What is "Ethical"?

[Slammr (imported)]

Ethical, like good and evil, does not exist separate from the society, religion, or individual that defines it. You can't, for instance, say, being ethical is doing no harm, because then, you have to define harm. What might be ethical for one group of people might not be ethical for another group. No universal ethical exists.

Even the definition of ethical states this: being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that define the conduct of a profession.

[JessicaH (imported)]

I don't know that serving the greater good is an good way to measure ethics. Would it be ethical to murder one man if it saved a hundred? Would it change the ethics of the decision if it was fast and painless or slow and agonizing? I think the very basis in our innate sense of right and wrong has it's roots in empathy. Most right and wrong questions can be answered by asking yourself, "how would I feel if that was me".

I almost wrote "me and my kid" but I think that throw empathy out of the window. The parental instinct to protect your children is usually more powerful then either self survival or questions of right and wrong. I would give my life to saved friends and loved ones but I would destroy billions to save my children, which wouldn't be ethical. I'd just have to feel bad about it.

[Cainanite (imported)]

Hi Cainanite,

Thanks for responding to the thread. I selected that quote from you as at least one of your definitions of what exactly "ethics" are. It stands out because I could easily cite several examples where doing the least amount of harm could or would be unethical. For instance, what if your job was as an executioner? Would it be ethical to keep shocking the subject of the electric chair with the minimum amount of harm until he was dead?

The problem becomes defining harm. Your example leaves it up to "the people", but who exactly are these people and how do they decide what is and is not harmful for someone else? Also, many times what is ethical has nothing to do with harming another person. If the bank makes a mistake and puts $35k in my bank account that it created from no where, just like a new loan. So even though I have the money, it didn't really cost anyone anything, because just like when a bank loans me money, the principle does not actually exist and as it's paid back, it is simply written off the books. So? if no one knows, and it doesn't really cost anyone anything? Is it ethical to keep the money?

I decided it wasn't. But it's strictly an arbitrary decision based more on fear of the unknown than any actual damage to a person or persons. I like your thinking, but I do not accept that definition of ethics.

Elizabeth

The part of my quote that you left out, dealt with defining your sample size of the people affected. You have also misinterpreted what would be a greater harm.

In terms of your executioner, "harm" would come both from not doing his job, or from doing it poorly. Part of the sample size of people involved, is the society that condemned the prisoner to death. Let's deal with just the executioner for a moment. The executioner deciding what is ethical, must decide what is best for society, and what they want, as well as what is best for the prisoner, and himself. If he gives too small a shock to kill the prisoner with one flip of the switch, he is inflicting suffering, something that he, society, and the prisoner wish to avoid. This would be a "greater harm." He still chooses the least of all harms for his desired outcome. If he uses to much power, the prisoner could be reduced to cinders, burst into flame, he would be in excess, and this would also be a "greater harm." Instead the executioner chooses a voltage that is just enough to kill, without inflicting suffering or excess. He chooses the least harm to society, the least harm to the prisoner, and the least harm to his own conscience.

In your case of the extra money in your account, the sample size was yourself, and the bank. You needed to weigh your own culpability in that instance, and the chance the bank might find out. You looked to your own experience with banks, and the chance they might come after you later for keeping the money. A greater harm to you would have been, damage to your credit rating, possible criminal charges, as well as your own sense of guilt in keeping the money. For you, the risk of harm to yourself did not outweigh the possible benefits. A part of that avoidance of harm was your own sense of right and wrong, and how that affects how you feel about yourself. You chose the least of all harms.

In talking ethics, one must separate notions of right and wrong, and instead look at benefits versus level of harm. The difficulty for most people comes from determining what constitutes harm. Harm can be both a physical harm, as well as an emotional harm. One must also accurately assess what the sample size of people involved are in any ethical decision.

One must also recognize that with any ethical question, there will never be ONE right answer. This very much depends on the people involved, ALL the people involved. Ethics seek to reduce harm to the least impactful outcome. To do this one must balance all the forms of harm great and small.

Remember me talking about compromise? Compromise in ethics is the act of choosing what constitutes the least harm.

The notions of right, wrong, and harm are all subjective, therefore what is ethical in one instance with one person or group of people may not be ethical with the next person or group of people.

Ethics are a method of deciding on a case by case basis how we briefly define right, wrong, and harm. Ethics can never be written into stone.

Try me with another ethical situation. My definition will still work. You just need to accurately define what your sample size defines as harm, and accurately define your sample size.

In every ethical decision there will be some things you cannot determine clearly, as we can never know the future, nor completely know the present. All ethics can do is try to create the least overall harm to the least overall people.

Again, ethics is not a way to determine what is right or wrong, but it CAN determine what is viewed as harmful, by knowing the people involved. The only way to know the people involved is to know the sample size.

[Cainanite (imported)]

Ethics and ethical are inseparable from your religious beliefs. And whether you belong to an organized religion

or not you have "beliefs".

I disagree that ethics and the notion of right and wrong are inseparable from religion.

Religions is one of the ways we try to determine what is right and wrong, but it is only one of the ways.

One could look at the "herd mentality" for example. What benefits the herd, is most likely to benefit the individual in that herd. Therefore when an individual does something to damage the herd, it is also a damage to the individual.

The human "herd", or "society can have the same influence. What is right and wrong becomes a choice between what will harm the least number, and protect the greatest number. This is a concept completely separate from religion.

Religion does not give birth to notions of right and wrong. It is a societies attempt to understand right and wrong in an increasingly complex "herd".

Religion does add the implied risk of an eternal afterlife to the notion of "harm". Will what I do in the present harm me in the afterlife? Religion adds to the complex human question, and becomes intertwined with the notion. It does not create the notion in the first place.

Ethics are a way to fluidly determine right from wrong based on overall harm, and the concept of overall harm, real or imagined.

Ethics must remain fluid. Religion is, in my experience, very rigid. Both ethics and religion try to accomplish similar things, but ethics can change. Religion cannot.

If one accept that religion is a factor in ethics, then one must also accept that ethics are based on opinions of harm.

I accept that religion is one of the factors in determining how we determine ethically what constitutes the least harm the the least number of overall people. It cannot be the only factor though. When it is, we stagnate, and a great deal of suffering (harm) can arise by being inflexible.

Please, do not make this a topic about religion. I don't think I can take a Holy War on the EA threads.

[tjstill (imported)]

Prehaps as Plato suggested, mathematical truths can be thought of as existing on another plane, to which we have access through our conciousness. What is "right" and "wrong" could also be defined on a similar alternate plane. We could access this in a similar way that we access mathmatical truths. We "know" what is correct in mathmatics without any indoctrination. In a similar way, why should we not know what is "right" and "wrong" in other aspects of life. It may even be a subset of these mathmatical platonic truths.

In my experience religion merely allows different factions to find justification for their actions. Rarely do these pass the test of unbiased analysis. The only people fooled into believing they are "right" are the ones the who act on these very beliefs alone. I believe right and wrong are defined in the same way that mathmatical truths are well defined, man made religious doctrine merely clouds the issue.

[loveableleopardy (imported)]

Wow this thread is awesome, and I've only read about 20% of it!

Hope to contribute some more at some point where I make time; but otherwise I am watching the AFL Grand Final today

But for me, not posting a lot on the EA is at least a little unethical

So I aim to be more ethical in future.

Really nice to see the OP taking the time to reply to everyone here.

[gareth19 (imported)]

Prehaps as Plato suggested, mathematical truths can be thought of as existing on another plane, to which we have access through our conciousness. What is "right" and "wrong" could also be defined on a similar alternate plane. We could access this in a similar way that we access mathmatical truths. We "know" what is correct in mathmatics without any indoctrination. In a similar way, why should we not know what is "right" and "wrong" in other aspects of life. It may even be a subset of these mathmatical platonic truths.

In my experience religion merely allows different factions to find justification for their actions. Rarely do these pass the test of unbiased analysis. The only people fooled into believing they are "right" are the ones the who act on these very beliefs alone. I believe right and wrong are defined in the same way that mathmatical truths are well defined, man made religious doctrine merely clouds the issue.

But even Plato, not the sharpest tack in the box, could demonstrate that a mathematical proposition or geometric theorem was true. You cannot demonstrate in the same way that an ethical proposition is true. You can easily prove that, in a Euclidian universe whose space has a zero-curvature, the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degress or that the squareroot of 2 is an irrational number, but Neither you nor Plato can prove or disprove the proposition that it is immoral to have an abortion or to help the poor, so the notion that there is some transcendent ethical universe from which moral truths trickle down in feeble images cannot be sustained even if you accept Plato's bullshit about a transcendent reality which only he and similar loons are able access through the power of their superior intellects. Kant's Critique of Practical Reason summarizes what can be said about ethics. Since then philosophers have abandoned the subject or turned it into vulgar solipsisms.

[moi621 (imported)]

It is the 21st Century

I am ethical.

If you disagree, you are unethical.

That is why everything like fibbing or taking, is "Ok".

We are all ethical in a unipolar society.

Unless you disagree with me, of course.

Moi

I miss the ethics of the fifties.

[loveableleopardy (imported)]

It is the 21st Century

I am ethical.

If you disagree, you are unethical.

That is why everything like fibbing or taking, is "Ok".

We are all ethical in a unipolar society.

Unless you disagree with me, of course.

Moi

I miss the ethics of the fifties.

So you weren't a fan of the free swinging and herbal enhanced '60's experience then Moi?

Your comment reminds me of the signature of someone on the cyclingnews forum (I am a big fan of cycling and that site). "I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!"

[Cainanite (imported)]

Hi JaneKane,...

...

Did the actions we took prevent accidents? The numbers imply it did. Quantum Mechanics said it did not. Can we ever know? Of course we can not. Perhaps I just had a very lucky string of jobs where no unavoidable accidents happened? But my career record indicates, as well as what I have taught and what I have been taught about safety, that accidents can be prevented, but? The stickler, we can't prevent accidents which have already happened. Only those accidents that we prevented were prevented, thereby making those accidents not exist. How does one prove they made something not exist?

Again, I also like your thinking. Very thought provoking post. I am still reserving my opinions about ethics, although as the discussion continues I am sure my views will become more and more clear. Thanks for participating.

Elizabeth

Hi Elizabeth,

I don't presume to speak for janekane, but as janekane and I have had dialog on this subject at some length, and I have read his Thesis work paper on this subject, I'll attempt to respond as I understand his theory, not as he would himself (clearly).

janekane's process involves looking into the past to determine what have been, as the subject defines, "mistakes", and if these events could have been prevented with the knowledge and experience one had at the time. If they could not have been prevented because knowledge and experience had not yet taught us how to avoid said mistake, then it was not a mistake.

For my explanation, I'm going to, instead of using the word "mistake", use the word "harm", because I agree with janekane that the idea of a mistake is itself a fallacy. Though "harm" is subjective, it can and does exist, though in many different forms.

The fact that the information existed to avoid a harmful situation, does not necessarily allow that the people involved, had all the information. There may be an expectation for someone to have enough information to avoid harm, but that expectation does not mean that it was so. The person involved may have had the information about avoiding harm, but not the knowledge of how to use that information. Only when one learns all that is necessary to avoid harm, can one successfully avoid it.

This is where free will comes in. If you have all the information to avoid harm, know how to use that information, and understand the consequences, but choose to act anyhow, regardless of the known outcome, one is making a choice, or a gamble. It is therefore an intent, not a mistake. I took up smoking at the age of twenty-two, knowing it was addictive, knowing what health problems it could cause me. I was aware of the possible outcome of my actions, but acted anyway, accepting the possible harm. I chose to do so to try and lower my voice, or give it a more masculine tone, and to try to use it as a way to control my moods. This was not a mistake, it was a choice and a gamble.

When you worked with your company to reduce workplace incidents that you knew could be harmful, you had to know the most common ways that harm could come to pass, and protect against it. You successfully used your knowledge, and your ability to communicate that knowledge to your employees to prevent harm.

An ethical dilemma might come of that. If you, with all your knowledge and training, and all your efforts to communicate that position to your employees, still had an employee who (for his own reasons) dismissed your ideas, and refused to do what was required of him to act safely and avoid harm, do you continue to employ him? He is making a choice/gamble based on his own life experience and knowledge (perhaps his experience tells him the job won't get finished if he listens to higher-ups, and it is best to do his own thing). If you allow him to continue, you will risk the harm you wish to avoid coming to pass. If you fire him, you cause a harm to this man's livelihood, and possibly his career. If you don't fire him you risk the harm of being liable for his injuries, or the injuries of others, the harm of financial loss to your company, should his disregard of safety be allowed to continue.

In that example you are weighing risk versus reward. But you are also weighing which action will cause the least harm to all involved. I assume you would choose the lesser harm of firing the non-conforming worker, over the greater potential harm to your other employees, as well as the harm to your business, and the profits it would generate, not to mention the potential physical harm to the non-conforming employee himself.

I differ from janekane's overall view, when looking at the justice system. Though flawed in many respects, I view the justice system as society's attempt to minimize harm. The justice system tries to function in several ways.

It attempts to function as a deterrent by adding an additional penalty to any decision, if that decision goes contrary to society's wishes. In theory, if a person knows that a decision could have the potential harm of the decider going to jail, or facing a penalty should the outcome go contrary to society's wishes, then the decider may choose to avoid that outcome. This would be called the deterrent.

Justice also attempts to educate the offender, that they might avoid the same harm or similar harms in the future. This would be called rehabilitation.

Justice also attempts to seek to reduce harm after the fact. Financial compensation to those affected by a crime, protection of a vulnerable person's identity. You get the idea.

Where justice has difficulty is where the deciding person did not have the knowledge of the outcome. In an attempt to keep things fair and reduce the greater harm of all people accused of a crime claiming ignorance, it is a general tenant of law that ignorance of the outcome is no excuse. (I know janekane has more to say on this topic, I hope he stops back to respond.)

In my opinion, Laws exist as society's ethical choice to reduce harm, or have the least harm occur to the least amount of people. Society may choose the harm of sending a person to jail, fining a person, or executing a person, as the lesser harm. The greater harm being to allow the offender to continue to harm society as a whole. They may simply choose to punish (harm) a person, as an example to others in society, to cause others to evaluate their own actions, and change an individual's own risk/reward evaluation against the possible harm of ending up like the punished person.

You might have made a similar choice in your business, if you had the non-conforming worker I spoke about. You might fire the non-conformist as an example to the others, to give them an example of a harm they'd wish to avoid... being fired for not following safety procedures.

All ethical choices produce harm in some level. All choices produce harm on some level, even if we choose to overlook that harm. Even the act of choosing to brush my teeth or not, has harm on one side or another. If I don't brush my teeth, they could get cavities, or fall out, or simply leave me with bad breath. If I do brush my teeth, I waste water, deplete resources, and create waste (empty package of baking soda, used floss, chemicals in toothpaste polluting the water supply, plastic bottle for mouthwash in the landfill.)

Ethics are a conscious way humans elevate simple choices into a decision of choosing the least harm. Ethics are something we do consciously.

One can never decide on a single principle of ethics, this is right, that is wrong, because the term harm is so subjective. Harm can be interpreted as physical, mental, spiritual, financial.

In a more childlike tongue, harm is all the things we call "bad". That, which to us, causes the least amount of harm, is what we call "good".

Leaving aside ethics, take this example. A child is born. This is good. The pain the mother feels during labor is bad. The overall event of a birth is viewed as good, when the good outweighs the bad. If mother and child are healthy and happy after the event, the birth was good, despite the bad of the pain involved.

If everything that is good has some bad in it, then what is good is the result of the greatest reward coming from the least harm.

Ethics = a choice between options, good and bad. Therefore, Ethics = a choice between options which both contain harm, and choosing the one that has the least amount of harm.

Again, harm is subjective, and changes depending on who is observing. To accurately assess harm, one must know the sample size of those affected, and know the consensus among that sample size as to what constitutes harm to them.

There are no mistakes, and there are no accidents, but we can and do choose to avoid what we view as bad. Because our memory only goes into the past, we use our knowledge to imagine the future, and make decisions based on what we desire, or think is good. Or more basically, how we can best avoid the greater harms, based not just on what we know as facts, but also how we know to use those facts.

Free will exists. We can use what we know to minimize harm if we choose. You did with your business. We all make choices all the time. Even deciding not to act, is a choice. We can only do that with the knowledge and experience we have. We cannot be expected to know what we have not learned. When we learn something, we use that knowledge to make our decisions.

Your prevention of "accidents" or "mistakes" is measurable by the harm you did cause, minimal though it may be, and the benefits you received from those harms. Those "harms" were you being forced to take extra time (a harm to perceived speed), purchasing extra safety equipment ( a harm to your daily operating budget), training and education of staff ( a harm to their daily routine). By performing these small acts of harm, you avoided the potential greater harm of someone being injured on the job. You achieved your goal of a safe and profitable workplace. Your efforts were not in vain.

As we can only look to the past in our evaluations, your success is measurable. How did your company perform before you made your changes, and how did it perform after? How does your company compare to another of similar size and composition, that does not employ your safety standards? You can easily determine how much harm you prevented. I outright reject the notion of "luck". What you did took skill and foresight.

You chose something that caused the least amount of harm, and created the greatest amount of benefit. This is how good decisions get made. It seems to me you already have a pretty good grasp of what is ethical, and what is not, even if we don't define it in the same way. You've demonstrated your mastery of it pretty clearly.