Speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions

[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.