Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Foresight and ethics

124»

Posts

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    You are a member of humanity though, and thus are bound by the rules governing respect to your fellow beings.

    How is sleeping with a man's wife a breach of respect for him? Isn't this getting dangerosly close to some sort of misogynistic "wife = property" sort of tihng?

    If I shoot your mum, it's clear I have no respect for your feelings.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    You are a member of humanity though, and thus are bound by the rules governing respect to your fellow beings.

    How is sleeping with a man's wife a breach of respect for him? Isn't this getting dangerosly close to some sort of misogynistic "wife = property" sort of tihng?
    If by "dangerosly close" [sic] you actually mean "not close at all", then yes.

    See Æthelred's post.
    I'm sorry, empty accusations must be filed in triplicate with a pink tab. Please re-submit in the correct format.
    'Kay. I submit, from this page, Exhibits A through C.
    Exhibit A wrote:
    From my end, her husband wasn't part of the equation...
    Exhibit B wrote:
    What it does NOT depend on, is what her husband might think about it.
    Exhibit C wrote:
    I don't think I'm bound by your arrangement with your S.O., nor should I be.

  • WorLordWorLord Registered User
    edited April 2007
    If I shoot your mum, it's clear I have no respect for your feelings.

    Because physically harming someone, and possibly killing him/her, is somehow morally and emotionally equivalent to having consentual sex with him/her?

    Do you seriously not see anything wrong with trying to draw that comparison?
    'Kay. I submit, from this page, Exhibits A through C.

    Which prove that I don't care about the personal commitments of a man I've never met before. But it spectacularly fails to prove that I "disrespect" anyone.

    Is it impossible to have a general feeling of respect towards someone I have never met before, but feel no obligation to help him hold his commitments? Are the two mutually exclusive?

    ...privately black.
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    If I shoot your mum, it's clear I have no respect for your feelings.
    Because physically harming someone, and possibly killing him/her, is somehow morally and emotionally equivalent to having consentual sex with him/her?

    Do you seriously not see anything wrong with trying to draw that comparison?

    Not really, no; we're not talking about levels of hurt, we're talking about whether hurt is caused at all. In both cases hurt is caused and should be taken into account when considering your actions.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    If I shoot your mum, it's clear I have no respect for your feelings.
    Because physically harming someone, and possibly killing him/her, is somehow morally and emotionally equivalent to having consentual sex with him/her?
    In the context of this discussion, yes.
    Do you seriously not see anything wrong with trying to draw that comparison?
    In the context of this discussion, no.

    It's not that hard. If someone kills a guy's mother, it's reasonable to assume that the guy will be upset. Similarly, if a guy has sex with somebody's committed partner, it's reasonable to assume that the somebody will be upset.

    Obviously killing someone's mother is much, much worse than helping someone cheat, but that's not the goddamn point.
    ... I don't care about the personal commitments of a man I've never met before. But it spectacularly fails to prove that I "disrespect" anyone.
    How the second sentence can follow the first is mind boggling. To respect a person is - perhaps among other things - to value (some or all of) the things that the person himself values. If the person in question values his relationship with another person and you act in such a way as to sabotage it, then you are disrespecting that person.
    Is it impossible to have a general feeling of respect towards someone I have never met before, but feel no obligation to help him hold his commitments? Are the two mutually exclusive?
    Unless there is something wrong with the commitment that person has, then you can't respect him without respecting - and thus at the very least not working to sabotage - his commitments.

  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    chasm953 wrote: »
    I think MrMister may not be as clear as is needed, and I may be misunderstanding his position, but I believe that when he talks about factoring "foreseen consequences" into his responsibility, he's saying:
    • If you can make a reasonable prediction that X event will happen due to Y action on your part, then the consequences of X can be applied to you if you follow through with Y.
    • Don't willfully be ethically negligent.
    The only place this gets subjective is in using the terms "likely" and "reasonable", but MrMister isn't asking you to police others by those terms anyway, so feasibly you'll be honest with yourself about it. Basically, if you think something will happen due to your actions and it does, then you are ethically responsible by having followed through with the action.

    My sole point of contention is that MrMister's position is too broad and overarching to feasibly apply to life in general. I can see its application in certain circumstances, but humans are still unpredictable creatures. And I take umbrage with the idea that I'm responsible for every decision made by someone else as a result of my action or inaction.

    Well, what do you mean by "apply to life in general"? As far as the situations you're talking about (where human unpredictability is a larger factor than our predictability) I was under the impression that, in practical terms, he was talking about self-imposed blame, not society-imposed. I mean, it's not as though society can know whether or not you were pre-aware of what would happen, blatantly obvious effects of one's actions notwithstanding.

    It's an easy game to hate
  • WorLordWorLord Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Æthelred wrote: »
    WorLord wrote: »
    Do you seriously not see anything wrong with trying to draw that comparison?

    Not really, no; we're not talking about levels of hurt, we're talking about whether hurt is caused at all.

    Quite right, and it should be noted that consentual sex is the sharing of PLEASURE with another person (or people, if you're lucky), whereas shooting someone is the intentional infliction of PAIN upon another.

    I think it is disingenious to say "Pleasure IS PAIN!! Black is WHITE!" and then wonder why I don't get it.

    It's not that hard. If someone kills a guy's mother, it's reasonable to assume that the guy will be upset. Similarly, if a guy has sex with somebody's committed partner, it's reasonable to assume that the somebody will be upset.

    Which is another place the analogy falls down. A murderer is directly responsible for the death of his victim; whereas PARTNER is directly responsible for the breaking of a vow s/he took. If the third party participant is guilty of anything, it is perhaps getting lucky and causing a (perhaps much needed) orgasm.
    Obviously killing someone's mother is much, much worse than helping someone cheat

    If you define "worse" as "exact polar opposite," than sure. I'll go with that.

    Unless there is something wrong with the commitment that person has, then you can't respect him without respecting - and thus at the very least not working to sabotage - his commitments.

    If a woman is looking to cheat on her husband, I think it reasonable to believe that there is something wrong with the commitment. In fact, I find it incredibly easy to believe that there being something wrong with the commitment is the entire reason she'd be looking for extramarital ass in the first place. I think a wife is the best judge of how good her commitment is for her.

    How is that unreasonable?

    ...privately black.
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    WorLord wrote: »
    Do you seriously not see anything wrong with trying to draw that comparison?

    Not really, no; we're not talking about levels of hurt, we're talking about whether hurt is caused at all.

    Quite right, and it should be noted that consentual sex is the sharing of PLEASURE with another person (or people, if you're lucky), whereas shooting someone is the intentional infliction of PAIN upon another.

    .. You're not having consensual sex with the woman's husband.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • WorLordWorLord Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Æthelred wrote: »
    You're not having consensual sex with the woman's husband.

    More to the point, I'm not having sex with him AT ALL. Or any other kind of contact. Which is a good thing to remember.

    If anyone is going to fuck him, one way or another, it'll be her.

    ...privately black.
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    You're not having consensual sex with the woman's husband.

    More to the point, I'm not having sex with him AT ALL. Or any other kind of contact. Which is a good thing to remember.

    No physical contact, but plenty of emotional contact - you're going to cause him hurt, which you should take into consideration in your actions.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    WorLord wrote: »
    Do you seriously not see anything wrong with trying to draw that comparison?

    Not really, no; we're not talking about levels of hurt, we're talking about whether hurt is caused at all.

    Quite right, and it should be noted that consentual sex is the sharing of PLEASURE with another person (or people, if you're lucky), whereas shooting someone is the intentional infliction of PAIN upon another.

    .. You're not having consensual sex with the woman's husband.

    For once we are in some sort of agreement, although I think nutpunching would be more analagous than shooting someone.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • WorLordWorLord Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Æthelred wrote: »
    No physical contact, but plenty of emotional contact...you're going to cause him hurt...

    Repeatedly asserting something does not make it true, Æthelred.

    He might hurt. But since his pain would be that of a broken promise, and *I* never promised him anything, I think it is clear where all of the blame lies.

    But then again, I still buy Nikes and iPods and shit, so I'm probably a child-slave-lord, too.

    PS: How do you respond so quickly?

    ...privately black.
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    Æthelred wrote: »
    No physical contact, but plenty of emotional contact...you're going to cause him hurt...

    Repeatedly asserting something does not make it true, Æthelred.

    He might hurt. But since his pain would be that of a broken promise, and *I* never promised him anything, I think it is clear where all of the blame lies.

    I thought we'd had enough caveats back up the page that breaking up the relationship might conceivably be a good result; but in the vast vast majority of cases you know that you're going to cause hurt. It's certainly nowhere near as much your fault as it is the woman's, but she doesn't hold all the blame - you play your part.

    edit: is 2 minutes quickly?

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    WorLord wrote: »
    No physical contact, but plenty of emotional contact...you're going to cause him hurt...

    Repeatedly asserting something does not make it true, Æthelred.

    He might hurt. But since his pain would be that of a broken promise, and *I* never promised him anything, I think it is clear where all of the blame lies.

    But then again, I still buy Nikes and iPods and shit, so I'm probably a child-slave-lord, too.

    PS: How do you respond so quickly?

    But see, you're helping her do it. It's like she comes to you and says "hey, hold this guy while I kick him in the balls, oh and let me borrow one of your boots." And then you do it.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • WorLordWorLord Registered User
    edited April 2007
    But see, you're helping her do it. It's like she comes to you and says "hey, hold this guy while I kick him in the balls, oh and let me borrow one of your boots." And then you do it.

    Wow.

    Okay. I totally understand now. That... that makes sense. Seriously. I'm the problem.

    Because if she were like Salma fucking Hayek, and offered me a night of intense sex if I'd help her out in that one little thing? I'd be all over it. He'll recover, goddamit.

    Carry on, then.

    Edit: I'm used to response time being measured in days, I guess.

    ...privately black.
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Man we'd all do Salma Hayek; it's just that you can't claim "hey I didn't foresee the consequences" or anything afterwards (I'm assuming she's married).

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Æthelred wrote: »
    Man we'd all do Salma Hayek; it's just that you can't claim "hey I didn't foresee the consequences" or anything afterwards (I'm assuming she's married).

    I could claim it. I'd be lying my ass off, but I could claim it. But I'm basically amoral anyway. :P

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • WorLordWorLord Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I think I'd do it simply becasue *I* didn't have to under go any pain to get in her pants. It would be like the perfect day.

    ...privately black.
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Man we'd all do Salma Hayek; it's just that you can't claim "hey I didn't foresee the consequences" or anything afterwards (I'm assuming she's married).

    I'd do Laura Bush if she asked.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Man we'd all do Salma Hayek; it's just that you can't claim "hey I didn't foresee the consequences" or anything afterwards (I'm assuming she's married).

    I'd do Laura Bush if she asked.

    Dude. Dude. Just...no.

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Man we'd all do Salma Hayek; it's just that you can't claim "hey I didn't foresee the consequences" or anything afterwards (I'm assuming she's married).

    I'd do Laura Bush if she asked.

    Troll.

    (Referring to Laura Bush of course.)

    steam_sig.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    chasm953 wrote: »
    Man we'd all do Salma Hayek; it's just that you can't claim "hey I didn't foresee the consequences" or anything afterwards (I'm assuming she's married).

    I'd do Laura Bush if she asked.

    Dude. Dude. Just...no.

    Whatever. It would be worth it.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    You know how the last few pages make me feel? Vindicated.

    ...

    I am selfish
    I am wrong
    I am right
    I swear I'm right
    Swear I knew it all along :whistle:

  • chasmchasm Ill-tempered Texan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    You know how the last few pages make me feel? Vindicated.

    ...

    I am I am selfish
    I am wrong
    I am right
    I swear I'm right
    Swear I knew it all along :whistle:

    Ugh. Dashboard lyrics. I knew it.

    (BTW, I've been arguing from a strictly academic viewpoint. I live my life according to a heavy mix of the Judeo-Christian ethics and morals and "the golden rule.")

    XBL : lJesse Custerl | PSN : lJesseCusterl | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I just think that life is about give and take. Sometimes it may not necessarily be moral to take but...oh well. Frankly, my opinion on this is the opposite of how I personally act. But I wouldn't vilify someone for pursuing someone they'd fallen in love with no matter what kind of partnership the object of their affection is in. I might condemn their methods, but not the overall pursuit.

    Mind you I'm not just talking about fucking someone for the fuck of it. Two different things.

    steam_sig.png
  • WorLordWorLord Registered User
    edited April 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    You know how the last few pages make me feel? Vindicated.

    Yeah, but we KNEW you were humorless. :lol:

    Drez wrote:
    I just think that life is about give and take. Sometimes it may not necessarily be moral to take but...oh well. Frankly, my opinion on this is the opposite of how I personally act. But I wouldn't vilify someone for pursuing someone they'd fallen in love with no matter what kind of partnership the object of their affection is in. I might condemn their methods, but not the overall pursuit.

    I think that was very well said.

    Drez wrote:
    Mind you I'm not just talking about fucking someone for the fuck of it. Two different things.

    Desire is desire.

    ...privately black.
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    And sometimes not doing what you want to do is a pretty key part of the definition of morals.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Man, this thread is testament to the ability of people to exercise self-delusion for the purposes of moral justification. Is there a universal standard for foresight? No. Retarded people, autistic people, psychopaths, and dogs all have a harder time than normal humans to foresee the consequences of one's actions. Additionally, the same subset (maybe with the exceptions of dogs, who are pretty good at this) has a difficult time exercising rudimentary empathy in terms of divining other peoples' feelings and intentions.

    This is all to the side, however. The fundamental question is not the boundaries of reasonable foresight for different individuals, but rather whether or not a person is morally culpable for the expected consequences of his actions.

    Which MrMr. asserts they are, and I agree with him.

    Word. I also agree.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Elkamil wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Man, this thread is testament to the ability of people to exercise self-delusion for the purposes of moral justification. Is there a universal standard for foresight? No. Retarded people, autistic people, psychopaths, and dogs all have a harder time than normal humans to foresee the consequences of one's actions. Additionally, the same subset (maybe with the exceptions of dogs, who are pretty good at this) has a difficult time exercising rudimentary empathy in terms of divining other peoples' feelings and intentions.

    This is all to the side, however. The fundamental question is not the boundaries of reasonable foresight for different individuals, but rather whether or not a person is morally culpable for the expected consequences of his actions.

    Which MrMr. asserts they are, and I agree with him.

    Word. I also agree.
    QFT^2

124»
Sign In or Register to comment.