Case study in ethics

[thinkdr]

Greetings, Pedro

I know how you feel.

It is done, though, in the U.S.A. if not in France.

The policy here is complete freedom to dress any way you want and not to impose on religion - unless maybe if they start to set up Sharia Law for their neighborhood.

Actually, I hold that this "let them wear a full body bag if they want to" is the best, the most moral, policy. In Chicago the women who only show their eyes and their hands seem to be a very tiny minority. You are free to avert your eyes from them, thus giving them no recognition.

If one such-attired woman ever spoke to me, I would give her my full attention; I would see how I could help. For that is the Ethical thing to do.


It is true that a terrorist strapped with bombs and a detonator may wear, for a disguise, a full-length burka; but to be filled with fearfulness that this may happen at any moment it is not a moral way to live.

It is better to live courageously and hopefully. Be an optimist! Seek out the good. Let's put our emphasis on what is going well. Let's look forward to a brighter future -- and work to make it happen

[thinkdr]

What if something causes more harm then other options but vastly more good? [sic]

Would you please give us some examples of that, Karpel?

If you would be kind enough to do so, it may prove to be quite instructive.

[Karpel Tunnel]

What if something causes more harm then other options but vastly more good? [sic]

Would you please give us some examples of that, Karpel?

If you would be kind enough to do so, it may prove to be quite instructive.

The US deciding to join WW2. They killed many many thousands,including many civilians and children, but perhaps it would have been worse if they had not joined. I think most mainstream historians would argue that it would have been much worse. But it did lead to Dreseden, Hiroshima, fire bombing Tokyo, etc.

[Serendipper]

What if something causes more harm then other options but vastly more good? [sic]

Would you please give us some examples of that, Karpel?

If you would be kind enough to do so, it may prove to be quite instructive.

The US deciding to join WW2. They killed many many thousands,including many civilians and children, but perhaps it would have been worse if they had not joined. I think most mainstream historians would argue that it would have been much worse. But it did lead to Dreseden, Hiroshima, fire bombing Tokyo, etc.

I think there would have been less death if the US had stayed out. Hitler just wanted to rebuild Germany and it was the resistance to that which caused the death. The concentration camps were likely victims to disease and starvation due to the bombing of supply lines. If Hitler were left alone, he would have come and gone like everyone else. The US joining the war was the manifestation of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions." It was a righteous war.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think there would have been less death if the US had stayed out. Hitler just wanted to rebuild Germany and it was the resistance to that which caused the death. The concentration camps were likely victims to disease and starvation due to the bombing of supply lines. If Hitler were left alone, he would have come and gone like everyone else. The US joining the war was the manifestation of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions." It was a righteous war.

I don't agree with your sense of what would have happened if Hitler won or what was going on in the camps. But we can set that aside and focus on the general issue.

Here was my exchange with thinkdr

Of the choices you could make, this particular choice is less likely to cause harm to anyone or to anything!

That last-mentioned criterion ought to be a part of any systematic analysis you make when faced with any moral decision ...according to the Business School of The University of Texas at Austin.
I had to keep in the Business School because it seemed like such an odd authority choice.

In any case....
What if something causes more harm then other options but vastly more good?

He asked me for examples.

I think that it is not always the case that one chooses the option that does the least harm. That the harm can be outweighed by a greater benefit.

A doctor could leave a bullet inside a body even though it is near an artery, in order to avoid the harm to the body by operating and removing it rather than just closing up the wounds and giving antibiotics. But since removing the bullet while entailing more harm to the body in the moment reduces the liklihood of greater harm coming soon.

(and I agree with your concerns that often good intentions leads to all sorts of problems, but still...)

Can you think of any instances where you think a good decision might lead to more harm but this greater harm is offset by the greater good done by that decision?

[Karpel Tunnel]

karrpel tunnel writes:

[This is] a perfect example of the vast range of causes and effects consquentialists seem to think they can manage.

Karpel:

Which theory of ethics do you prefer as an alternative?

I don't want to put forward a solution. I have two different main critiques of consequentialism - they are not of the same category: 1) I find most consequentialists a) overrate their ability or this or that organizations ability to track consequences, and closely related to that b) have a tendency to decide that effects that are hard to track do not exist and 2) they are critical of deontologists, but they are, at root, deontologists, since they have to have axiomatic values - often vague ones like the greatest good for the greatest number (the value hiding in 'good' for example).

I use a mixed approach, with both deontological and consequentialist heuristics. Though I don't really believe in morals, there are things I prefer and things I dislike.

[Pedro I Rengel]

thinkdr

France?

- But France was the most inhibiting of the rebuilding!

World War I?

[phyllo]

Actually, I hold that this "let them wear a full body bag if they want to" is the best, the most moral, policy.

Sure, "if they want to".

That's the part which is unclear. Do they actually want to wear those clothes or are they forced to. If they had a "free" choice, what would they wear?

If one looks at Iran when the "clothes police" were not around, women mostly adopted western clothing with perhaps a light head covering. So, I suspect that's generally what they want.

[Serendipper]

I think that it is not always the case that one chooses the option that does the least harm. That the harm can be outweighed by a greater benefit.

Oh yes, I get your point and it's a good point. I was just saying. It's an offtopic conversation and I doubt many would agree with me, but it's interesting to think about.

To bring it back ontopic, there are two kinds of wars: the good old fashioned wars of greed and the righteous wars. The latter are horrific because they don't preserve the goods they plunder, but destroy everything and every last man out of righteousness. I see WWII as the latter... a righteous war against nazism. Followed by the righteous war against communism. And now the righteous war against terrorism, drugs, vice. Think of how many lives we ruin trying to punish people for using a drug.

Ya know, I've actually had guys wanting to kill me because I refused to wear a helmet for my own safety. Can you imagine that? lol

[phyllo]

To bring it back ontopic, there are two kinds of wars: the good old fashioned wars of greed and the righteous wars. The latter are horrific because they don't preserve the goods they plunder, but destroy everything and every last man out of righteousness.

How does neat division into two categories work in the case of Nazi expansion to the East? They wanted to destroy the evil communists - the righteous war. But they also wanted to seize the land for their own use and to enslave the population - the greedy war.

Or how about the Nazi "war" against the Jews? Both saving the world from the international Jewish conspiracy and making a good profit by taking their property.

Then there is the Soviet POV - The Great Patriotic War - a fight for their own survival against the Nazis.

[Fixed Cross]

The ones that cover the face though, those are fucking creepy. They must be banned on grounds of disturbing the peace. Like a guy walking around with his cock out. It's just not done in polite society.

Good comparison.
The problem with it is indeed the obscenity.

[Serendipper]

To bring it back ontopic, there are two kinds of wars: the good old fashioned wars of greed and the righteous wars. The latter are horrific because they don't preserve the goods they plunder, but destroy everything and every last man out of righteousness.

How does neat division into two categories work in the case of Nazi expansion to the East?

I think that falls under the heading of greed. Idk, but I'm under the impression that Hitler merely wanted to rebuild Germany and I don't think I've seen evidence that Hitler intended to take over the world. I'm not even sure Hitler started the war (something Pat Buchanan said; I don't remember.).

Germany used to be much larger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deut ... 1-1918.png

Countries were growing and shrinking throughout history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ac.prussiamap3.png

It's just nature at work like lions kill gazelles, countries eat other countries. So, Hitler was about to have dinner when everyone flipped out lol. It would be like the cameraman defending the gazelle and then launching war against all lions for being monsters!

Even if Germany had no right to take its territory back, it would still only be a war of greed rather than righteous crusade.

They wanted to destroy the evil communists - the righteous war.

Maybe, but I think it was more about rebuilding Germany. That was the general theme like Make America Great Again, put Germany back how it used to be in terms of geography, population, values, and wealth.

Good, but long video

Or how about the Nazi "war" against the Jews?

I think they just wanted them out of the country like Americans want the Mexicans out. I guess that is a righteous war, but not total extermination like what happened to the nazis.

Then there is the Soviet POV - The Great Patriotic War - a fight for their own survival against the Nazis.

Yeah lol

But that's defense. I was talking about offense. The reasons to attack someone are greed and righteousness.

[phyllo]

I think that falls under the heading of greed. Idk, but I'm under the impression that Hitler merely wanted to rebuild Germany and I don't think I've seen evidence that Hitler intended to take over the world. I'm not even sure Hitler started the war (something Pat Buchanan said; I don't remember.).

Well there is this :

The German concept of Lebensraum (German pronunciation: [ˈleːbənsˌʁaʊm] (About this sound listen), "living space") comprises policies and practices of settler colonialism which proliferated in Germany from the 1890s to the 1940s. First popularized around 1901,[2] Lebensraum became a geopolitical goal of Imperial Germany in World War I (1914–1918) originally, as the core element of the Septemberprogramm of territorial expansion.[3] The most extreme form of this ideology was supported by the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and Nazi Germany until the end of World War II.[4]

Following Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe.[5] The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior and non-Aryan. The Nazi government aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter.[6][7][8] The entire indigenous populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany.[6]

Hitler's strategic program for world domination was based on the belief in the power of Lebensraum, pursued by a racially superior society.[7] People deemed to be part of inferior races, within the territory of Lebensraum expansion, were subjected to expulsion or destruction.[7] The eugenics of Lebensraum assumed the right of the German Aryan master race (Herrenvolk) to remove indigenous people they considered to be of inferior racial stock (Untermenschen) in the name of their own living space.[7] Nazi Germany also supported other "Aryan' nations" pursuing their own Lebensraum, including Fascist Italy's spazio vitale.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

[Karpel Tunnel]

The ones that cover the face though, those are fucking creepy. They must be banned on grounds of disturbing the peace. Like a guy walking around with his cock out. It's just not done in polite society.

I hate those things too, but I mean, in the 15th and 16th centuries part of polite society to have a codpiece and it would not be today. Politeness is generally fashion. And then I like some impolite stuff.

And I am not sure if creepy is a great criterion.

I get creeped out by the Nazi UPS outfits, power suits, most elective plastic surgery (I mean, really creeped out), some tattoos, too much make-up, people too old for what they are trying or too young for what they are trying to do with their clothes, lycra exercise clothes, hair product, a lot of colognes and perfumes (I suppose that is more disgust than creepiness), beauty pageant children's outfits and make up, certain small species of dogs used as fashion.....etc.

In fact people dressing in fashion is incredibly creepy. The pattern. And by definition this is polite since it is a norm. That all these people rush out and buy the 'right' colors in the 'right styles' and think there is now something wrong with what are still perfectly fine clothes. That's Stepford Wives & Husbands creepy. People wearing the colors and accoutrements of their sports teams, that's creepy and it gets really creepy if they march through town or sing in unison. It's lke an episode of the Walking Dead.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I believe thou art muddying the waters.

[barbarianhorde]

Only a coward will recommend the freedom to make women wear these things and force them say they want it. Islam makes a lot of cowards in the west and it loves it.

You know what a coward who ruins a woman deserves. Thats true ethics even if the responsibility is only from not protecting where they can protect.

Gods don't favour the ones who don't protect.

Imagine your mother in a burqa and be honest for once in your life.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I believe thou art muddying the waters.

perhaps you could show me how they are not muddy, like interact with what I wrote, show the way my points are off, etc.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I believe thou art muddying the waters.

perhaps you could show me how they are not muddy, like interact with what I wrote, show the way my points are off, etc.

No. Your game is stupid and boring.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I believe thou art muddying the waters.

perhaps you could show me how they are not muddy, like interact with what I wrote, show the way my points are off, etc.

No. Your game is stupid and boring.

You seem to confuse expressing opinions with doing philosophy or having a discussion.

See, I can do this lazy shit also. But for what...?

[Pedro I Rengel]

See, I ... do this lazy shit .... [b]ut for what...?

I ask myself that all the time myself. I am convinced one day I will know the answer.

[thinkdr]

What if something causes more harm then other options but vastly more good? [sic]

Would you please give us some examples of that, Karpel?

If you would be kind enough to do so, it may prove to be quite instructive.

The US deciding to join WW2. They killed many many thousands,including many civilians and children, but perhaps it would have been worse if they had not joined. I think most mainstream historians would argue that it would have been much worse. But it did lead to Dreseden, Hiroshima, fire bombing Tokyo, etc.

I think there would have been less death if the US had stayed out. Hitler just wanted to rebuild Germany and it was the resistance to that which caused the death. The concentration camps were likely victims to disease and starvation due to the bombing of supply lines. If Hitler were left alone, he would have come and gone like everyone else. The US joining the war was the manifestation of "the road to hell being paved with good intentions." It was a righteous war.

I'm with Serendipper on this one. I say this as a Jew. [there are lots and lots of conclusions by Pat Buchanan, however, with which I disagree.] I have no idea about what is meant by the oxymoron "righteous war."

I do believe there may be such a thing as a just war; it would be of a nonviolent nature: mostly sabotage, fowling up plans of the invader; the Danish (and Swedish) Underground sort of measures.

There are these two necessary conditions (among others) for "a Just War."

(1) Your country must be invaded.

(2) War must be the very last resort after everything else has been tried!

Neither of these conditions had been met before we, in the USA, entered World War II.

....Something to think about.

[Fixed Cross]

See, I ... do this lazy shit .... [b]ut for what...?

Where ethics are concerned, one can generally equate doing and being without conflating.

[Fixed Cross]

"I just kill on the job, I am a really good person. I just need to feel appreciated."

[phyllo]

Neither of these conditions had been met before we, in the USA, entered World War II.

Maybe somebody in the USA read Mein Kampf and understood what was at stake. You know, empathy for the Poles and Soviets who were scheduled to be exterminated.

[thinkdr]

The Soviets weren't about to be exterminated. The German Nazi Army were so stupid that they didn't realize their tank fuel would freeze up, be inadequate, for the Siberian weather, thus getting them immobilized in the midst of enemy territory.

War = organized mass-murder in the name of a noble cause.

War is complete madness, and cannot be rationally justified

The wagers of violent warfare are inevitably bound to make some fatal mistake and do themselves in. This applies to those who violate every Ethical norm and principle such as Benedict Donald.

Let us not hijack the theme of the thread, though. What is your over-view of this eight-page pamphlet: http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 ... ncepts.pdf

.