But then, to give a completely different example, I know that my buying and wearing these Nike shoes is causing some sweatshop laborers on the other side of the globe to suffer.
If you firmly believe both that sweatshop labor is deleterious to the lives of third worlders, and that your abstinance from purchasing sweatshop goods will have a positive effect on the world, then yes, you have an obligation to refrain from purchasing them. Which, coincidentally, is not a particularly radical idea--people have been advocating sweatshop boycotts for a long time now, and the main roadblock seems to be the second issue: people who don't condone sweatshops don't think that their purchasing decisions make a difference (and they have a reasonable case to make to that effect). It's a community action problem.
MrMister on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Is the latter just a little white lie we tell to make things feel better, or are both views true depending on circumstance?
People will often feel guilt over things they had no actual control over, or events they could never have reasonably foreseen. In your example, I doubt that it's usually a particular comment that makes the difference between life and death for a potentially suicidal person, and it's even more doubtful that Timmy could have reasonably known the full effect of his action.
its not my fault or the other posters that you cant understand the concept of reasonability or a foreseeable action
Drez you seriously should take a step back and get your shit together
No, it's okay, my shit is together. I just happen to know the definition of foreseeable and you don't. That's what this comes down to. Maybe you should go away, take a breather, read a dictionary, and then come back if you have something more to add to this thread but the bullshit semantics you've been fucking the thread up with. At least I've been discussing the concept behind the word. Honestly, look the word up. Foreseeable outcome = an outcome that you know will happen. I've never heard anyone use the term "I know" to mean "I think" (actually, that's a lie, people pull that shit all the time...but it's always incorrect to substitute "I know" for "I think").
This thread is only blowing your mind because there's not much to blow.
[/nastiness]
1)your an idiot
2)theres nothing absolute about foreseeing something or something that is foreseeable. you are fundamentally wrong about the definition of foreseeable
3)I never implied that you knew anything just that you thought something so maybe you should take my advice and take a step back and get your shit together
No, it's okay, my shit is together. I just happen to know the definition of foreseeable and you don't. That's what this comes down to. Maybe you should go away, take a breather, read a dictionary, and then come back if you have something more to add to this thread but the bullshit semantics you've been fucking the thread up with. At least I've been discussing the concept behind the word. Honestly, look the word up. Foreseeable outcome = an outcome that you know will happen. I've never heard anyone use the term "I know" to mean "I think" (actually, that's a lie, people pull that shit all the time...but it's always incorrect to substitute "I know" for "I think").
This thread is only blowing your mind because there's not much to blow.
[/nastiness]
1)your an idiot
2)theres nothing absolute about foreseeing something or something that is foreseeable. you are fundamentally wrong about the definition of foreseeable
3)I never implied that you knew anything just that you thought something so maybe you should take my advice and take a step back and get your shit together
No, that's quite alright Jonny Five, I think I can manage. You're kind of stupid, but since I'm not going to engage in your semantical pissing match (which I won well before you decided to post again), I'll just direct you to these links:
All of those are relevant. If you don't like dictionary.com, try www.m-w.com or various other sources. Perhaps a library. Perhaps ask your English teacher when you go to class tomorrow. Or ask your parents. I don't know. Anything but us, please.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
1. trans. To see beforehand, have prescience of. Often with obj. and inf. or with clause as obj.
c1000 Ags. Ps. cxxxviii. [cxxxix.] 2 (Th.) {Th}u ealle mine we{asg}as wel fore-sawe. c1400 Destr. Troy 2247 {Th}at hedis to {th}e first, And for-sees not the fer end, what may falle after. 1513 MORE in Grafton Chron. (1568) II. 781 He that of good heart and courage foresawe no perilles. 1581 MARBECK Bk. Notes 331 God did fore-see and fore-knowe, that they should be dampned. 1611 BIBLE Prov. xxvii. 12 A prudent man foreseeth the euil, and hideth himselfe. 1630 PRYNNE Anti-Armin. 116 God from all eternity foresaw them in themselues to be such. 1725 DE FOE Voy. round World (1840) 41, I presently foresaw, that, if I went to the extremity, I should spoil the voyage. 1815 JANE AUSTEN Emma iv, Emma had very early foreseen how useful she might find her. 1883 FROUDE Short Stud. IV. I. x. 112 The empire might be laid under interdict, with the consequences which everyone foresaw.
I disagree with you; 'to have prescience' implies foreknowledge, but not 'to see beforehand.' Furthermore, several of the cited instances don't involve perfect presience, but mere reliable prediction. Also, the OED wins dictionary fights.
1. trans. To see beforehand, have prescience of. Often with obj. and inf. or with clause as obj.
c1000 Ags. Ps. cxxxviii. [cxxxix.] 2 (Th.) {Th}u ealle mine we{asg}as wel fore-sawe. c1400 Destr. Troy 2247 {Th}at hedis to {th}e first, And for-sees not the fer end, what may falle after. 1513 MORE in Grafton Chron. (1568) II. 781 He that of good heart and courage foresawe no perilles. 1581 MARBECK Bk. Notes 331 God did fore-see and fore-knowe, that they should be dampned. 1611 BIBLE Prov. xxvii. 12 A prudent man foreseeth the euil, and hideth himselfe. 1630 PRYNNE Anti-Armin. 116 God from all eternity foresaw them in themselues to be such. 1725 DE FOE Voy. round World (1840) 41, I presently foresaw, that, if I went to the extremity, I should spoil the voyage. 1815 JANE AUSTEN Emma iv, Emma had very early foreseen how useful she might find her. 1883 FROUDE Short Stud. IV. I. x. 112 The empire might be laid under interdict, with the consequences which everyone foresaw.
I disagree with you; 'to have prescience' implies foreknowledge, but not 'to see beforehand.' Furthermore, several of the cited instances don't involve perfect presience, but mere reliable prediction. Also, the OED wins dictionary fights.
You don't agree that "to see beforehand" implies foreknowledge? I most certainly do. I think only a loose interpretation of "to see" could lead you to any other interpretation.
Anyway, I think we're past all this, ex-Secretary of Defense notwithstanding. Did you see my responses to you up yonder?
Also, there are qualifiers in many of the examples.
foreseeing something can also be used in context of anticipating something
you consider that foreseeing something means that its an absolute outcome which is impossible. you "think" its impossible to anticipate something in the future
so you "think" its impossible to foresee that if you smashed your finger it would hurt
foreseeing something can also be used in context of anticipating something
you consider that foreseeing something means that its an absolute outcome which is impossible. you "think" its impossible to anticipate something in the future
so you "think" its impossible to foresee that if you smashed your finger it would hurt
No, I definitely agree with you in that context.
Can we move on, or are you going to linger on this dumb, off-topic shit that we already moved past? I mean, do you have anything to add to the actual subject of this thread?
I'm gonna go with the white lie option. It's not a bad thing to say because obviously Timmy is upset and if we run the "you are a terrible person" line, then he might just off himself, which makes a bad situation worse. But the fact of the matter is that Timmy should not have been such a vicious bastard.
Yeah, it's one thing to have an ethical discussion with other adults in an emotionally neutral context. It's a different thing entirely when talking to children or other vulnerable people in the midst of a crisis.
You see issues like this a lot when dealing with abuse situations. Abuse victims often have developed habits that are designed to invite abuse. They sometimes feel like they deserve abuse, that abuse is a normal element of the human condition, so when upset or jealous they'll sometimes deliberately push their partner's buttons, insult them, yell in their faces, call them names, take their masculinity/femininity into question, etc., until their partner finally snaps and slaps them. It unfortunately plays into a lot of old misogynist myths, but it's still a common element of abuse situations with abusers and victims of both genders.
If you're talking to a battered wife who just barely escaped her abusive husband, you don't say to her, "What did you do to make him hit you?" That's just fucked up, because in that particular moment it's more important to be concerned for the victim's physical and emotional well-being, including her undoubtedly fragile sense of self-worth. Wait for her to get into a stable living arrangement away from her abusive spouse and get a few months of therapy and then address her own poor behavior (if you address it at all).
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm gonna go with the white lie option. It's not a bad thing to say because obviously Timmy is upset and if we run the "you are a terrible person" line, then he might just off himself, which makes a bad situation worse. But the fact of the matter is that Timmy should not have been such a vicious bastard.
Yeah, it's one thing to have an ethical discussion with other adults in an emotionally neutral context. It's a different thing entirely when talking to children or other vulnerable people in the midst of a crisis.
You see issues like this a lot when dealing with abuse situations. Abuse victims often have developed habits that are designed to invite abuse. They sometimes feel like they deserve abuse, that abuse is a normal element of the human condition, so when upset or jealous they'll sometimes deliberately push their partner's buttons, insult them, yell in their faces, call them names, take their masculinity/femininity into question, etc., until their partner finally snaps and slaps them. It unfortunately plays into a lot of old misogynist myths, but it's still a common element of abuse situations with abusers and victims of both genders.
If you're talking to a battered wife who just barely escaped her abusive husband, you don't say to her, "What did you do to make him hit you?" That's just fucked up, because in that particular moment it's more important to be concerned for the victim's physical and emotional well-being, including her undoubtedly fragile sense of self-worth. Wait for her to get into a stable living arrangement away from her abusive spouse and get a few months of therapy and then address her own poor behavior (if you address it at all).
And do not, ever, under any circumstances tell her the "what do you tell a woman with two black eyes" joke. Ever.
I'm gonna go with the white lie option. It's not a bad thing to say because obviously Timmy is upset and if we run the "you are a terrible person" line, then he might just off himself, which makes a bad situation worse. But the fact of the matter is that Timmy should not have been such a vicious bastard.
Yeah, it's one thing to have an ethical discussion with other adults in an emotionally neutral context. It's a different thing entirely when talking to children or other vulnerable people in the midst of a crisis.
You see issues like this a lot when dealing with abuse situations. Abuse victims often have developed habits that are designed to invite abuse. They sometimes feel like they deserve abuse, that abuse is a normal element of the human condition, so when upset or jealous they'll sometimes deliberately push their partner's buttons, insult them, yell in their faces, call them names, take their masculinity/femininity into question, etc., until their partner finally snaps and slaps them. It unfortunately plays into a lot of old misogynist myths, but it's still a common element of abuse situations with abusers and victims of both genders.
If you're talking to a battered wife who just barely escaped her abusive husband, you don't say to her, "What did you do to make him hit you?" That's just fucked up, because in that particular moment it's more important to be concerned for the victim's physical and emotional well-being, including her undoubtedly fragile sense of self-worth. Wait for her to get into a stable living arrangement away from her abusive spouse and get a few months of therapy and then address her own poor behavior (if you address it at all).
This is interesting, because the mindset of the abused often disallows them from seeing thier own negative behavior patterns. One aspect of the therapy for this is to get them to see what it is in thier behavior that invites these situations. Once aware of the results of thier actions, they can begin taking responsibility for them and hopefully get them under control.
I see how this fits now, yeah. People are potentially responsible for a great deal of the actions going on around them, but they are only actually responsible for the things they are aware of. One aspect of motivation then, is to create awareness of an item in people so that those interested in controlling thier own lives are also compelled to deal with that item in a mannor appropriate to thier own judgement. If the item in question has an immediately establishable impact on those lives, it can be reasonably assumed that those people, once aware, will bring forward a personal action in regards to that item.
Nice, never caught the direct correlation between awareness and action before. Now that I see it, holy shit - that concept pops up everywhere. No wonder marketing has such distinct and predictable results.
Human beings are relatively predictable. For the most part, we can effectively estimate the probabilities of most possible human reactions to day-to-day situations.
Never been to New York, have you?
Seriously. Human beings have got to be among the least predictable species around.
WorLord on
...privately black.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Human beings are relatively predictable. For the most part, we can effectively estimate the probabilities of most possible human reactions to day-to-day situations.
Never been to New York, have you?
Seriously. Human beings have got to be among the least predictable species around.
Are you saying that people are in no way capable of predicting likely consequences of their actions? Because that's just silly.
edit: and New Yorkers are not some crazy evolutionary offshoot in which the basic principles of human psychology are replaced with an RNG.
edit: and New Yorkers are not some crazy evolutionary offshoot in which the basic principles of human psychology are replaced with an RNG.
As someone who's been to NYC multiple times, I have to agree with WorLord on this one. You cannot accurately predict how an NYCer will react to a given situation. Some of them, yes. All of them? Not a fucking chance. They're definitely a different breed. Like Texans.
Right, which is why the moral obligation extends only to that which you could predict. You could be wrong (and that's fine), but you should act based on what you think is likely.
I know you can go 'deep philosophy' on this topic regarding its specific limitations and implications, but the practical examples seem pretty fundamental: don't be a jerk. If you think, using common sense, that you're going to do more harm than good - don't do that. I believe you could go far in life using just this rule, and if you applied it consistently, you could be a pretty good guy even compared to the human average.
edit: and New Yorkers are not some crazy evolutionary offshoot in which the basic principles of human psychology are replaced with an RNG.
As someone who's been to NYC multiple times, I have to agree with WorLord on this one. You cannot accurately predict how an NYCer will react to a given situation. Some of them, yes. All of them? Not a fucking chance. They're definitely a different breed. Like Texans.
Now, I've only been to New York once, so I'm obviously not an expert, but come on man.
Do you really walk around NYC thinking to yourself, "hey, I think I'll kick that dude in the shins because, who knows, maybe he'll like it"?
Well said, ANS. I can't believe all the shit that Mr. Mister has been getting in this thread. He did use the word 'reasonable' a few times.
If you beat the crap out of a bum and he decides to turn his life around that doesn't mean you should have done it. If you give the bum a dollar for food which helps him buy a bottle and he dies of alcohol poisoning that night, you haven't done anything wrong. The fact this has been argued about is surprising, but around here, not shocking.
I'm fairly conservative by Canadian standards and I do think we each have a moral obligation to try to help others and make the world a better place. The way I choose to volunteer my time and donate money might be different than someone else, but we'd both be doing something ethical and moral. Everything is dependant on context though I'd say probably less so that others. I don't live in guilt because some of my clothes may have been made in a sweatshop, but I can still see that my potential actions can cause the world to be a worse place. It's really not that hard to take a guess what the reasonably likely outcome of a choice would be and to weigh that against the personal benefit. Sure the line may be fuzzy, but not giving a few seconds of thought about others before acting can certainly be considered unethical.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Well said, ANS. I can't believe all the shit that Mr. Mister has been getting in this thread. He did use the word 'reasonable' a few times.
He's getting the amount of crap he's getting, IMO, because he thinks "reasonable" means the same exact thing to everyone who is sane. Not only is this not true, but the very debate of the word "reasonable" in this thread stands as evidence that many here, in a comparatively small cross-section, see it more differently than similarly.
OK, seriously. Can we please stop equating sexual indiscretions with violent crimes? Please? The two don't compare. It's a very faulty analogy, and the difference between kicking someone in the shins / beating up a bum / spitting on someone and bonking someone's willing wife are so completely vast as to make the comparison worthless.
Well said, ANS. I can't believe all the shit that Mr. Mister has been getting in this thread. He did use the word 'reasonable' a few times.
He's getting the amount of crap he's getting, IMO, because he thinks "reasonable" means the same exact thing to everyone who is sane. Not only is this not true, but the very debate of the word "reasonable" in this thread stands as evidence that many here, in a comparatively small cross-section, see it more differently than similarly.
He got crap because people on this forum can be semantic cocklovers some of the time. I can't understand how there can be three pages of arguing against "people should consider the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions."
OK, seriously. Can we please stop equating sexual indiscretions with violent crimes? Please? The two don't compare. It's a very faulty analogy, and the difference between kicking someone in the shins / beating up a bum / spitting on someone and bonking someone's willing wife are so completely vast as to make the comparison worthless.
What's the relevant difference then? Sure, the consequences in the one case are more immediate and of a different kind, but that's nothing to do with this discussion.
He's getting the amount of crap he's getting, IMO, because he thinks "reasonable" means the same exact thing to everyone who is sane. Not only is this not true, but the very debate of the word "reasonable" in this thread stands as evidence that many here, in a comparatively small cross-section, see it more differently than similarly.
I didn't get the impression that reasonable is an exact science. A "good" relationship in a rough patch is completely different than a "terrible" relationship that most people would say should end; most are in between. Yes, judgement and common sense are required and not everyone would come to the same conclusion in every case. That's fine. If you put a bit of thought in and come to the conclusion that it isn't a "good" relationship you might be breaking up, you're in the clear ethically. I still don't understand what's so difficult to understand about this concept.
OK, seriously. Can we please stop equating sexual indiscretions with violent crimes? Please? The two don't compare. It's a very faulty analogy, and the difference between kicking someone in the shins / beating up a bum / spitting on someone and bonking someone's willing wife are so completely vast as to make the comparison worthless.
I agree that it isn't the same thing, but I don't think it's completely worthless. In the case of the bum, the foresight is pretty high percentage while in the case of the marriage it's lower. In either case, Mr. Mister is saying you should look at the likely outcomes and think before you proceed. I feel it's quite a reasonable position.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Moving past that: two immediate and glaring differences come to mind.
One, attacking someone (kicking shins / beating up / spitting on) is a crime, and having sex with someone's willing wife isn't.
More importantly and interestingly is Two: the matter of intent. (To inject myself into this hypothetical for a second, we'll assume I slept with someone's wife.) I didn't INTEND to hurt some guy I've never met; I didn't set out to destroy a marriage or break up a home (not that I think I should care whether or not I do, mind. Just that it wasn't my intent.) What I intended to do, is go out and have a good time. I met a woman, and we clicked, and she asked if I wanted to come upstairs, and we had a good time.
From my end, her husband wasn't part of the equation, in either intent or action, and as far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't be. And you can DO that with a sexual affair, whereas with an attack, its pretty much one on one, with the intent to do something unpleasant to someone else.
I'm sure I could think of more ways that comparing the two is just non-workable, but for now those two are the big reasons and I'm fine with that.
Well said, ANS. I can't believe all the shit that Mr. Mister has been getting in this thread. He did use the word 'reasonable' a few times.
He's getting the amount of crap he's getting, IMO, because he thinks "reasonable" means the same exact thing to everyone who is sane. Not only is this not true, but the very debate of the word "reasonable" in this thread stands as evidence that many here, in a comparatively small cross-section, see it more differently than similarly.
He got crap because people on this forum can be semantic cocklovers some of the time. I can't understand how there can be three pages of arguing against "people should consider the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions."
O...kay? I suppose if I were the sort to be so "disturbed" I would feel similarly about your callous lack of concern for anyone beyond yourself and perhaps the small group of people you associate with.
Moving past that: two immediate and glaring differences come to mind.
One, attacking someone (kicking shins / beating up / spitting on) is a crime, and having sex with someone's willing wife isn't.
Irrelevant. Not all criminal things are immoral, and not all immoral things are criminal.
More importantly and interestingly is Two: the matter of intent. (To inject myself into this hypothetical for a second, we'll assume I slept with someone's wife.) I didn't INTEND to hurt some guy I've never met; I didn't set out to destroy a marriage or break up a home (not that I think I should care whether or not I do, mind. Just that it wasn't my intent.) What I intended to do, is go out and have a good time. I met a woman, and we clicked, and she asked if I wanted to come upstairs, and we had a good time.
From my end, her husband wasn't part of the equation, in either intent or action, and as far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't be. And you can DO that with a sexual affair, whereas with an attack, its pretty much one on one, with the intent to do something unpleasant to someone else.
And, at least in my scenario, the intent driving you isn't that you want to hurt the person, but rather that they might just like it. We are still talking about foresight here, right? The idea being that it is equally absurd to claim "he might like it" as justification for kicking someone in the shins as it is to claim "I didn't want them to break up; I just wanted to have some fun" as justification for having sex with someone already in a committed relationship.
I'm sure I could think of more ways that comparing the two is just non-workable, but for now those two are the big reasons and I'm fine with that.
One, attacking someone (kicking shins / beating up / spitting on) is a crime, and having sex with someone's willing wife isn't.
Well, I could say that smoking pot is a crime too. I know what you're saying, but we're still taking about the potential for harm (not just physical) and if that should be considered or not.
More importantly and interestingly is Two: the matter of intent. (To inject myself into this hypothetical for a second, we'll assume I slept with someone's wife.) I didn't INTEND to hurt some guy I've never met; ...
I don't want to keep putting words in his mouth, but I believe Mr Mister was saying that not considering the other guy or the wife is ethically negligent. Again with the unfair comparisons, leaving a loaded shotgun in a daycare facility is different than shooting someone, but both are wrong.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
You missed the part where she tells you she's married. Do you still go ahead then?
I can't give you a black or white answer on that without knowing all the details, so the best I can do for a short answer is, "it depends".
Depends on how she says it. Depends on how sober I tihnk she is. Depends on how convincing she is in letting me know that this is something she really wants, vs something she's still on the fence about. Depends on whether or not I think she might wake up regretting it. Depends on whether or not I think I'd wake up regretting it, or causing myself unnecessary amounts of drama.
Depends on the two of us, and how I think we are both viewing the situation.
What it does NOT depend on, is what her husband might think about it.
I'm willing to admit, based on the backlash here, that perhaps I have a warped idea of sexual relationships (marriages in specific). I don't see them as something that is inherently demanding of respect or containing some social value beyond the two people involved. I don't see a relationship between two people to be either beneficial or detrimental to humanity as a whole, and I damn sure don't think that most relationships have even a shred of a hope of being lifelong or exclusive, and in many cases I don't think most relationships should be either.
And I damn sure don't want anyone else on earth acting (or not) based on a promise I made with my wife. So, just file me as following the golden rule, I guess.
(edit: I'm pretty sure I'd answer similarly to the rest of the posts in this vein, so apply at will)
WorLord on
...privately black.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited April 2007
Man, this thread is testiment 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.
Worlord: Sure, you'd be well within your rights. That doesn't mean that sleeping with her couldn't be quite immoral, depending on the situation. Thinking about all that sort of stuff you mentioned is precisely wondering about foreseeable consequences and your role in causing them.
So WorLord, you're saying that your personal ethics don't place that much value on marriage or existing relationships and that you do consider the people involved? If so, I don't think we're really debating anything except for where the line is drawn.
Well, that and the analogy, but I think we'll pretty much have agree to disagree there.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
And not even in that sort of example. In a very reasonable sense one cannot know what consequences their actions will have. We can pretend like we do, but we really can't.
I kiss my girlfriend goodnight and the way i do it reminds her of her boyfriend who raped her and so she goes into a fit. Am I responsible for that? Did i foresee it? No, because if I had foreseen it I wouldn't have done it.
What the fuck? You two are agreeing here. You couldn't foresee something like that any more than that inane cadbury egg example. Doing it knowingly would make you responsible, however.
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.
So WorLord, you're saying that your personal ethics don't place that much value on marriage or existing relationships and that you do consider the people involved?
Well, yes, certainly. For both selfish and selfless reasons.
I didn't state it, but I'm well aware that I don't live in a vacuum.
If so, I don't think we're really debating anything except for where the line is drawn.
Certainly.
I draw it at the legal and personal level. I don't think I'm bound by your arrangement with your S.O., nor should I be. I *am* bound by the law, as are we all... which is what I was doing bringing up crime v. not crime.
Well, that and the analogy, but I think we'll pretty much have agree to disagree there.
Does my above sentence help? I think the analogy is unworkable because in the case of crime, I AM bound by a contract by virtue of being a citizen of $country, whereas I'm not bound by the terms of a marriage I'm not a part of.
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.
If so, I don't think we're really debating anything except for where the line is drawn.
Certainly.
I draw it at the legal and personal level. I don't think I'm bound by your arrangement with your S.O., nor should I be. I *am* bound by the law, as are we all... which is what I was doing bringing up crime v. not crime.
But that's just semantics. You aren't bound by the law, or the DA, or the jury, or the judge. Strictly speaking, you're bound by the bailiff, by the prison, by the bullet that you don't want to get hit by because you're escaping-- or by empathy, by the fact that you are affected emotionally by the consequences of your actions.
That's really what we're talking about here. One would argue.
But that's just semantics. You aren't bound by the law, or the DA, or the jury, or the judge. Strictly speaking, you're bound by the bailiff, by the prison, by the bullet that you don't want to get hit by because you're escaping
or by empathy, by the fact that you are affected emotionally by the consequences of your actions.
Do you think there is something wrong with me emotionally if I don't feel a particular need to preserve - or destroy - a relationship I didn't commit to? If so, why?
Does my above sentence help? I think the analogy is unworkable because in the case of crime, I AM bound by a contract by virtue of being a citizen of $country, whereas I'm not bound by the terms of a marriage I'm not a part of.
You are a member of humanity though, and thus are bound by the rules governing respect to your fellow beings. Fellow beings that include the guy you're trying so hard to disregard.
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.
Of course we are. That's why you're only held to be at fault by those actions that could be reasonably foreseen. I thought we had moved past this.
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.
Luckily for everybody, nobody made any assertion like that. You are responsible for your decisions, and other people are responsible for their decisions. If the combination of your decisions and others' decisions leads to a negative outcome, then everyone implicated who should have known better - including yourself, presumably and for the sake of argument - is 100% at fault for their poor decision making.
or by empathy, by the fact that you are affected emotionally by the consequences of your actions.
Do you think there is something wrong with me emotionally if I don't feel a particular need to preserve - or destroy - a relationship I didn't commit to? If so, why?
It's not the need to preserve the relationship as an entity in and of itself; it's the need to prevent emotional hurt from other people.
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?
It's not the need to preserve the relationship as an entity in and of itself; it's the need to prevent emotional hurt from other people.
Yeah, but "preventing" things leads to general retardation, fascism, and stories like "Minority Report".
And frankly, if a wife is set to sleep outside the bounds of her relationship, she WILL do it. I simply see no reason I should refuse to benefit from that decision.
Posts
If you firmly believe both that sweatshop labor is deleterious to the lives of third worlders, and that your abstinance from purchasing sweatshop goods will have a positive effect on the world, then yes, you have an obligation to refrain from purchasing them. Which, coincidentally, is not a particularly radical idea--people have been advocating sweatshop boycotts for a long time now, and the main roadblock seems to be the second issue: people who don't condone sweatshops don't think that their purchasing decisions make a difference (and they have a reasonable case to make to that effect). It's a community action problem.
People will often feel guilt over things they had no actual control over, or events they could never have reasonably foreseen. In your example, I doubt that it's usually a particular comment that makes the difference between life and death for a potentially suicidal person, and it's even more doubtful that Timmy could have reasonably known the full effect of his action.
Otherwise, though, white lie.
2)theres nothing absolute about foreseeing something or something that is foreseeable. you are fundamentally wrong about the definition of foreseeable
3)I never implied that you knew anything just that you thought something so maybe you should take my advice and take a step back and get your shit together
No, that's quite alright Jonny Five, I think I can manage. You're kind of stupid, but since I'm not going to engage in your semantical pissing match (which I won well before you decided to post again), I'll just direct you to these links:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreseeable
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreknow
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know
All of those are relevant. If you don't like dictionary.com, try www.m-w.com or various other sources. Perhaps a library. Perhaps ask your English teacher when you go to class tomorrow. Or ask your parents. I don't know. Anything but us, please.
I disagree with you; 'to have prescience' implies foreknowledge, but not 'to see beforehand.' Furthermore, several of the cited instances don't involve perfect presience, but mere reliable prediction. Also, the OED wins dictionary fights.
You don't agree that "to see beforehand" implies foreknowledge? I most certainly do. I think only a loose interpretation of "to see" could lead you to any other interpretation.
Anyway, I think we're past all this, ex-Secretary of Defense notwithstanding. Did you see my responses to you up yonder?
Also, there are qualifiers in many of the examples.
you consider that foreseeing something means that its an absolute outcome which is impossible. you "think" its impossible to anticipate something in the future
so you "think" its impossible to foresee that if you smashed your finger it would hurt
No, I definitely agree with you in that context.
Can we move on, or are you going to linger on this dumb, off-topic shit that we already moved past? I mean, do you have anything to add to the actual subject of this thread?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And do not, ever, under any circumstances tell her the "what do you tell a woman with two black eyes" joke. Ever.
This is interesting, because the mindset of the abused often disallows them from seeing thier own negative behavior patterns. One aspect of the therapy for this is to get them to see what it is in thier behavior that invites these situations. Once aware of the results of thier actions, they can begin taking responsibility for them and hopefully get them under control.
I see how this fits now, yeah. People are potentially responsible for a great deal of the actions going on around them, but they are only actually responsible for the things they are aware of. One aspect of motivation then, is to create awareness of an item in people so that those interested in controlling thier own lives are also compelled to deal with that item in a mannor appropriate to thier own judgement. If the item in question has an immediately establishable impact on those lives, it can be reasonably assumed that those people, once aware, will bring forward a personal action in regards to that item.
Nice, never caught the direct correlation between awareness and action before. Now that I see it, holy shit - that concept pops up everywhere. No wonder marketing has such distinct and predictable results.
Major concept in Buddhism, that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Never been to New York, have you?
Seriously. Human beings have got to be among the least predictable species around.
Are you saying that people are in no way capable of predicting likely consequences of their actions? Because that's just silly.
edit: and New Yorkers are not some crazy evolutionary offshoot in which the basic principles of human psychology are replaced with an RNG.
I think people are only able to predict the actions of others to the degree that they know the target person/people in question.
Know someone relatively well or intimately? High degree of probability that your predictions about their reactions will be on target.
Never seen $some_guy before in your life? Hardly worth guessing.
You really haven't been to New York. ;-)
As someone who's been to NYC multiple times, I have to agree with WorLord on this one. You cannot accurately predict how an NYCer will react to a given situation. Some of them, yes. All of them? Not a fucking chance. They're definitely a different breed. Like Texans.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
I know you can go 'deep philosophy' on this topic regarding its specific limitations and implications, but the practical examples seem pretty fundamental: don't be a jerk. If you think, using common sense, that you're going to do more harm than good - don't do that. I believe you could go far in life using just this rule, and if you applied it consistently, you could be a pretty good guy even compared to the human average.
Do you really walk around NYC thinking to yourself, "hey, I think I'll kick that dude in the shins because, who knows, maybe he'll like it"?
If you beat the crap out of a bum and he decides to turn his life around that doesn't mean you should have done it. If you give the bum a dollar for food which helps him buy a bottle and he dies of alcohol poisoning that night, you haven't done anything wrong. The fact this has been argued about is surprising, but around here, not shocking.
I'm fairly conservative by Canadian standards and I do think we each have a moral obligation to try to help others and make the world a better place. The way I choose to volunteer my time and donate money might be different than someone else, but we'd both be doing something ethical and moral. Everything is dependant on context though I'd say probably less so that others. I don't live in guilt because some of my clothes may have been made in a sweatshop, but I can still see that my potential actions can cause the world to be a worse place. It's really not that hard to take a guess what the reasonably likely outcome of a choice would be and to weigh that against the personal benefit. Sure the line may be fuzzy, but not giving a few seconds of thought about others before acting can certainly be considered unethical.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
He's getting the amount of crap he's getting, IMO, because he thinks "reasonable" means the same exact thing to everyone who is sane. Not only is this not true, but the very debate of the word "reasonable" in this thread stands as evidence that many here, in a comparatively small cross-section, see it more differently than similarly.
OK, seriously. Can we please stop equating sexual indiscretions with violent crimes? Please? The two don't compare. It's a very faulty analogy, and the difference between kicking someone in the shins / beating up a bum / spitting on someone and bonking someone's willing wife are so completely vast as to make the comparison worthless.
He got crap because people on this forum can be semantic cocklovers some of the time. I can't understand how there can be three pages of arguing against "people should consider the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions."
I didn't get the impression that reasonable is an exact science. A "good" relationship in a rough patch is completely different than a "terrible" relationship that most people would say should end; most are in between. Yes, judgement and common sense are required and not everyone would come to the same conclusion in every case. That's fine. If you put a bit of thought in and come to the conclusion that it isn't a "good" relationship you might be breaking up, you're in the clear ethically. I still don't understand what's so difficult to understand about this concept.
I agree that it isn't the same thing, but I don't think it's completely worthless. In the case of the bum, the foresight is pretty high percentage while in the case of the marriage it's lower. In either case, Mr. Mister is saying you should look at the likely outcomes and think before you proceed. I feel it's quite a reasonable position.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It disturbs me that it isn't UTTERLY apparent.
Moving past that: two immediate and glaring differences come to mind.
One, attacking someone (kicking shins / beating up / spitting on) is a crime, and having sex with someone's willing wife isn't.
More importantly and interestingly is Two: the matter of intent. (To inject myself into this hypothetical for a second, we'll assume I slept with someone's wife.) I didn't INTEND to hurt some guy I've never met; I didn't set out to destroy a marriage or break up a home (not that I think I should care whether or not I do, mind. Just that it wasn't my intent.) What I intended to do, is go out and have a good time. I met a woman, and we clicked, and she asked if I wanted to come upstairs, and we had a good time.
From my end, her husband wasn't part of the equation, in either intent or action, and as far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't be. And you can DO that with a sexual affair, whereas with an attack, its pretty much one on one, with the intent to do something unpleasant to someone else.
I'm sure I could think of more ways that comparing the two is just non-workable, but for now those two are the big reasons and I'm fine with that.
For the record, I am a semantic cocklover.
Irrelevant. Not all criminal things are immoral, and not all immoral things are criminal.
And, at least in my scenario, the intent driving you isn't that you want to hurt the person, but rather that they might just like it. We are still talking about foresight here, right? The idea being that it is equally absurd to claim "he might like it" as justification for kicking someone in the shins as it is to claim "I didn't want them to break up; I just wanted to have some fun" as justification for having sex with someone already in a committed relationship.
I'm not.
Well, I could say that smoking pot is a crime too. I know what you're saying, but we're still taking about the potential for harm (not just physical) and if that should be considered or not.
I don't want to keep putting words in his mouth, but I believe Mr Mister was saying that not considering the other guy or the wife is ethically negligent. Again with the unfair comparisons, leaving a loaded shotgun in a daycare facility is different than shooting someone, but both are wrong.
I agree they're different, but not that the comparison is unworkable.
Edit:
For which you're both loved and hated.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I can't give you a black or white answer on that without knowing all the details, so the best I can do for a short answer is, "it depends".
Depends on how she says it. Depends on how sober I tihnk she is. Depends on how convincing she is in letting me know that this is something she really wants, vs something she's still on the fence about. Depends on whether or not I think she might wake up regretting it. Depends on whether or not I think I'd wake up regretting it, or causing myself unnecessary amounts of drama.
Depends on the two of us, and how I think we are both viewing the situation.
What it does NOT depend on, is what her husband might think about it.
I'm willing to admit, based on the backlash here, that perhaps I have a warped idea of sexual relationships (marriages in specific). I don't see them as something that is inherently demanding of respect or containing some social value beyond the two people involved. I don't see a relationship between two people to be either beneficial or detrimental to humanity as a whole, and I damn sure don't think that most relationships have even a shred of a hope of being lifelong or exclusive, and in many cases I don't think most relationships should be either.
And I damn sure don't want anyone else on earth acting (or not) based on a promise I made with my wife. So, just file me as following the golden rule, I guess.
(edit: I'm pretty sure I'd answer similarly to the rest of the posts in this vein, so apply at will)
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.
Well, that and the analogy, but I think we'll pretty much have agree to disagree there.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
What the fuck? You two are agreeing here. You couldn't foresee something like that any more than that inane cadbury egg example. Doing it knowingly would make you responsible, however.
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.Well, yes, certainly. For both selfish and selfless reasons.
I didn't state it, but I'm well aware that I don't live in a vacuum.
Certainly.
I draw it at the legal and personal level. I don't think I'm bound by your arrangement with your S.O., nor should I be. I *am* bound by the law, as are we all... which is what I was doing bringing up crime v. not crime.
Does my above sentence help? I think the analogy is unworkable because in the case of crime, I AM bound by a contract by virtue of being a citizen of $country, whereas I'm not bound by the terms of a marriage I'm not a part of.
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.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
But that's just semantics. You aren't bound by the law, or the DA, or the jury, or the judge. Strictly speaking, you're bound by the bailiff, by the prison, by the bullet that you don't want to get hit by because you're escaping-- or by empathy, by the fact that you are affected emotionally by the consequences of your actions.
That's really what we're talking about here. One would argue.
And that's NOT semantics??
Do you think there is something wrong with me emotionally if I don't feel a particular need to preserve - or destroy - a relationship I didn't commit to? If so, why?
Of course we are. That's why you're only held to be at fault by those actions that could be reasonably foreseen. I thought we had moved past this.
Luckily for everybody, nobody made any assertion like that. You are responsible for your decisions, and other people are responsible for their decisions. If the combination of your decisions and others' decisions leads to a negative outcome, then everyone implicated who should have known better - including yourself, presumably and for the sake of argument - is 100% at fault for their poor decision making.
It's not the need to preserve the relationship as an entity in and of itself; it's the need to prevent emotional hurt from other people.
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?
I'm sorry, empty accusations must be filed in triplicate with a pink tab. Please re-submit in the correct format.
Yeah, but "preventing" things leads to general retardation, fascism, and stories like "Minority Report".
And frankly, if a wife is set to sleep outside the bounds of her relationship, she WILL do it. I simply see no reason I should refuse to benefit from that decision.