior that no matter the circumstance would always be ethical or inethical.


Of course not. My argument is that if an action is ethical or unethical when it is made, however we decide that, then it will remain so for the rest of history.

You can't generalize acts or behaviors, I agree. But you can label a specific instance of an act or behavior as being ethical or unethical, ineed we have to in order to make decisions every day.


Intent alone does not make a good person, or a good action.

..snip..

The "goodness" comes from the actions and their outcomes, not the intentions.

I agree. But is "goodness" the same as ethics? I don't think so. Ethics has to do with whether a decision made is in accordance with the standards of right and wrong held by whoever is doing the judging. "Goodness" is simply a form of utility measurement.

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, because the punishment of something takes into account many more factors than just the ethicality of the decision that led to whatever happened.

I would claim that the ethicality of the decision is the same regardless. The fact that someone actually died in the second case just means the trucker is in alot more trouble.

But why is the trucker in a lot more trouble? Isn't his being in more trouble an issue of ethics in the first place?

It seems to me that you are defining ethicality in an overly restrictive fashion to reach the conclusion that only intent is important to ethics. If you have defined ethics as only concerning intent, then that is fine for you. Most of the rest of the world uses a more inclusive definition.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I agree. But is "goodness" the same as ethics? I don't think so. Ethics has to do with whether a decision made is in accordance with the standards of right and wrong held by whoever is doing the judging. "Goodness" is simply a form of utility measurement.

Aristotle considered the "good" as the entire point of ethics.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I get what you're saying though, that intent is an important factor in the decision making process about ethics. How does one ever really know a person's intent, though? I mean, in the OP we have a situation where a poor person asks a rich person for some help, and the rich person gives them $100. Does it matter what the rich person said? The bare facts of the case show that the rich person provided help to the poor person when requested.

And as to the poor person who gave $1 and wept for the beggar, how do we know what his true intent was? Did he give that dollar out of a genuine desire to help the beggar, or did he give it knowing full well it made no difference, but it helped him to feel good about himself?


We cannot know intent with absolute certainty, but when has absolute certainty ever stopped us?

A very large part of our brain is concerned with gleaning intent in others. We try to discover who cheats and why so that we can prevent it in the future. We gossip so that we can discover what other people think when we are not present to discover this information on our own. Much of our interaction with other people consists in our building a model of their internal world based on empathy and guesses of intent based on their actions.

When we fall in love, we build an expansive internal world of the person we adore. It isn't necessarily true, but that is what we do. In fact, it is possible that our internal sense of self is simply an internally directed application of the techniques we inherited to understand the motivations of others so that we could predict their actions.

We do the same thing with ethics. It is a large part of what ethics is.

[Mobyseven]

Of course not. My argument is that if an action is ethical or unethical when it is made, however we decide that, then it will remain so for the rest of history.

Which would explain why white Americans still consider slavery to be such a good idea, I guess? :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

Of course not. My argument is that if an action is ethical or unethical when it is made, however we decide that, then it will remain so for the rest of history.
Examples in the real world show this claim as entirely wrong, if you look at it practically.

Ideally, it would be nice if we could have a code that would be able to apply and never be questionable ever for the rest of history, but... sorry. Doesn't work that way.

But we're always as moral as we can be in THIS generation. :D

[rocketdodger]

Aristotle considered the "good" as the entire point of ethics.

Good for who? What is good?

An "ethical" decision is one made in accordance with the judge's notion of right, "unethical" with their notion of wrong.

It is just that simple. If one makes a decision, and never looks back to say "I went against my morals in that case and did the wrong thing," then they acted ethically. If not, not.

It is an entirely different case when one looks back to say "if I had known then what I know now, I would have acted differently." A bad decision can still be an ethical one.

[rocketdodger]

Which would explain why white Americans still consider slavery to be such a good idea, I guess? :rolleyes:

I never said that the ethicality of a decision as seen by one person must be the same as seen by everyone else. In the case of slavery, even if those that practice it thought it was ethical (which I doubt) that doesn't mean we have to.

However, the fact that we think it is unethical has nothing to do with data accumlated in all the years since slavery was abolished in the U.S., does it? No. We know it was unethical then, just as it is now, just as it has always been (according to us).

[rocketdodger]

Examples in the real world show this claim as entirely wrong, if you look at it practically.


I don't think so. The ethicality of a decision varies only with the intent of the decider (or the interpreted intent, if the judge changes their ideology). Whether a decision is good or bad varies only with the actual outcome or interpretation of the actual outcome.

I could be wrong, though. Do you have any examples in mind? I can't think of any decision I considered ethical at one time unethical later on, or vica versa, based only on updated information about the outcome of that decision.

[Lonewulf]

I don't think so. The ethicality of a decision varies only with the intent of the decider (or the interpreted intent, if the judge changes their ideology). Whether a decision is good or bad varies only with the actual outcome or interpretation of the actual outcome.

I could be wrong, though. Do you have any examples in mind? I can't think of any decision I considered ethical at one time unethical later on, or vica versa, based only on updated information about the outcome of that decision.

Slavery. Racism. Genocide.

All of which at one point of time were seen as ethical.

I never said that the ethicality of a decision as seen by one person must be the same as seen by everyone else. In the case of slavery, even if those that practice it thought it was ethical (which I doubt) that doesn't mean we have to.

However, the fact that we think it is unethical has nothing to do with data accumlated in all the years since slavery was abolished in the U.S., does it? No. We know it was unethical then, just as it is now, just as it has always been (according to us).

We perceive it as unethical today, yes. And in the next generation, they'll probably find something you did as unethical.

That's how society works.

[blobru]

...The second man has little money himself; he has only a dollar, his last, but he gives it to the poor man, embraces him, and weeps because he can be of no more help than that.

The rich man says, "I don't know you or your children at all, and I care about you even less. I'll give you this just to get out of my face and leave me alone. Now go away." He hands him a $100 bill because he has nothing smaller, and it's pocket change to him anyway.

Now, which man did the better act? ...

(Coming late to this.) Assume the money's accidental; i.e., the third man's wealth is not dependent on his selfishness.

Then compare attitudes. The second man wants to help. The third man doesn't. Generalize that. A society of second men vs a society of third men.

In second-man-land the consensus is to "help the poor" in any way possible. At first this may be through handouts; if that doesn't work, education; if that doesn't work, incentive programs, etc. Who knows, maybe all the social programs will fail, and the consensus will shift to "selfishness" as the best way to help the poor. But at least this will be a rational ethical consensus, arrived at through trial and error.

In third-man-land the consensus is "screw the poor". Given their attitudes, there is no way the third men will ever try another approach. The third men's selfishness towards the poor is thus untested and irrational. Not good.

So, via Mr. I. Kant's categorical imperative, I vote: second man. :) (Of course, if one assumes wealth does depend on selfishness, a society of "screw the poor" third men can do a lot more to lovelessly 'help' the poor than a society of well-meaning ne'er-do-well second men. In that case -- call it "Ayn Rand was right?! huh" -- the third man gets my [reluctant] vote... I think. Just so long as I don't have to have dinner with the prick paragon.) :p

[rocketdodger]

Slavery. Racism. Genocide.

All of which at one point of time were seen as ethical.


You don't understand my argument. I am not speaking in general, I am speaking about a specific judgement by a specific person at a specific point in time given a specific state of the world.

Slave owners thought slavery was ethical, at the time, given the state of the world and what they knew. This is a fact.

We think this slavery in the past was unethical, at this time, given the state of the world and what we know (including the state of the world then). This is also a fact.

Think of it this way -- consider any decision that in the past was considered ethical but is now thought of as definitely unethical. Now pretend that all the historical outcomes of that decision are erased, or that you just never learned about them. Does the decision switch to ethical status in the absence of negative outcomes?

Then try the same exercise with unethical decisions that are now considered ethical. Notice a pattern?

Unless I am wrong, you should come to the conclusion that whether or not a decision was ethical is based on our values alone, not the outcome of the decision (unless the outcome changed our values, which is very possible).

[Mobyseven]

I for one can't follow your argument at all, Rocketdodger. You said, "My argument is that if an action is ethical or unethical when it is made, however we decide that, then it will remain so for the rest of history."

To me, that was a clear, concise and easy to understand contention that I disagree with wholeheartedly, as counter-examples are available by the bucketload.

Whatever you're trying to say now, could you express it as clearly as that last contention? It seems like your contention now is, "Given the relevant information about a situation, a person will judge that situation as being either good or bad, and their judgment on that situation will remain that way forever or until they are given further information about the situation that changes their mind." To which I would have to say, "Duh." But the way I interpret what you are saying now is at odds with how I interpreted your previous statement, which I why I now say:

Clarification, please? :D

[Ichneumonwasp]

Good for who? What is good?

An "ethical" decision is one made in accordance with the judge's notion of right, "unethical" with their notion of wrong.

It is just that simple. If one makes a decision, and never looks back to say "I went against my morals in that case and did the wrong thing," then they acted ethically. If not, not.

It is an entirely different case when one looks back to say "if I had known then what I know now, I would have acted differently." A bad decision can still be an ethical one.

What is "good"? That is what Aristotle sought to answer in the Nichomachean Ethics. You may not agree with his answer, but that is another issue. The issue at hand was that the "good" is a central issue in ethical reasoning.

Your ethics seems to be entirely personal and unworkable. What is right? What is wrong? Charlie Manson never looked back and thought that he did the wrong thing. Does that make Charlie Manson an ethically proper actor?

Is it really every man for himself? Every person's individual wants and desires define the ethical? It's all just individual personal feeling?

You may wish that ethic. I do not.

[meg]

rocketdodger wrote: It is just that simple. If one makes a decision, and never looks back to say "I went against my morals in that case and did the wrong thing," then they acted ethically. If not, not.

It is an entirely different case when one looks back to say "if I had known then what I know now, I would have acted differently." A bad decision can still be an ethical one.

Okay. I think I get what you're trying to say, but I really don't understand why you think it's an important distinction to make.

Yes, I agree that an ethical decision is one based on being in accordance with one's morals.

However morals are dynamic. When you were little you were selfish. All little kids are. You would take the last piece of cake, or even grab a toy right out of a playmate's hands and walk away with it, leaving them screaming and crying. Things, I assume, that would not be in accordance with your present morals. As adults, we learn and change our minds depending on the outcomes of decisions all the time. I know I myself have changed my morals about "try to improve someone else's situation", and it is now tempered with a great deal of "sometimes it is best to keep your nose out of other peoples' business".

I don't think there is much difference between saying "My past decision was unethical" (based on my currently revised ethics) and saying "If I had known then what I know now, I would have made a different choice".

I see no point, other than trying to make myself feel better, perhaps, in trying to insist that my past decision was in accordance with my past morals; that it was ethical. Who cares? The point is that now that I know better, I would not do that again.

[rocketdodger]

It seems like your contention now is, "Given the relevant information about a situation, a person will judge that situation as being either good or bad, and their judgment on that situation will remain that way forever or until they are given further information about the situation that changes their mind." To which I would have to say, "Duh." But the way I interpret what you are saying now is at odds with how I interpreted your previous statement, which I why I now say:

Clarification, please? :D

My contention is exactly what you said, with the following added: The "further information" that changes their mind will be a change in their value system as opposed to information about the actual outcome of the situation (unless, granted, the actual outcome changes their value system).

In other words, if you change your mind later and decide "that earlier decision wasn't ethical after all" it will be because you have changed values, not because of additional information you get about the actual outcome. Additional information about the outcome might lead you to regret the decision, but I don't think it will lead you to decide it was unethical (because, as I contend, ethicality has only to do with intended outcomes, not actual outcomes).

[Mobyseven]

My contention is exactly what you said, with the following added: The "further information" that changes their mind will be a change in their value system as opposed to information about the actual outcome of the situation (unless, granted, the actual outcome changes their value system).

In other words, if you change your mind later and decide "that earlier decision wasn't ethical after all" it will be because you have changed values, not because of additional information you get about the actual outcome. Additional information about the outcome might lead you to regret the decision, but I don't think it will lead you to decide it was unethical (because, as I contend, ethicality has only to do with intended outcomes, not actual outcomes).

Thanks for the clarification - looks like I wasn't too far off.

I think I have to digest what you're saying here...my 'gut instinct' is that something feels wrong, but I prefer not to think with my gut. ;)

I'll have a think about it.

[Elind]

The first panhandler was a drunk and a liar.

The first giver was a drunk and actually the man who subsequently accosted the millionaire with the same story.

The millionaire will go home and tell the story, minus comments, to his wife who will think he is the greatest husband in the world.

Everyone is happy.

[breathe]

the first man is actually the second man at the outset of the initial scenario and by looking only at the context of that scenario it seems to me everybody was acting with good intention in accordance with what they thought, felt or saw in that moment of exchange depending on societal positioning.

first of all let me consider the beggar, whether he is given one dollar or one hundred dollars isnt going to change his predictament at all, as money is not the answer to resolving his position, however one dollar can at least give him bartering power at a counter to purchase fruit and vegetables, so i see the giving of a dollar as good for the beggar because it gives him further opportunity of human contact, ethical yes

and of course one hundred dollars could feed and clothe him and his family more adequately in the immediate moment but the possibility of incrimental handouts changing his plight ends there.

still, the beggar receives more later as a result of his exchange in the earlier encounter but only at a personal cost to the one dollar man.

by the one dollar man taking on a burden that was never his to begin with, he changes the position of the beggar. The truth is that the wealthy guy is unaffected by the scenario , so he is almost irrelevant apart from the ching ching.

Its the beggar and the one dollar man who are changed by the encounter. Its positive for the beggar but I think the one dollar man took on too much responsibility , to the point where he would have to revise his actions . But as he did not create the situation why carry such a burden on his shoulders? In this sense I think he undercuts his own ethics and fails to give selflessly .

[Lonewulf]

No, he succeeds in giving selflessly, which is what he did. But you question whether the consequences were worth it, and whether his ethics were viable in the long term, or in the macro scale (I.E., outside of the simple interaction of the two men).

At least, that's the way I see it...

He gave selflessly, but he failed to do so efficiently.

[breathe]

Good point, but I do question his ethical position and his inefficiency equates to failure. Its a values based conflict and whilst he almost succeeds in giving, finally he is thinking of himself. He fails due to a lack of self awareness.

[Lonewulf]

You know what? I'm tired of people talking about the poor only in terms of panhandling. You want to really help the poor? Don't give them money for panhandling. Put money and effort into homeless shelters.

THAT, is ethical. Though I loathe how many homeless shelters are religious and promise to restore "spiritual fitness". I.E., free conversions. :/

[breathe]

what you say above has already been mentioned elsewhere, so nothing new to add to the mix there,
assumptions aplenty hhhmmmm

im more interested in 'goodness' as aesthetically..and more importantly ethically, its a negative

:cool:

[H-o-l-l-y]

The ethical act would be for the first man to refuse the last dollar of the second man and seek help elsewhere.

Yes!
That night the poor man had $101, while the first man had nothing. Even if the poor man hadn't run into the rich man he would still have $1 while the first man had nothing.

[Dancing David]

I think they may be hardwired in. Humans seem to have a compulsion to finish an ambiguous picture or explain an ambiguous situation so they can make sense of it. Probably a survival trait, since so much of real life makes no sense at all.


I wouldn't say it is a survival trait. It is just the most powerful part of the way the brain works.

The brain is a pattern matching and generating machine. It searches for patterns, it sees patterns, it makes patterns.

Real life does make sense if one does not try to 'headline' or 'reduce' everything all the time. Each object in the universe has three traits, uniqueness, connection and contingent hsitory. Real life becomes confusing when we try to reduce things to a 'single cause' and forget that no thing is exactly like another, exists by itself or in absense of it's history.(Of course there are many more than those three traits, those are the ones some people forget the most.)

That said the scientific method is a great way (and maybe the only way) to determine the validity of all the human thoughts and associations about the behavior of the world.

[dacium2007]

The answer to this question is... it depends on what the men did to earn the money to begin with. Money is a credit, so they must have done something to earn it. If the rich man worked more than 1/100th as much as the poor man for that $100, he is surely giving more. If the rich man did nothing to earn the $100, he is giving nothing in my opinon, likewise to the poor man about the $1. The question does not give enough information about either man to saw which did the better deed. Depending on how hard it is to make $1, you would probably still have to say the rich many did more work to earn the money he gave away than the poor man.