Speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions

[DaveC426913]

Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.

OK, at least skip to the end of this post then where I address this.

So basically, 5 out of 9 say Biff is leader, the other 4 contest it. Ok, but then they all agree to accept the groups decision, 5 out of 9 will still vote Biff in and we're back at square one. Contesting the original decision has simply delayed things (sounds very much like our government). I understand what you mean in that everybody agrees to accept the view of the majority, but it hasn't changed the fact that it is a majority decision.

It's very different.

It's not simply contesting it (that was just an example) it was never condoned. The 4 people have every right to start bashing heads (figuratively speaking). They may feel that drawing lots is more fair. Or they may feel that the vote must be unanimous.

But once they've agreed to a majority vote, then they have no recourse. Any complaint would be met with "You agreed to this. This is your rule as much as mine."

And given we don't live in a perfect world and not everybody chooses to vote, we end up with only the determined ones providing a vote and this can lead to a decision/law/election which is not based on a true majority vote. And if the majority of the people who turn out to vote are extremists, we could end up with an extreme poll result. (Imagine if the BNP got into parliament because the only people who went out to vote were those truly dedicated to their cause).

All beside the point. We agree, or we change the system, or we leave.

"It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king."

And that makes it not murder in what way? Murder is murder, whether it is decreed by a king or committed by a peasant. Just because they claim it isn't doesn't make it so.

No. Look up "murder".

At no point did I say I didn't abide by the laws, I do, the point I was trying to make was that since I was born here, and have no where else to go, I don't have a choice and simply agree to the laws as they are.

You do have a choice. You choose the (granted, much) lesser of your choices.

One last question, given you have to pay for all forms of photo ID out there, how would you go about emigrating?

I have no money to pay for a passport or a drivers license (my passport runs out in august and I lost my license last saturday).

You do not need ID to leave a country.

Regardless, "I can't afford to leave" doesn't translate into "therefore I don't agree to abide by the laws of this country".
But "I stay" does translate into "I agree to abide by the laws of the country."

Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.

I'm not sure how this is off-topic. We were talking about subjectivity of unethical acts. We can't really move forward without agreeing on the subjectivity of the acts themselves.

I believe I hit the nail on the head OP-wise in post 60: "If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?" and this is what we are currently discussing.

I'm happy to entertain an alternate example of a subjective act though.

 

[JaredJames]

The post isn't on ethics or subjectivity, it's on ignorance. It sort of diversified into subjective ideas of what ignorance is and ethics. When in the context of ignorance fine, but this to me is just me and you having a bit of barney over something I lost track of a long time ago.

"You do not need ID to leave a country."
Ever tried getting into another country without it?

 

[JaredJames]

oh and I did look up murder:

"Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation."

"The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery."

Nothing about kings there. Just because he ordered it doesn't make it legally justified or provoked.

 

[DaveC426913]

The post isn't on ethics or subjectivity, it's on ignorance. It sort of diversified into subjective ideas of what ignorance is and ethics. When in the context of ignorance fine, but this to me is just me and you having a bit of barney over something I lost track of a long time ago.

Fair enough.

"You do not need ID to leave a country."
Ever tried getting into another country without it?

Granted, but no one said "deciding not to abide by a country's laws" would be a walk in the park. Most of us choose to abide because the options for not abiding are pretty inconvenient.

 

[JaredJames]

Granted, but no one said "deciding not to abide by a country's laws" would be a walk in the park. Most of us choose to abide because the options for not abiding are pretty inconvenient.

Exactly

 

[junglebeast]

Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy?

That's a good point which I had never considered. Of course, 90% is not an average, but one could easily imagine certain individuals with other conditions who are informed by their doctors that they personally have a higher than 90% chance of death if they continue with the pregnancy. If abortion were made illegal, then this would be effectively giving a death sentence to those women. One can take this example further -- what if your doctor tells you that you have a 95% chance that both you and your baby will die during childbirth? Would pro-life advocates force you, by law, to murder yourself for only the 5% chance of having a motherless baby?

If you look at the overall average maternity related deaths, the historical level is something like 1% death. Currently in the US, it's only 0.01%. However, that risk is something like 5 times higher for women over 40.

 

[JaredJames]

Exactly junglebeast, I do understand the prolife argument to some extent. But my problem Firstly is where do you consider a foetus a child/sentient being? and Secondly, if a law does say NO ABORTIONS, you are sentencing these mothers to death.
This is what bugs me, a law saying yes to abortions would give everyone a choice. You decide if you want one or not. Full stop. I cannot stand people who try to force their views one me, which is what a law against it would be. I bash religious types enough about it but in this case it is no different.

These pro-life people are ignorant to the health of the mother (and to some extent the father WRT mental anguish if both child and mother were to die). Simple.

Jared

 

[Proton Soup]

In this case, I believe Sorry! is reffering to ignorance in the sense of a person dismissing facts without justification purely to benefit themselves.

E.g. An oil company making billions of pounds a day selling a product which, not matter how it is used, produces pollution on a massive scale. Is going to be reluctant to accept that its product is a direct cause of global warming:

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html"

In such a case, the company (or I should say directors/upper level staff) will ignore the evidence presented and only accept hypothesis/theories which support their point of view. Maintaining their own happiness and justifying their cause.

I know that is a company not a person, but it is the same principle.

Jared

this is not a fact, it's a theory. reasonable people disagree and do not accept going along with the Zeitgeist like all the other sheep. Sorry! is calling "ignorant" people who do not follow his own views, which are probably deeply rooted in ignorance themselves. and that is why he has to resort to making an ethical argument on "ignorance", because his real gripe is one of theology.

in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant and know very little. some more little than others. and the less ignorant you become on anyone subject, the more your own ignorance becomes apparent to you.

 

[DaveC426913]

oh and I did look up murder:

"Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation."

"The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery."

Nothing about kings there. Just because he ordered it doesn't make it legally justified or provoked.

What? It most certainly does! The king is the law. The king is next only to God and I'm not just talking symbolically.

 

[JaredJames]

What? It most certainly does! The king is the law. The king is next only to God and I'm not just talking symbolically.

Yes, but its still murder isn't it?

To kill another person is to murder them. Just because you are king and it isn't viewed as murder does not make it so.

 

[JaredJames]

this is not a fact, it's a theory. reasonable people disagree and do not accept going along with the Zeitgeist like all the other sheep. Sorry! is calling "ignorant" people who do not follow his own views, which are probably deeply rooted in ignorance themselves. and that is why he has to resort to making an ethical argument on "ignorance", because his real gripe is one of theology.

in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant and know very little. some more little than others. and the less ignorant you become on anyone subject, the more your own ignorance becomes apparent to you.

This isn't just theology. What I believe Sorry! was talking about is people who despite the incontrovertible evidence will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely unplausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims. Yes, religion is the biggest of the lot and I believe anyone who can throw off all of science in support of contradicting texts with no evidence behind them are trully ignorant to the real world. This is not purely a theology situation, it occurs in other places and for other subjects as well.

Jared

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but its still murder isn't it?

No. You provided the definitions but you didn't read them. Everyone of them uses the word "unlawful". The King is the law.

To kill another person is to murder them.

You've just redefined murder. Just because you like that definition doesn't make it so.

Just because you are king and it isn't viewed as murder does not make it so.[/QUOTE]What do you mean "isn't viewed as"? Murder is "unlawful killing". The king's decree is lawful. There's really no wiggle room here.

 

[junglebeast]

No. You provided the definitions but you didn't read them. Everyone of them uses the word "unlawful". The King is the law.

You've just redefined murder. Just because you like that definition doesn't make it so.

I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that not all monarchies have allowed the king to make laws without any system of checks and balances by other people. Also, even if the king can make a law by himself, that doesn't prevent him from breaking the law before a new one is written...unless there exists explicitly a law that "the king is exempt from all laws" or each law contains an "except for the king" clause, which I doubt is the case. Granted, if the king is the only one that has people to enforce the law, it might turn out that the king can escape with breaking the law without punishment..

 

[JaredJames]

I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that not all monarchies have allowed the king to make laws without any system of checks and balances by other people. Also, even if the king can make a law by himself, that doesn't prevent him from breaking the law before a new one is written...unless there exists explicitly a law that "the king is exempt from all laws" or each law contains an "except for the king" clause, which I doubt is the case. Granted, if the king is the only one that has people to enforce the law, it might turn out that the king can escape with breaking the law without punishment..

Thats what I was getting at. I was trying to say, that the king wrote the laws, and until he re-wrote (not just in his head) the law to say he can murder person A, he was breaking the law. There was no recourse to the king breaking them because any person going against the king would find their head on a spike sharing the view with person A.

 

[Proton Soup]

This isn't just theology. What I believe Sorry! was talking about is people who despite the incontrovertible evidence will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely unplausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims. Yes, religion is the biggest of the lot and I believe anyone who can throw off all of science in support of contradicting texts with no evidence behind them are trully ignorant to the real world. This is not purely a theology situation, it occurs in other places and for other subjects as well.

Jared

well i don't know what he believes, which is why i asked. maybe he should choose better examples. even then, I'm not sure i'd call it ignorance. I'm not sure i would even classify it as http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/willful_ignorance" if i understand you correctly.

 

[JaredJames]

Based on your definition for willful ignorance, I would agree. It isn't so much that. It's more about why people choose to ignore such strong evidence and believe something which relies totally in your faith of its existence and has no evidence to help prove it exists.

 

[Proton Soup]

Based on your definition for willful ignorance, I would agree. It isn't so much that. It's more about why people choose to ignore such strong evidence and believe something which relies totally in your faith of its existence and has no evidence to help prove it exists.

yes, but again, he should use a better example, like say F=m*a. global warming is a socioeconomic, political and religious issue.

 

[JaredJames]

yes, i do agree there.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thats what I was getting at. I was trying to say, that the king wrote the laws, and until he re-wrote (not just in his head) the law to say he can murder person A, he was breaking the law.

A King's decree is the change in the law.

There is no "lag between the King commanding something and that something being a law that the King is somehow breaking".

 

[JaredJames]

OK, I've done some research and here goes:

The definition of murder as I pointed out is -"The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse."
Now I said, "just because a king says it isn't murder, doesn't make it so." And your answer to which was along the lines of "Murder is "unlawful killing". The king's decree is lawful. There's really no wiggle room here.".

Now I would like to point out here that unlawful has a number of definitions, and DOES NOT solely mean against the law. One of the definitions under it is as follows - " not morally right or permissible; ". Thus, just because the king kills someone does not make it lawful, and as such it is murder.

Here is a definition of lawful and legal - "Lawful means conformable to the principle, spirit, or essence of the law, and is applicable to moral as well as juridical law. Legal means conformable to the letter or rules of the law as it is administered in the courts; conformable to juridical law."
As you can see above, lawful applies to both moral AND juridical law. As such you can classify the king killing someone as morally wrong and hence murder. Legal on the other hand specifically applies to juridical law and to say the kings decree to kill is legal would be correct. However, the definition of murder specifically points to unlawful, not legal.

For legal/lawful see useage section:
http://define.com/lawful

For unlawful definitions:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/unlawful
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlawfully

 

[Math Is Hard]

So "murder" is the moral judgment of the individual? I may have just committed 400 murders in my kitchen depending on who you ask.

(Hey, I gave those ants a chance to leave. They were warned.)

 

[JaredJames]

So "murder" is the moral judgment of the individual? I may have just committed 400 murders in my kitchen depending on who you ask.

(Hey, I gave those ants a chance to leave. They were warned.)

Yes, any person who strongly supports animal (or in your case bug) rights would say that. Under the original common law definition of murder you could certainly apply it. According to those definitions, unlawful can extend so far as to be defined as going against moral convention. Morally, killing is wrong, they knew that even in the days of Britains propper kings. And so by extension you could say that as it was socially unacceptable and morally wrong to kill, then it is unlawful and so the king is murdering someone.

Hey, I'm only going by what I've read here. The definition is open to interpretation like a lot of things, to me, that is how it reads. You cannot deny my logic, however you have to look at other situations and consider how you apply the definition to those before making a defninitive answer here.

 

[JaredJames]

Just a thought here, by looking at all possible definitions and aquiring as much information regarding this particular phase of the discussion you could say I have obsereved the available facts and drawn, whether you accept it or not, a plausible and valid conclusion based on what I have in front of me. Whereas for everyone to shoot it down based on their own (possibly) limited understandings of the discussion without any form of evidence or making a joke of it (yes you maths is hard) are being quite ignorant. And thus providing support for the original the point of discussion for this thread.

Jared

 

[Math Is Hard]

Don't get me wrong, Jared. I'm not busting your chops - I just want to see if we can get down to business on the definitions.

So we have 1) "murder" in the legal sense, and 2) "murder" in the moral sense? I think if we agree that these are separate definitions of murder, it clears up some things in this discussion. Although, I'm not entirely sure they are so easily separable, because the legal definitions of murder have everything to do with the majority of a society's moral definitions of murder. It's murky territory.

 

[JaredJames]

Thats what I've been trying to say regarding murder and moral acceptability. Personally I want to get back to the discussion on ignorance, if there's anything left of it. As I stated earlier, I lost track of this a long time ago and just want to get back to the matter the OP was about.

 

[GeorginaS]

Thats what I've been trying to say regarding murder and moral acceptability. Personally I want to get back to the discussion on ignorance, if there's anything left of it. As I stated earlier, I lost track of this a long time ago and just want to get back to the matter the OP was about.

And again, we have yet to receive, from Sorry!, his/her definition of "ignorance" as it pertains to their postulations here. We have a couple of guesses at what Sorry! means(t) when they use that word, but no direct explanation from them in order that we may better address the supposed ethical issue attaching to the proffered "ignorance".

The king and murder discussion has been interesting.

 

[Sorry!]

Yeah, I was thinking ignorance in the sense that jared had posted. Sorry took me so long to post on here I have been pretty busy. Definitions of words aside I don't think it's a problem of language...

You can't argue that murder is wrong, it comes with the definition of the word... but is killing? I think it is completely situational and as long as people think rationally about the situation they will get the proper answer. Not counting mentally unstable people (people who stray from the norm don't bother arguing semantics it's annoying.)

But yes my word choice labelling as 'ignorance' is probably a bad choice.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, I was thinking ignorance in the sense that jared had posted.

Let's list it explicitly so that we can move forward from here.

Willful ignorance is the act of...

people who, despite the incontrovertible evidence, will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely implausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims.

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

 

[JaredJames]

Nicely put dave. Let us move forward from here and look at this question:

"Is this unethical behaviour?"

(At least when I get back from lunch anyhow)

 

[GeorginaS]

Let's list it explicitly so that we can move forward from here.

Willful ignorance is the act of...

people who, despite the incontrovertible evidence, will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely implausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims.

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

Okay. If that is our working definition of ignorance for the purposes of this discussion, then we're suggesting that willful ignorance is self-delusion. Lying to one's self, even. We're saying it's someone's personal beliefs defying all evidence to the contrary.

I would ask, then, is being untrue to one's self unethical? Does an individual have a duty to tell one's self the truth? As far as I'm concerned, if lying to myself gives me comfort in some situations, I see no harm or unethical behaviour taking place.

Ethics relates to conduct, does it not? So if I'm merely self-deluded and my self-delusion doesn't affect anyone else, I can't see my way clear to calling "ignorance" unethical. It's not until one inflicts or insinuates one's deliberately unsubstantiated beliefs on other individuals that the question of ethics comes into play.

 

[Sorry!]

It's not until one inflicts or insinuates one's deliberately unsubstantiated beliefs on other individuals that the question of ethics comes into play.

That's what I am thinking about.

 

[GeorginaS]

That doesn't fit with our working definition of the word "ignorance" though. Given that that's the title of thread, perhaps we need a different word to describe what you're talking about.

As for pressing those idea on other people, we'd have to consider whether the people being pressed are possessed of free will and/or critical thinking skills. One need not accept ideas presented to you.

Is it unethical, though, to press those ideas in the first place? That leads me to asking yet another question. What is their motive for willfully disbelieving proven information? Or agenda? Do they have one? If so, then ethics could be questioned. If not, if they are guileless in their intent, do their actions continue to be unethical or at least questionable? Does motive matter when it pertains to the question of ethical behaviour?

 

[JaredJames]

Given that ethics are derived from a person/peoples morals. You have to look at it in two ways:
1. From the point of view of a scientist (or any person holding hard facts on the subject at hand), yes it is unethical as they are spreading misinformation which could have serious implications. Take a patient with cancer which has a 80% mortality rate, providing the patient undergoes a specific (and possibly uncomfortable) set of treatments without which the 20% chance of survival is not possible (effectively making it terminal). To a doctor, a homeopathy advisor telling that patient with cancer (s)he has an alternative cure/therapy, that is unethical. Obviously it is up to the patient to decide on using said treatment, but at best it is giving false hope to a patient and could lead them into giving up the proven treatment in favour of some promised 'miracle cure' which apparently has no side effects or pain associated with it and will cure him/her, despite there being no scientific data to substantiate any of the claims made. It could be viewed that the homeopathy advisor is being ignorant to scientific fact on the products (s)he is selling, and also ignorance to scientific fact on the part of the patient. Given the stress and uncertainty the patient is undergoing during their regular hospital treatment, it would be unethical for such a person to approach them at such a vulnerable time and effectively convince them they have the answer to all their problems, even if under the cover of 'giving advice'.

2. However, from the point of view of the homeopathy advisor, it certainly isn't unethical. To them the doctors are being ignorant to their ways (despite scientific fact). They would view what they do as advising patients of alternative therapies that are available and as such in the patients best interest. They would consider a doctor unethical to advise against the alternative therapies.

It all comes down to a point of view. I personally have a strong dislike for homeopathy as it bring false hope to people in extremely vulnerable positions, and relies on a populations misunderstandings in order to sell its products. From the evidence presented to me, I have come to a reasonable conclusion that homeopathy medicines have little more than the placebo effect. I find it unethical to sell a product which quite literally does nothing but fool you.

I think under this circumstance, you must allow people to make their own decisions based on hard facts. It most certainly is unethical to give a person a load of BS and convince them that it is fact, thereby skewing their view of a subject and causing them to become ignorant of said subject. By presenting the hard evidence to them, in this case that these products do not work, they must make their own decision on the matter. If they choose to ignore the facts in front of them, that's their choice, but as far as I'm concerned for a person to view the facts on a subject such as this and disregard them (I accept a terminal patient or seriously ill person is going to be in a vulnerable position and willing to try anything), is pure ignorance.

Ignore: "to refrain from noticing or recognizing".
Ignorance: "lack of knowledge, education, or awareness ".
Ignorant: "lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned".

Those are the definitions, and they apply here and in many other places. A lot of people believe only what is said in the media (particularly the hype and misinformation) simply because they have a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Is it unethical to mislead someone whether a seriously ill person or an entire public, I would say yes. It is the misinformation given by these people (media, homeopathy advisors etc.), whether initially or over a period of time that causes people to want to ignore the actual facts of a matter and only accept what supports their cause.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ethics relates to conduct, does it not? So if I'm merely self-deluded and my self-delusion doesn't affect anyone else, I can't see my way clear to calling "ignorance" unethical. It's not until one inflicts or insinuates one's deliberately unsubstantiated beliefs on other individuals that the question of ethics comes into play.

I agree. There is no such thing as the Thought Police and hopefully there never will be. Crimes are committed when one takes action.

 

[JaredJames]

Ignorance can only be considered unethical under certain circumstances. I have no problem with people who are 'self-deluded' by themselves. The people who bug me are those who attempt to convince/brainwash myself or others into their beliefs with no facts to back them up. IGNORING the scientific facts which disprove their self-delusion and try to force it on to others. I only find that unethical when these people provide false information with false facts, especially to those who have no understanding of the subject or those who are easily mislead and then convince them that their beliefs are right and fact. That is immoral. Deliberately misleading a person. Say what you like, but no body can tell me it is acceptable to do that.

The problem is it happens every day.