Which Ethical School Do You Prefer?

[Agnapostate]

I would personally say that I prefer utilitarianism, specifically preference utilitarianism. My preferred variety is a combination of the two-level form advocated by R.M. Hare, and the preference form championed by Peter Singer.

Do you prefer deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, or what?

 

[Diuretic]

Utilitarianism - except that I get confused with all the various shades but I do like reading Singer so I suppose I'm there. Also virtue ethics, thanks to Aristototle and Philippa Foot I have a hobby at work trying to put it into real life. I don't know enough and I'm learning too slowly but it's interesting.

 

[Shogun]

damn.. im having flashbacks of biomedical ethics class. YUK.

 

[Agnapostate]

Excerpted from Bernard Williams's Critique of Utilitarianism:

"George, who has just taken his Ph.D. in chemistry, finds it extremely difficult to get a job. He is not very robust in health, which cuts down the number of jobs he might be able to do satisfactorily. His wife has to go out to work to keep them, which itself causes a great deal of strain, since they have small children and there are several problems about looking after them. The results of all this, especially on the children, are damaging. An older chemist, who knows about this situation, says that he can get George a decently paid job in a certain laboratory, which pursues research into chemical and biological warfare. Georfe says that he cannot accept this, since he is opposed to chemical and biological warfare. The older man replies that he is not too keen on it himself, come to that, but after all George's refusal is not going to make the job or the laboratory go away; what is more, he happens to know that if George refuses the job, it will certainly go to a contemporary of George's who is not inhibited by any such scruples and is likely if appointed to push along the research with greater zeal than George would. Indeed, it is not merely concern for George and his family, but (to speak frankly and in confidence) some alarm about this other man's excess of zeal, which has led the older man to offer to use his influence to get George the job...George's wife, to whom he is deeply attached, has views (the details of which need not concern us) from which it follows that at least there is nothing particularly wrong with research into CBW. What should he do?"

What do you say?

 

[garyd]

Depends on the lab. A lot of such labs also work on ways to neutralize the effects of such weapons. They are still called bio chem labs.

 

[Agnapostate]

Depends on the lab. A lot of such labs also work on ways to neutralize the effects of such weapons. They are still called bio chem labs.

Williams specifically intended for the lab in the analogy to be one that worked to develop such weapons, and one's answer would determine whether you were a deontologist or a consequentialist.

 

[dilloduck]

Williams specifically intended for the lab in the analogy to be one that worked to develop such weapons, and one's answer would determine whether you were a deontologist or a consequentialist.

He knows that doing something that you think and feel is wrong will cause him and everyone else to be miserable. Keep looking.

 

[Agnapostate]

He knows that doing something that you think and feel is wrong will cause him and everyone else to be miserable. Keep looking.

I'm quite sure that effectively causing the development of weapons to furthered to an extent that they would not have been developed had you taken the job in this scenario could cause quite a bit of misery.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm quite sure that effectively causing the development of weapons to furthered to an extent that they would not have been developed had you taken the job in this scenario could cause quite a bit of misery.

not sure I understand you---he should take the job on the possiblity that he could sabotage it thus avoiding financail misery ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

.

Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.[1] wkikikikikiki

Ethics is the part of philosophy that talks about good and evil. Ethics tries to answer questions like:

* What actions are good? What actions are evil?
* How can we tell the difference?
* Are good and evil the same for everyone?
* How should we make hard decisions that might help or hurt other people?
wiki simple

 

[Agnapostate]

not sure I understand you---he should take the job on the possiblity that he could sabotage it thus avoiding financail misery ?

The purpose of the analogy is that both his personal financial misery and the misery of people that such weapons might be used on would be greater if he did not take the job. Hence, the consequentialist would prefer that he take it.

The deontologist would object that his personal integrity would be compromised if he took the job, but the consequentialist and utilitarian regard consequences as being of greater moral significance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Morality and Ethics
H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy:

"Puritanism—The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

 

[Agnapostate]

Do you believe that Mencken's statement applies to Williams's critique?

 

[dilloduck]

The purpose of the analogy is that both his personal financial misery and the misery of people that such weapons might be used on would be greater if he did not take the job. Hence, the consequentialist would prefer that he take it.

The deontologist would object that his personal integrity would be compromised if he took the job, but the consequentialist and utilitarian regard consequences as being of greater moral significance.

I thought if he took the job he is basically sabotaging their efforts at success. His sacrifice is what is of value ?

 

[Agnapostate]

I thought if he took the job he is basically sabotaging their efforts at success. His sacrifice is what is of value ?

The deontologist will allege that his sacrifice is his personal integrity.

 

[dilloduck]

The deontologist will allege that his sacrifice is his personal integrity.

So his personal integrity being of utmost value makes his decision to take the job as basically a saboteur the right thing ? Living a lie ?

 

[Agnapostate]

So his personal integrity being of utmost value makes his decision to take the job as basically a saboteur the right thing ? Living a lie ?

To clarify, the consequentialist will favor that he takes the job if it results in less development of weapons than otherwise, because of the preferable consequences. The deontologist will oppose him taking the job regardless of the consequences, because they believe that in participating in the development of nuclear weapons at all, he will have sacrificed his personal integrity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do you believe that Mencken's statement applies to Williams's critique?

in some ways, yes.

"...he happens to know that if George refuses the job, it will certainly go to a contemporary of George's who is not inhibited by any such scruples and is likely if appointed to push along the research with greater zeal than George would. Indeed, it is not merely concern for George and his family, but (to speak frankly and in confidence) some alarm about this other man's excess of zeal, which has led the older man to offer to use his influence to get George the job..."

The contemporary's zeal is the focus of the older man's interest. The older man is suffering from the delusion that he can save the world (at one lab) yet he is hiding behind a concern for George's future and the lives of George's family? The man has no evidence that anyone's work at this lab will be successful and even used if it is so. The older man's recruiting of George is fed by his desire to further his own agenda even though the result of that recruitment if successful will result in George doing work the man finds anathema to his own morality. The man is a busy body masquerading as a savior on a mission. Or are they the same thing?

how's them apples on short notice?

 

[dilloduck]

in some ways, yes.



The contemporary's zeal is the focus of the older man's interest. The older man is suffering from the delusion that he can save the world (at one lab) yet he is hiding behind a concern for George's future and the lives of George's family? The man has no evidence that anyone's work at this lab will be successful and even used if it is so. The older man's recruiting of George is fed by his desire to further his own agenda even though the result of that recruitment if successful will result in George doing work the man finds anathema to his own morality. The man is a busy body masquerading as a savior on a mission. Or are they the same thing?

how's them apples on short notice?

not bad---tough to find a altuist these days. Are white lies OK to save someone misery? Can you or should you even try to ease the misery of others?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

not bad---tough to find a altuist these days. Are white lies OK to save someone misery? Can you or should you even try to ease the misery of others?

white lies are cool. it depends on who one lies to and why and at what cost.

I'm an altruist on many a day. I'm so used to helping others out I forget I'm doing it until I'm reminded. I'm pretty sure it all started as a way of feeling good or something, but then it just becomes habit. some of us help others without even giving it a second thought or consciously doing so.

doesn't necessarily make me a better person, but it does make me a better person to be around.