Very Simple Ethics Question

[David Sklansky]

Let's say you are one of those extreme conservative types who believe it is totally ethical to not share any wealth you may have with someone less fortunate. Even though there is absolutely no justification for that disparity in wealth. You are a lazy bum type who won the lottery. The fellow who is asking for a dollar is a wonderful father, well educated, but was born with a physical disability that keeps him from getting a job.

After you have turned him down with a lecture on politics, is it unethical for him to non violently pick your pocket?

[A_C_Slater]

Yes.

He shouldn't go around impregnating women if he's not able to support the kid. Also, his kids may be sub-human like him, and then there is a big eugenics issue involved.

[xniNja]

How about violently pick your pocket? Or kill you and take your roll?

Answer: Yes, it's unethical because a disabled, wonderful, well educated father would be lowering his own personal standards by picking your pocket in any way.

[BluffTHIS!]

Look David, why don't you just get to the heart of the matter with these ethics posts, and make a general post about whether ethics are relative and thus do the ends sometimes justify the means.

[James Boston]

Where are you going with this? Would it be ethical if he non-violently robbed your house? I stealing ethical? No.

[RJT]

Not sure ‘bout that. But, I am sure and Al Capone Jr. (he posts mostly in the B & M thread) would agree with me that, it would be ok for him to kick you(me) in the nuts.

By the way, didn’t Victor Hugo (can’t remember which thread he posts in) address this issue a while back?

[EightStuda]

"Non-violently" picking someone's pocket seems like a grave contradiction. Also maybe this crippled bum shouldn't have had kids. I don't see where the rich guy has an obligation to help the less fortunate.

-Dimitri

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see where the rich guy has an obligation to help the less fortunate.

-Dimitri

[/ QUOTE ]

Then answer the question. Why is the less fortunate guy under any obligation to help the rich guy by not robbing him?

BTW, Since Sklansky has proved that sins of ommision count the same as sins of commission, does this guy get credit from God for a good deed by ommision (not robbing him). If your a thief, do you get as much credit for not robbing someone of $20 as you would for giving someone $20.

[xniNja]

Wait a minute. Assume I grant you this theoretical framework, Sklansky "proved" that sins of omission count the same as sins of commission? How so? Say your base level of "karma" is 10.

Say you kill, that's -10 Karma. So now you have 0.
Say you don't kill, you're still at 10. 10-10=0 for a net change of 0.
Say you save a life instead, that's +10 Karma, now you have 20.
Say you don't save a life. You still have 10 points of Karma for net change 0.

Now, my argument is that the above "proof" can be no less valid than saying Killing = -10, and Letting one die = -10, as we are arbitrarily assigning the payouts. (Hey game theory came in useful for once)

[einbert]

I believe the answer to this question lies in another question:

"What are his alternatives?"

[ QUOTE ]
xninja....sins of omission count the same as sins of commission? How so? Say your base level of "karma" is 10.

Say you kill, that's -10 Karma. So now you have 0.
Say you don't kill, you're still at 10. 10-10=0 for a net change of 0.
Say you save a life instead, that's +10 Karma, now you have 20.
Say you don't save a life. You still have 10 points of Karma for net change 0.

Now, my argument is that the above "proof" can be no less valid than saying Killing = -10, and Letting one die = -10, as we are arbitrarily assigning the payouts. (Hey game theory came in useful for once)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yours is less valid because killing= -10 while letting one die= 0. They are not equal. Thus not a proof that commision and ommision are equal. Doesnt matter where you start counting from.

[xniNja]

Umm.. Exactly, I proved they weren't. I also proved that this proof was just as valid as any other proof, because the payouts are arbitrary. Didn't anyone read what I wrote?

Edit: If you don't know what arbitrary means, it means you can assign any value to any payout, for any reason. You could value saving a life at +50 karma, and not saving a life at -2 karma. The point was Sklansky could not "prove" that sins of omission count the same as commission. Damn.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm.. Exactly, I proved they weren't. I also proved that this proof was just as valid as any other proof, because the payouts are arbitrary. Didn't anyone read what I wrote?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure Theory of Poker doesn't have a chapter that explains why the expected values of all your actions are actually totally random "due to game theory".

[xniNja]

I have no clue what the Theory of Poker has to do with this, nor did I ever say anything remotely close to "all of your actions are actually totally random "due to game theory." There is a key difference between arbitrary and random.

I assign the value of +0 to not helping. He assigns it -10. You could assign it -601240 and no one would be more or less correct in their proof.

Edit: If you can't understand this, you don't know what a proof is.

[ QUOTE ]
Umm.. Exactly, I proved they weren't. I also proved that this proof was just as valid as any other proof, because the payouts are arbitrary. Didn't anyone read what I wrote?

Edit: If you don't know what arbitrary means, it means you can assign any value to any payout, for any reason. You could value saving a life at +50 karma, and not saving a life at -2 karma. The point was Sklansky could not "prove" that sins of omission count the same as commission. Damn.


[/ QUOTE ]

From your original post..."Wait a minute. Assume I grant you this theoretical framework, Sklansky "proved" that sins of omission count the same as sins of commission?"

Why are you trying to disprove the point you granted and is the theoretical framework for the discussion?

[einbert]

Yes, you are right. I did misunderstand what you were trying to say.

I am trying to understand it, and I have gotten as far as the arbitrary payouts (and how game theory relates to that). You are saying the karmaEV of killing someone can be decided arbitrarily, which is not that we came up with the number randomly but that each individual person might come up with a different one. I'll take a guess and say that game theory relates to what you are saying because in an economic situation where two different people decide the value of something, they initially determine's the value arbitrarily, or in other words they could come up with totally different numbers?

Anyway, the gist of your whole proof is that morals are subjective rather than objective (at least if +karma implies moral and -karma implies immoral).

I apologize for posting that first reply. I didn't take the time to really think about what you were saying and read and consider it carefully like I should have.

[xniNja]

The theoretical framework was that we could construct proofs involving karma for deeds at all, not the values we assigned to the actions. Then I asked the question Sklansky proposes? Then I ask How so? The intent from the beginning was to disprove the false "proof."

Here: [ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute. Assume I grant you this theoretical framework, Sklansky "proved" that sins of omission count the same as sins of commission? How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Zygote]

Ofcourse this is unethical. He is infringing on my rights by pickpocketing me, while on the other hand, i'm not infringing on his rights by not giving him money. This seems quite obvious to me, am i missing something?

[xniNja]

Apology accepted, yes an underlying principle is that morality is subjective. I'm glad you understand!

[Zygote]

Why did you distinctly say he would do this non-violenty? Why should that make a difference?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are one of those extreme conservative types who believe it is totally ethical to not share any wealth you may have with someone less fortunate. Even though there is absolutely no justification for that disparity in wealth. You are a lazy bum type who won the lottery. The fellow who is asking for a dollar is a wonderful father, well educated, but was born with a physical disability that keeps him from getting a job.
<font color="white"> . </font>
After you have turned him down with a lecture on politics, is it unethical for him to non violently pick your pocket?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is assumed that no monetary harm of any significance comes to the lottery guy when they pick his pocket. I.e. he is not carrying "too much cash" on 'im.

So the answer is, No, if the destitute guy places a higher moral value on the notion of preserving the livelihood of him and his family over the prevalent social and/or religious norms. Yes, if the other way around.

...You did not ask how we would act! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I believe in property rights, which is to say that people can only take something which lawfully belongs to someone else under certain circumstances (sale, gift, inheritance, etc). This is not one of those circumstances.

I don't think there's a direct ethical basis for this other than 'a man is entitled to the fruits of his labors'. Clearly in this case he does not have the fruits of his labors. However, in practice the greater good is served by the security of property, whatever the individual circumstances may be. Also, the emotional effect such theft would have on the victim (loss of feelings of security and trust) weighs in here too. This is what makes the theft unethical.

As an aside, if I woke up naked in Central Park with no friends, money or connections (see OOT), I would steal as much as necessary to survive and get on my feet, even though it's unethical.

[Zygote]

You are not answering his question. You are basically saying that he should do what is in his immediate best interest. However, that does not tell us the answer to what is ethical and not ethical.

Ethics are basic principles of good value and bad value that we have agreed upon. They are not personally derived and, therefore, subjective to individuals.

The basis of ethics goes as follows:
Human's, instinctually, will always attempt to make the best decisions for themselves as individuals, however, each individual's ultimate choices may contradict with the choices of other individuals. Then, you have chaos and no one's best interests are truly satisfied. So forth, we derive ethics and laws to govern our most important individual interests while simultaneously preventing chaos. Constitutional rights, for example, are representative of our fundamental interests. The philosophy is that you can do what you wish as long you don't disturb someone else's fundamental interest (rights). So, the ethical thing is to abide by this philosophy and NOT act in your individual interest without regard for other's interests.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are one of those extreme conservative types who believe it is totally ethical to not share any wealth you may have with someone less fortunate. Even though there is absolutely no justification for that disparity in wealth. You are a lazy bum type who won the lottery. The fellow who is asking for a dollar is a wonderful father, well educated, but was born with a physical disability that keeps him from getting a job.

After you have turned him down with a lecture on politics, is it unethical for him to non violently pick your pocket?

[/ QUOTE ]
Usually.

Picking my pocket is a violation of my property rights. Under normal circumstances, that is unethical. There can be exceptions, but there's not enough information given in the original post to say whether it qualifies.

[David Sklansky]

"The basis of ethics goes as follows:
Human's, instinctually, will always attempt to make the best decisions for themselves as individuals, however, each individual's ultimate choices may contradict with the choices of other individuals. Then, you have chaos and no one's best interests are truly satisfied. So forth, we derive ethics and laws to govern our most important individual interests while simultaneously preventing chaos. Constitutional rights, for example, are representative of our fundamental interests. The philosophy is that you can do what you wish as long you don't disturb someone else's fundamental interest (rights). So, the ethical thing is to abide by this philosophy and NOT act in your individual interest without regard for other's interests"

Would anything change if I had use the word "immoral" rather than "unethical"?

[pokerponcho]

Skalansky, you are talking about two totally unrelated things.

Yes, pick pocketing is unethical.

Does it matter how the money got there? No. It's simply there. And it isn't his. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[pokerponcho]

Skalansky, nothing would change if you said immoral instead of unethical.

Pick pocketing is immoral as well as unethical. You are confusing the issue by making the theif seem like the victim. The guy getting pick pocketed is obviously the victim. Describing his background is a waste of time. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse this is unethical. He is infringing on my rights by pickpocketing me, while on the other hand, i'm not infringing on his rights by not giving him money. This seems quite obvious to me, am i missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]
What if an evil crazy person is about to blow up the entire city of Las Vegas, and the only way to stop him is to give into his demand for $5 in cold hard cash?

The beggar knows you have $5 on you. He pleads with you to part with that $5 to save Las Vegas, but you refuse.

Time is running out.

I think it would be ethical for him to pick your pocket.

Once you allow that there are exceptions to "it is always unethical to violate somebody's property rights," the question becomes one of where to draw the line. What if it were just Olympic Garden in jeopardy instead of all of Las Vegas? What if there is no evil crazy person, but the beggar's children are about to starve? What if there's a 50% chance that they'll starve if he doesn't pick your pocket? A 10% chance? A 1% chance? The line-drawing isn't easy, but it's probably inescapable.

[pokerponcho]

Okay, well that was emotional... but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

This analogy doesn't hold water at all. There isn't even a pick pocket, just a beggar. Are you raising the question whether begging is ethical/moral? Are you raising the question whether opting not to save someone's life is unethical/immoral?

This doesn't belong on this thread. IMO it needs it's own thread.

[pokerponcho]

I didn't think of it like that. That is very interesting!

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
There isn't even a pick pocket, just a beggar. Are you raising the question whether begging is ethical/moral?

[/ QUOTE ]
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/confused1.gif My post was about the pick-pocket (who is also a beggar). Specifically, it was about whether it would be ethical for him to pick your pocket in the situations I described.

[pokerponcho]

[ QUOTE ]

What if an evil crazy person is about to blow up the entire city of Las Vegas, and the only way to stop him is to give into his demand for $5 in cold hard cash?


[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like a clear case of kidnapping to me. Is it unethical/immoral to give in to a kidnappers demands? New post needed.

[ QUOTE ]

The beggar knows you have $5 on you. He pleads with you to part with that $5 to save Las Vegas, but you refuse.

Time is running out.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what. Please, stop confusing the issue. It was about beggars not terrorists. Remember?

[ QUOTE ]

I think it would be ethical for him to pick your pocket.


[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what? Your flawed analogy?

[ QUOTE ]

Once you allow that there are exceptions to "it is always unethical to violate somebody's property rights,"


[/ QUOTE ]

Yet to be proved.

[ QUOTE ]

the question becomes one of where to draw the line. What if it were just Olympic Garden in jeopardy instead of all of Las Vegas? What if there is no evil crazy person, but the beggar's children are about to starve? What if there's a 50% chance that they'll starve if he doesn't pick your pocket? A 10% chance? A 1% chance? The line-drawing isn't easy, but it's probably inescapable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crazy people, evil, starvation, blah blah blah. Why not draw the line at pick pocketing? I feel for the victim here. I really do. (the victim is the guy that got pick pocketed if you all remember)

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[fimbulwinter]

um, obviously.

however i wouldn't tell him not to do it. you seem to have a problem with law dichotemy/duality. i don't.

fim

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are one of those extreme conservative types who believe it is totally ethical to not share any wealth you may have with someone less fortunate. Even though there is absolutely no justification for that disparity in wealth. You are a lazy bum type who won the lottery. The fellow who is asking for a dollar is a wonderful father, well educated, but was born with a physical disability that keeps him from getting a job.

After you have turned him down with a lecture on politics, is it unethical for him to non violently pick your pocket?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were asked this question in a 1927 meeting of the Russian Politburo and answered anything other than an enthusiastic NO, you would have quickly found yourself the defendant in a Show Trial where your confession was a forgone conclusion.

It was on just such a "NO" ethic that the October Revolution was based - and they didn't even need the non-violent part.

PairTheBoard

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like a clear case of kidnapping to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're way confused, man.

[John Ho]

Well if the father has other options for supporting his family then I would say it's unethical to steal. If we are using a hypothetical here and state he has no other options then not only should he steal from the rich guy he should certainly take more than 1 dollar. And if the rich guy won't give it up without violence the disabled guy should somehow (since he is too disabled to work) resort to non lethal violence to steal. And, assuming his son will die of starvation if he is not supported financially, the man should (somehow) ultimately kill the rich man making sure beforehand to rob him blind.

The only people here in a situation beyond his/her control is the kid and the rich guy. The disabled guy chose to have a kid he couldn't support and his wife agreed to this. So there are 2 innocent people here and I choose the kid cause he, IMO, has a more likely chance of contributing positively to society.

And of course if I'm the father I choose the kid even if the rich guy earned all his money and is a great person.

I think it's fortunate we in the U.S. are not forced into such moral quagmires.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You are not answering his question. You are basically saying that he should do what is in his immediate best interest. However, that does not tell us the answer to what is ethical and not ethical.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, check again what I wrote:

"No [it would not be unethical], if the destitute guy places a higher moral value on the notion of preserving the livelihood of him and his family over the prevalent social and/or religious norms. Yes [it would be unethical], if the other way around."

I am saying that the man will choose not on account of his "best interest" but depending on how he balances his personal needs against social norms and morals.

Having no other knowledge of what the man is like, nor of what his moral preferences are, we can only answer as above, i.e. it depends!

[ QUOTE ]
Humans, instinctually, will always attempt to make the best decisions for themselves as individuals, however, each individual's ultimate choices may contradict with the choices of other individuals. Then, you have chaos and no one's best interests are truly satisfied. So forth, we derive ethics and laws to govern our most important individual interests while simultaneously preventing chaos.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will attempt to start a thread that will possibly start towards clearing up some of the many and tremendous misunderstandings on human morality shared by posters here, including David.

[Warren Whitmore]

No

[Zygote]

You are still wrong because you have not revealed anything new that i didn't already understand from your first post. Like it or not, (normative) ethics dictate how one ought to act, NOT how one thinks they should act or how they choose to act in reality.

His personal values are irrelevant when seeking the ethical choice!!!!

[Zygote]

lets forget about the words moral and ethical for now because they are causing too much confusion.

IMO, anyone is justified in doing whatever is in their best interest regardless of the interest of others.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You have not revealed anything new that i didn't already understand from your first post. Like it or not, (normative) ethics dictate how one ought to act, NOT how one thinks they should act or how they choose to act in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, there we are !

Please explain to me all you know about normative ethics.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
Ofcourse this is unethical. He is infringing on my rights by pickpocketing me, while on the other hand, i'm not infringing on his rights by not giving him money. This seems quite obvious to me, am i missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it is just me, but what if you consider both unethical? I do.

craig

[face41]

what the hell is wrong with AC slater calling this guy subhuman ?