is being ethical productive?

[dmaiski]

i have always seen ethics, morality, and environmental concerns as a hindrance to human development

many of the great discoveries, and advances were made by "unethical" means

nuclear power, vaccination, space flight (the Russian space program was fun), rockets, supersonic flight, most of early medicine, and gunpowder to name a few

"ethical" methods have given us many things as well, but most of those things were funded because they would lead to better ways to kill the guy next to us

 

also ethics prevents us from producing "what has science done!!" type experiments in the name of curiosity and we learn far more from our failures then we do from success(as long as your failure did not result in a crater the size of a small lake, then other people learn from your failure)

 

(fun fact, the first people in space, possibly, are still up there, but that's a conspiracy theory that Russia successfully got people into space but didn't exactly work out how to get them back initially...)

 

so i want to see a discussion of this (i will try to stay out of the discussion as much as possible)

 

*please do not criticize my examples, they are not 100% accurate, and based on my own opinion

Edited September 25, 2012 by dmaiski

[EquisDeXD]

i have always seen ethics, morality, and environmental concerns as a hindrance to human development

many of the great discoveries, and advances were made by "unethical" means

nuclear power, vaccination, space flight (the Russian space program was fun), rockets, supersonic flight, most of early medicine, and gunpowder to name a few

"ethical" methods have given us many things as well, but most of those things were funded because they would lead to better ways to kill the guy next to us

 

also ethics prevents us from producing "what has science done!!" type experiments in the name of curiosity and we learn far more from our failures then we do from success(as long as your failure did not result in a crater the size of a small lake, then other people learn from your failure)

 

(fun fact, the first people in space, possibly, are still up there, but that's a conspiracy theory that Russia successfully got people into space but didn't exactly work out how to get them back initially...)

 

so i want to see a discussion of this (i will try to stay out of the discussion as much as possible)

 

*please do not criticize my examples, they are not 100% accurate, and based on my own opinion

 

If we had no ethics, people would be stealing form each other and killing each other so often that there wouldn't be a stable enough society for the specialization of workers that make advances. Ethics doesn't "prevent" us from doing anything except destroying modern society as we know it, and with many of the advances, there's millions of possibilities for tests. Like when tesla was working on electricity, his opponent electrocuted animals to demonstrate its harmfulness, which he didn't need to do, if you melted aluminum instantly with electricity then obviously that amount of amps would kill any living animal. As for medical advances, there's chemistry which if heavily researched we could get to the point where we understood how a specific chemical specifically effects the chemicals in body or organic chemicals and there's also computers which we could make powerful enough to model drugs in a system, but it's also not necessarily a good thing either because as more people live longer, the rate at which resources are consumed becomes greater and if not stopped it will reach a point beyond which resources are capable of being produced.

Edited October 6, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[moreinput]

 

If we had no ethics, people would be stealing form each other and killing each other so often that there wouldn't be a stable enough society for the specialization of workers that make advances. Ethics doesn't "prevent" us from doing anything except destroying modern society as we know it, and with many of the advances, there's millions of possibilities for tests. Like when tesla was working on electricity, his opponent electrocuted animals to demonstrate its harmfulness, which he didn't need to do, if you melted aluminum instantly with electricity then obviously that amount of amps would kill any living animal. As for medical advances, there's chemistry which if heavily researched we could get to the point where we understood how a specific chemical specifically effects the chemicals in body or organic chemicals and there's also computers which we could make powerful enough to model drugs in a system, but it's also not necessarily a good thing either because as more people live longer, the rate at which resources are consumed becomes greater and if not stopped it will reach a point beyond which resources are capable of being produced.

 

People steal and murder regardless. Some even do it ethically, which doesn't even make sense. Just wondering though, would you be more afraid of me savagely killing you for trying to steal from me? Or going through a legal system that has particular rules and regulations on how to treat prisoners and handle the trials?

[Consistency]

Most people don't have ethics. This is why wise men wrote the religious books and law for the sole purpose of keeping people in line like mice.

The only hindrance is your own inadequacies.

We agree that we can learn from our own mistake if the individual chooses to but we need common sense(ethics) so we don't end up blowing each other up during an experiment.

[SamBridge]

What you personally define as good or bad has no effect on anything, what has an effect is the choices you actually make regardless of why you made them.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[imatfaal]

What you personally define as good or bad has no effect on anything, what has an effect is the choices you actually make regardless of why you made them.

 

In the real world that is clearly incorrect - most modern jurisdictions have a mental and an actual element to crime (barring the dangerous strict liability crime). In order to convict it is most often necessary to prove to the satisfaction of a jury both the existence of the actus reus (the external physical act) and the mens rea (the internal mental state); whilst this second element is a third person judgment on the purely personal there are formalisms, rules of thumb, and assumptions/presumptions that allow courts to make a decision.

 

On an ethical note rather than a legal, I rather think the same distinction applies; if I act out of purely selfish motives, potentially dishonourably, and in a distinctly unvirtuous manner - yet society sees the results as beneficial has the act itself suddenly become virtuous, honourable, and self-less? I would say no - the act remains to be judged by my criteria and in the same terms under which I performed the act. This of course is one of the great dichotomies of ethics; between deontological ethics (duty based and weighed on the internal mindstate of the actor) and teleological ethics (ends based and judged on the outcome of the actions. There is no right answer; however I do think there are wrong answers - and to deny the validity of one form of ethics is thus dangerous.

[SamBridge]

In the real world that is clearly incorrect - most modern jurisdictions have a mental and an actual element to crime (barring the dangerous strict liability crime). In order to convict it is most often necessary to prove to the satisfaction of a jury both the existence of the actus reus (the external physical act) and the mens rea (the internal mental state); whilst this second element is a third person judgment on the purely personal there are formalisms, rules of thumb, and assumptions/presumptions that allow courts to make a decision.

I think thinking more about cause ->effect, not really personal human emotions to label personal extrapolations from events. If you kill someone, then that will likely have a negative effect on their family even if it was to protect someone else, in other words, regardless of the justification.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[imatfaal]

I think thinking more about cause ->effect, not really personal human emotions to label personal extrapolations from events. If you kill someone, then that will likely have a negative effect on their family even if it was to protect someone else, in other words, regardless of the justification.

 

In some circumstances the effect on the family would be wholly negative although I have witnessed situations in which you would be amazed at the attitude. I am old enough that my parents generation fought in the second world war - and I have seen my father and uncles talking, laughing, and joking with german airmen and soldiers; to the extent that my uncle discovered he had been in very close proximity to a german tank commander in north africa and almost certainly they had tried to kill each other for many days. This was treated with utmost hilarity - mainly I believe - because both men could recognize the other's motivation in themselves. This does not occur between english servicemen and the germans who were guards in prisoner of war camps; it was felt that british camps for german pows were maintained and run in accordance (or better than) all the international conventions covering these issues and that german camps for british pows were quite the opposite. Because of that (perceived) disparity of motivation between british guards and german guards there is no meeting of minds and no putting-aside the actions and deeds.

 

 

What you personally define as good or bad has no effect on anything, what has an effect is the choices you actually make regardless of why you made them

 

Your initial statement was an absolute - and I still take issue with it. Every action is on a spectrum - even the most heinous and the most saintly; but the spectrum is not unidimensional from good to bad, it is multi-dimensional with various inputs each of which is contextual and subjective.

[john5746]

What you personally define as good or bad has no effect on anything, what has an effect is the choices you actually make regardless of why you made them.

Yes, but ethics would effect the probability of the choices you will make

 

gunshot -> death of person

 

person 1: "I shot him cause I like to eat brains"

 

person 2: "I shot him cause he pissed me off"

 

person 3: "I shot him cause he was trying to kill my friend"

 

In all 3 cases, the final result is the death of a person, but I think we can forecast some difference in the future choices from these 3 people. Also, I would argue that #3's family might be damaged from his death, but needs to realize that he was not innocent.

[SamBridge]

Yes, but ethics would effect the probability of the choices you will make

 

gunshot -> death of person

 

person 1: "I shot him cause I like to eat brains"

 

person 2: "I shot him cause he pissed me off"

 

person 3: "I shot him cause he was trying to kill my friend"

 

In all 3 cases, the final result is the death of a person, but I think we can forecast some difference in the future choices from these 3 people. Also, I would argue that #3's family might be damaged from his death, but needs to realize that he was not innocent.

But the ethics still isn't what itself caused anything, it is the person that made the choice as well as complex neurological processes associated with the perception of emotions which on their own don't completely "cause" a person to do anything anyway.

 

In some circumstances the effect on the family would be wholly negative although I have witnessed situations in which you would be amazed at the attitude. I am old enough that my parents generation fought in the second world war - and I have seen my father and uncles talking, laughing, and joking with german airmen and soldiers; to the extent that my uncle discovered he had been in very close proximity to a german tank commander in north africa and almost certainly they had tried to kill each other for many days. This was treated with utmost hilarity - mainly I believe - because both men could recognize the other's motivation in themselves. This does not occur between english servicemen and the germans who were guards in prisoner of war camps; it was felt that british camps for german pows were maintained and run in accordance (or better than) all the international conventions covering these issues and that german camps for british pows were quite the opposite. Because of that (perceived) disparity of motivation between british guards and german guards there is no meeting of minds and no putting-aside the actions and deeds.

 

 

 

Your initial statement was an absolute - and I still take issue with it. Every action is on a spectrum - even the most heinous and the most saintly; but the spectrum is not unidimensional from good to bad, it is multi-dimensional with various inputs each of which is contextual and subjective.

Well I'm not saying the ethics can't ultimately have some kind of almost "suggestion" or minor effect, but ethics themselves are not tangible objects, ethics themselves do not "cause" a person to do something.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[john5746]

But the ethics still isn't what itself caused anything, it is the person that made the choice as well as complex neurological processes associated with the perception of emotions which on their own don't completely "cause" a person to do anything anyway.

 

Well I'm not saying the ethics can't ultimately have some kind of almost "suggestion" or minor effect, but ethics themselves are not tangible objects, ethics themselves do not "cause" a person to do something.

I completely disagree. That's like saying education has no effect on someone. Our language, our education, our culture, much of who "we" are isn't a tangible object. They exist in a tangible object. Beliefs matter.

 

In regards to the op, if the goal is just science for the sake of science, then ethics might be seen as counter-productive, but that's like saying quality assurance is counter-productive. But even in that case, you would have to believe that there would be no backlash against scientific pursuits if there were numerous unethical endeavours within the science community.

Edited February 22, 2013 by john5746

[SamBridge]

I completely disagree. That's like saying education has no effect on someone. Our language, our education, our culture, much of who "we" are isn't a tangible object. They exist in a tangible object. Beliefs matter.

 

My education in graphic design does not cause me to become a graphic designer. People can ignore ethics or follow it as they choose, this is not typical of the existence of something real, you cannot choose to make a real object exist or not exist at will, but at any moment you can decide what your ethics are and decide they are right or wrong or ignore them. Education is merely the summation of observed patterns put into terms of oral human language, the patterns themselves exist even if language is something we made up.

Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[hadron-12]

What is it to be ethical? An action that would be called ethical by a utilitarian might be deemed unethical by a Kantian.

How are we defining ethics?

[SamBridge]

What is it to be ethical? An action that would be called ethical by a utilitarian might be deemed unethical by a Kantian.

How are we defining ethics?

That depends on who's defining them.

[Preserve]

i have always seen ethics, morality, and environmental concerns as a hindrance to human development

many of the great discoveries, and advances were made by "unethical" means

nuclear power, vaccination, space flight (the Russian space program was fun), rockets, supersonic flight, most of early medicine, and gunpowder to name a few

"ethical" methods have given us many things as well, but most of those things were funded because they would lead to better ways to kill the guy next to us

 

also ethics prevents us from producing "what has science done!!" type experiments in the name of curiosity and we learn far more from our failures then we do from success(as long as your failure did not result in a crater the size of a small lake, then other people learn from your failure)

 

(fun fact, the first people in space, possibly, are still up there, but that's a conspiracy theory that Russia successfully got people into space but didn't exactly work out how to get them back initially...)

 

so i want to see a discussion of this (i will try to stay out of the discussion as much as possible)

 

*please do not criticize my examples, they are not 100% accurate, and based on my own opinion

Just because many advances have been made by unethical means, that doesn't mean ethics is a hindrance. Who's to say those same advances can't be made by ethical means as well?

[Consistency]

Can human domestication be confused with being ethical?

[overtone]

Life in a place without a norm of good ethical behavior is very inefficient compared with life in place dominated by reliably ethical behavioral norms. The cost - in time and money and effort both mental and physical, of securing one's person and possessions, insuring against injury and loss, covering one's bets in light of possible dishonesty and fraud, backing up one's allies, etc, is quite large.

 

I have lived in a town in which I never needed to carry keys, for example - no getting locked out of the house or car, no need for de-icer to get into one's car, no hassles about meeting people to let them in here and there, no theft or injury consequences for forgetfullness, no holes in my pockets from keys poking them, etc. When the neighbor's furnace started a fire and they weren't home, the other neighbors had water on it before the firemen got there and the house needed no repairs of doors and windows and such - the firemen just opened them, using the knobs and latches. When the other neighbor's dog got lost, it was returned to their house while they were at work, no pound bills or vet charges or time off work to meet or such hassles. It sounds like a small thing, no keys, but it's really nice. Multiply that by hundreds, and the price of poor ethics comes into focus.