64 replies to this topic

[jamon g]

So a moral question, with a poll if it works (never done one).
Given a situation with major personal ramifications (a large benefit if you choose yourself over others) would you or should you choose to take care of yourself and your family over what's best for society both local and global overall? Nothing illegal will be done.

[Christian U]

What are you planning on, Jamon?


This one's one of the bigger questions, and I think the only realistic answer is "it depends". "No never" is actually the answer that works best, because if everybody chose that answer, we'd have a pretty nifty, working, safe society. But we don't really work that way, sometimes we want or even need things although we know that they aren't really good for society. As an example, I will fly to London in May, largening my carbon footprint, to go to Kapow and see some Millarworld people. I could have gone by train, which would have had less impact, but that would both have taken a lot more time and have been more complicated, and it would have been far, far more expensive. In this case, those factors outweigh my desire to keep my carbon footprint small. On the other hand, I do try to avoid using the car when I don't have to, and I often use the train to get to work because of that even when it means I lose an hour of my day.

[jamon g]

So do you think you should vote 'yes' because when presented with the more impacting decision to fly or take the train, or indeed not to travel at all or spend half your wage planting trees as offset etc you chose yourself over society, whereas the more mundane daily choices that don't impact you much like driving less you choose society?

[garjones]

You could easily argue adding tens or hundreds of hours to your daily commute over a year is a bigger sacrifice than a one off trip to London.

Sadly I'm going to take the middle ground. I'm not a huge fan of absolutes in life and think they can lead to fundamentalist viewpoints. We have 'yes always' and 'no never' and I haven't subscribed to either in my life.

There was an interesting take on this on the Comedy Central podcast Utter Shambles, which I recommend to anyone, they get great guests on and just ramble. Tim Minchin is an atheist and Josie Long a socialist and they were discussing how they were often expected to be utterly unnerring in those beliefs. Tim couldn't go to a funeral in a church or sing the hymns or Josie buy anything that wasn't hand woven by a Marxist co-operative

http://www.comedycen....co.uk/podcasts

[Arjan Dirkse]

Yeah I'd never answer these things with a definite yes or no. Depends on the exact circumstances, and even then I'd probably only decide if it actually appened

[Christian U]

You could easily argue adding tens or hundreds of hours to your daily commute over a year is a bigger sacrifice than a one off trip to London.

Yep. Jamon, answering "No never" would translate to living a Jesus-like life of extremes or joining Greenpeace or whatever. For most of us, living means compromising to some extent. That, however, does also not translate to disregarding the good of society entirely.

[Ogul]

It's always relative. If it's a very large benefit to me over a very small inconvenience to others, then I pick me. If it's a minor inconvenience to me in return for a very large benefit to society, then I choose society. The closer those two cases come to convergence the harder the choice is to make. I'd say that I'd favor my side of the equation, fair or not, in that if it were a case that were very close to balanced, I'd pick the one that would favor me in most cases, but whatever. Now, if we're talking moral in the abstract, then yes, I think that a truly moral person would sacrifice his own good over that of the masses to a far greater extent. I don't expect that sort of behavior out of actual humans though.

Keep in mind, anyone choosing the "no never" option is likely a complete hypocrite, because they clear have computer access. For the cost of purchasing and operating that computer they could feed dozens, if not hundreds of impoverished people. Now perhaps owning that computer allows someone to work, which gives them more money, which allows them to donate more where it was needed, but a truly moral person would have almost nothing of any luxury value, anything not absolutely necessary to life and perhaps improving income, with all that income going into charitable causes, until such time as everyone rises to his own level. Anything less than that commitment, while totally understandable, is still a compromise.

[jamon g]

I'm after the less abstract 'would you always do the moral thing', in which the answer is always sometimes, and more after 'If there's a great benefit to you, but in doing the perfectly legal act there's a potential great harm to society' would you do it. I'm not after what you do each day, but the rare circumstance. So to be clear, I'm not after what your general disposition is, but what you would do in the crunch so to speak.

[Mike]

Jamon, it might work better with a specific example then rather than in the abstract. What sort of thing are you thinking about?

[Ogul]

'If there's a great benefit to you, but in doing the perfectly legal act there's a potential great harm to society' would you do it.

The way you phrased that one, I'd lean towards "no, never," but again, it comes down to the specific case. I can't see myself causing great harm to society in exchange for even great benefit to myself, and certainly not for minor benefit, but it's always relative to some degree.

An interesting specific would be, "if you were wealthy, and we not spending anywhere near your total income on necessities, then would you take advantage of every possible loophole to minimize your tax payments?" To that I would answer "no," while others might consider "yes" to be perfectly justified.

[Christian U]

I'm after the less abstract 'would you always do the moral thing', in which the answer is always sometimes, and more after 'If there's a great benefit to you, but in doing the perfectly legal act there's a potential great harm to society' would you do it. I'm not after what you do each day, but the rare circumstance. So to be clear, I'm not after what your general disposition is, but what you would do in the crunch so to speak.

It's a bit hard to imagine what you're talking about, but if we're talking great harm to society I probably wouldn't do it, no.

[jamon g]

I'm trying to keep it generic because I'm more interested in what amoral proposal you think you could be faced with (amoral in regards to your community) which would benefit you and your family, and what choice you would make. I can think of ones that relate specifically to me, but wouldn't be relevant to you so it would be easy to say 'oh no, i'd never do that'.

[Christian U]

But I can't think of a scenario!

[jamon g]

what do you do for a living? I'll make it about money seeing as most of us can relate to that (other than mike who's already rich. have to make his about organs)

[Mike]

I think if you give us one that's tailored to you most of us are mentally flexible enough to cope.

[Andrew]

What are you planning on, Jamon?


This one's one of the bigger questions, and I think the only realistic answer is "it depends". "No never" is actually the answer that works best, because if everybody chose that answer, we'd have a pretty nifty, working, safe society. But we don't really work that way, sometimes we want or even need things although we know that they aren't really good for society. As an example, I will fly to London in May, largening my carbon footprint, to go to Kapow and see some Millarworld people. I could have gone by train, which would have had less impact, but that would both have taken a lot more time and have been more complicated, and it would have been far, far more expensive. In this case, those factors outweigh my desire to keep my carbon footprint small. On the other hand, I do try to avoid using the car when I don't have to, and I often use the train to get to work because of that even when it means I lose an hour of my day.

(That's only the case because of a flaw in the market that doesn't account for carbon footprints - flight should be far more expensive than it is. And aren't we approaching or already at peak oil? How long will commercial air travel last without a massive technological development in relation to fuel/energy?)

[Christian U]

(That's only the case because of a flaw in the market that doesn't account for carbon footprints - flight should be far more expensive than it is.

Yep. Changing that is probably the only road to sustainable energy economics.

[craggy]

the scenario I imagine is "what if I was offered absolute rulership of the world?"

not exclusively in relation to this question, but I can narrow my megalomaniac vision long enough to answer this. I'd like to say I'd do what is right for the world, but then, it might make me a crappy person to screw over their family. Mostly, I'd probably default to whatever course seemed more likely to make me happy at the time, so it'd really all depend on a very large number of things.

[jamon g]

tsk tsk invading my thread with carbon nonsense!

[Mike]

Yep. Changing that is probably the only road to sustainable energy economics.

Cheap fossil fuel air travel and effective antibiotic use are the two things the I think future generations will look back at our time and comment on how we did not know how lucky we were will be.