Ethical Question

[rocketdodger]

In this case, because the rich man didn't care about helping the beggar man out, even in return for something later (such as in the case of a loan with interest), I think it is easy to say that the poor guy acted more ethically than the rich one.

An ethical decision has nothing to do with actual outcomes, only intended outcomes. This scenario illustrates the problem with basing policy on ethics only -- the actual outcome of a less ethical act is in fact more beneficial to all parties involved, and so in a global sense is much better any way you look at it.

Futhermore, this scenario shows why people often actually do more harm than good when they act "ethically" according to their current knowledge. The poor man could have saved his dollar and done something else with it that may, in the long term, do more good than giving it to the beggar. The whole "give a man a fish..." thing. Yet, because he was sacrificing all that he had, the poor man would just "feel" like he was doing a great deed at the time.

 

[meg]

Rocketdodger wrote: An ethical decision has nothing to do with actual outcomes, only intended outcomes.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

Our morals, ethics, and sense of right and wrong are reflections of our natural inclinations toward altruism as well as our cultural/societal choices about how we should behave toward one another. But both our own sense of right and wrong and our societal rules about our behavior are weighted.

Just as we consider the difference between verbally assaulting someone and physically assaulting them as "bad" and "worse", there are levels of "good" in our minds that need to be considered.

I think it is true that in general most of us would probably agree with the statement "We should have compassion and empathy for fellow humans". But I think most of us would also rank "We should help people who are poor and hungry" higher. And I think most of us would rank "We should not let children go hungry" even higher than that.

While the first man showed empathy and compassion, which we consider generally "good", he really did not do anything to fix the bad situation. So all of his weeping and embracing and giving of $1 really is an empty act. He might as well just offer to pray for the poor family, - another act which supposedly shows compassion but doesn't actually do anything.

The rich man, though, actually fixed the bad situation. Because of his behavior, there was one less hungry family that day. And, as someone else said, he gave enough not only to feed the family, but maybe even help the poor man get cleaned up to get a job or something. His act, whether out of compassion or not, might have not only fixed the temporary problem, but fixed the problem for the long term.

Action and outcomes trump emotion and intent. "Intent to commit murder" is a lesser crime than "Murder". And equally "Weeping over and hugging poor hungry people" is a lesser good act than "Feeding poor hungry people".

The bottom line is that the poor family got to eat that day, all because of the rich man's act. Whether he intended to be "good" or not doesn't really matter. In our minds, it would have been a "better" act if he had given the $100 with compassion, but it doesn't lessen the impact and "goodness" of the $100 that he didn't.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Rocketdodger wrote: An ethical decision has nothing to do with actual outcomes, only intended outcomes.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

Our morals, ethics, and sense of right and wrong are reflections of our natural inclinations toward altruism as well as our cultural/societal choices about how we should behave toward one another. But both our own sense of right and wrong and our societal rules about our behavior are weighted.

Just as we consider the difference between verbally assaulting someone and physically assaulting them as "bad" and "worse", there are levels of "good" in our minds that need to be considered.

I think it is true that in general most of us would probably agree with the statement "We should have compassion and empathy for fellow humans". But I think most of us would also rank "We should help people who are poor and hungry" higher. And I think most of us would rank "We should not let children go hungry" even higher than that.

While the first man showed empathy and compassion, which we consider generally "good", he really did not do anything to fix the bad situation. So all of his weeping and embracing and giving of $1 really is an empty act. He might as well just offer to pray for the poor family, - another act which supposedly shows compassion but doesn't actually do anything.

The rich man, though, actually fixed the bad situation. Because of his behavior, there was one less hungry family that day. And, as someone else said, he gave enough not only to feed the family, but maybe even help the poor man get cleaned up to get a job or something. His act, whether out of compassion or not, might have not only fixed the temporary problem, but fixed the problem for the long term.

Action and outcomes trump emotion and intent. "Intent to commit murder" is a lesser crime than "Murder". And equally "Weeping over and hugging poor hungry people" is a lesser good act than "Feeding poor hungry people".

The bottom line is that the poor family got to eat that day, all because of the rich man's act. Whether he intended to be "good" or not doesn't really matter. In our minds, it would have been a "better" act if he had given the $100 with compassion, but it doesn't lessen the impact and "goodness" of the $100 that he didn't.

Suppose he dropped a $100 bill on the ground next to the poor guy without intending to help at all? He clearly helps but with no intention to do so. Does that even enter the ethical realm?

I think one of the big problems is that, as you argue, ethics is not one thing. It is simply not the case that intention is all that matters in ethics. Outcomes definitely matter. Another commonly used example is a truck driver who does not check his brakes. One day he goes out and has trouble stopping, but that's it. Is that unethical? But another day he has trouble stopping when a four year old runs into the street after his ball and the truck driver runs him over. Is that unethical? His earlier inaction led to the kid's death, but most of the time that inaction has no real-world consequence.

But intention is important for many ethical situations. I doubt that I need to enumerate them. It is certainly very clear from this thread that we have this sense.

Somehow we use some rubric to determine how to weigh these different factors. We know the brain area in which it occurs -- the anterior cingulate gyrus, a region tied to emotional reactions and cognition -- but we don't seem to have a clear sense of how we arrive at answers to these constructed ethical dilemmas. I think the latter is the case because different people use different weightings and arrive at different sorts of answers.

 

[rocketdodger]

While the first man showed empathy and compassion, which we consider generally "good", he really did not do anything to fix the bad situation. So all of his weeping and embracing and giving of $1 really is an empty act. He might as well just offer to pray for the poor family, - another act which supposedly shows compassion but doesn't actually do anything.

But he doesn't know it is an empty act. People wouldn't take the time to pray for others if they thought it was pointless. To the poor man giving his $1, and to people praying for others, they genuinely are trying to help.

You might claim that this makes the act both ethical to the decider and unethical (or at least neutral) to the beggar, but since the notion of "ethical" is relative to the one making the decision, it doesn't matter.

His act, whether out of compassion or not, might have not only fixed the temporary problem, but fixed the problem for the long term.

And I claim this outcome has nothing to do with the ethics of the decision at the time he made it.

Action and outcomes trump emotion and intent. "Intent to commit murder" is a lesser crime than "Murder".

Murder doesn't even exist unless there is intent, actually. Furthermore, can you tell me what typically gets longer prison times, intended murder or accidental manslaughter?

And equally "Weeping over and hugging poor hungry people" is a lesser good act than "Feeding poor hungry people".

But as I said, actual outcomes have nothing to do with whether a decision is ethical or not. Why? Because "ethicality," or whatever the term is, is not dynamic. If a decision is ethical at the time it is made, it is always ethical from then on. If not, it is never ethical.

Suppose that by gassing millions of Jews, it turns out hitler prevented some greater evil in the future. Does that make his decision ethical? Suppose mother Theresa actually did more harm than good. Does that make her behavior unethical?

The bottom line is that the poor family got to eat that day, all because of the rich man's act.

But they might not have, in every scenario. Suppose that because the rich man was a douche the beggar got depressed and spent all the money on alcohol. Suppose that the kindness of the poor man had a life altering impact on the beggar and he dug himself out of the gutter after the encounter. Then who was more ethical?

 

[Roboramma]

Now, which man did the better act?

It's a bit of a difficult question. I would say that the second man accomplished the better act, while the first has demonstrated himself to be a better person.
We can see this based on what he would likely do if he were in a different situation - ie. rich.

Which is, I think, one reason that we often feel real gratitude to those who give when it is difficult for them to do so - because we know that the altruism that they have demonstrated is a part of their character which will likely stay with them in to good times.

 

[rocketdodger]

Outcomes definitely matter. Another commonly used example is a truck driver who does not check his brakes. One day he goes out and has trouble stopping, but that's it. Is that unethical?

Yes, for a truck driver it is, because there is a known high probability that someone will eventually get hurt as a result. They go through training to learn precisely that kind of stuff, they get reprimanded if they don't check their brakes precisely for that reason, and least of all they are adult humans who should be able to make that kind of inference. Even if they used stupidity and irresponsibility as an excuse, it doesn't matter -- those personality traits can be considered unethical in many areas of modern society.

For a child, a mentally handicapped individual, or a family pet, such a thing would not be unethical because such an individual is not expected to put two and two together. I dare say that is probably the reason we do not let such individuals drive trucks.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Wow! I thought this question might generate some interesting debate. I had no idea.

I really had no "correct" answer in mind; I was interested in seeing what others on this forum had to say--and I continue to be fascinated by the intelligence and thoughtfulness of its members. Even those who essentially dismissed the question as either meaningless or impractical did so in a thoughtful manner.

I think if anything has been established here, it's that ethical questions have more to do with perspective and human reason and judgment than with sets of rules or perhaps even hard-and-fast "principles".

It seems to me that a clearly ethical and praiseworthy act might be "spoiled" in some sense (perhaps aesthetically?) by being carried out with an un-praiseworthy attitude, while remaining admirable in itself. Just another thought to throw into the mix.

A remarkable discussion. Thanks.

 

[Lonewulf]

Neither. They gave the man money without actually helping him in the first place.

The trick is to get him a job and make him a contributing member of society instead of just a parasite.

(Before anyone jumps me on this, I should note that these kinds of ethical questions I really don't care much about; if I was really serious, I might give a more thoughtful answer, but right now this is all you'll get).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, for a truck driver it is, because there is a known high probability that someone will eventually get hurt as a result. They go through training to learn precisely that kind of stuff, they get reprimanded if they don't check their brakes precisely for that reason, and least of all they are adult humans who should be able to make that kind of inference. Even if they used stupidity and irresponsibility as an excuse, it doesn't matter -- those personality traits can be considered unethical in many areas of modern society.

For a child, a mentally handicapped individual, or a family pet, such a thing would not be unethical because such an individual is not expected to put two and two together. I dare say that is probably the reason we do not let such individuals drive trucks.

So, would you reprimand a trucker who did not check his breaks precisely the same if there were no consequence as one who killed a child as a result?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Neither. They gave the man money without actually helping him in the first place.

The trick is to get him a job and make him a contributing member of society instead of just a parasite.

(Before anyone jumps me on this, I should note that these kinds of ethical questions I really don't care much about; if I was really serious, I might give a more thoughtful answer, but right now this is all you'll get).

You mean, sort of like, build a man a fire and he is warm for one night, set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life?*

*with apologies to Terry Pratchett

 

[Soapy Sam]

All three screwed up.

The first man , by giving him $1, encouraged him to beg.
The second man, by giving him $100 confirmed him in making a living by begging.

Better for the poor man to say "sorry" and the rich man to give him a job.

We can't compare moral acts unless we all share the same values. If we don't , it makes no more sense than comparing apples and bedsprings.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

All three screwed up.

The first man , by giving him $1, encouraged him to beg.
The second man, by giving him $100 confirmed him in making a living by begging.

Better for the poor man to say "sorry" and the rich man to give him a job.

We can't compare moral acts unless we all share the same values. If we don't , it makes no more sense than comparing apples and bedsprings.

A truly excellent point.

 

[Beerina]

The truth is, both men did a good deed, but it required more sacrifice on the part of the poorer man. That the beggar was more pleased with the rich man's contribution has no bearing on the ethics of the situation.

I propose that the poor man acted more ethically in this situation, since he acted from a sincere desire to help. However, intent is not relevant to the ethics of the situation either since the outcome is the same: they both gave money to the poor, a generally ethical act.

Ancient moralities based on false theories of want and need and supply have no bearing on a modern, powerful economy based on freedom and government securing property rights and the rule of law.

The mountain god Yahweh would have done much better for humanity by having Jesus teach about securing property rights and instituting separation of church and state rather than buttering up the benifits of a poor man giving a dollar as being superior to a rich man giving a hundred.

 

[meg]

Ichneumonwasp wrote:

Suppose he dropped a $100 bill on the ground next to the poor guy without intending to help at all? He clearly helps but with no intention to do so. Does that even enter the ethical realm?

I think it does.. but only on the part of the finder of the money. We have many ethical dilemas around finding lost things and what to do with them.

I get what you're saying though, that intent is an important factor in the decision making process about ethics. How does one ever really know a person's intent, though? I mean, in the OP we have a situation where a poor person asks a rich person for some help, and the rich person gives them $100. Does it matter what the rich person said? The bare facts of the case show that the rich person provided help to the poor person when requested.

And as to the poor person who gave $1 and wept for the beggar, how do we know what his true intent was? Did he give that dollar out of a genuine desire to help the beggar, or did he give it knowing full well it made no difference, but it helped him to feel good about himself?

rocketdodger wrote:

Murder doesn't even exist unless there is intent, actually. Furthermore, can you tell me what typically gets longer prison times, intended murder or accidental manslaughter?

No. I can't. I do not know how our justice systems weighs the intentional killing of a person vs the accidental killing of a person while committing some other crime. I would guess it has a lot to do with how serious the other crime is, how regretful they may be, how negligent they may have been, how many people were harmed.. many factors.

rocketdodger wrote:

But as I said, actual outcomes have nothing to do with whether a decision is ethical or not. Why? Because "ethicality," or whatever the term is, is not dynamic. If a decision is ethical at the time it is made, it is always ethical from then on. If not, it is never ethical.

I do not agree. I do not think that you can name any act or behavior that no matter the circumstance would always be ethical or inethical. We consider murder wrong, yet we engage in wars that kill people, or we consider "self defense" an okay excuse. We consider stealing unethical, however we don't think it's so bad, for example, if someone loots baby formula to feed an infant during a flood.

We always weigh each circumstance, and try to decipher which action serves the greater good as well as our personal interests. And usually we measure based on the outcome. Granted, we don't always guess the correct outcome. If Mother Teresa did not know that the person she nursed back to health was a serial rapist intent on murdering hundreds of women, her decision to nurse him back to health cannot be considered unethical. However, if she did know she was aiding a person intent on murdering many people, and she still chose to help him, that could be considered unethical.

Likewise, I'm sure Hitler thought he was doing a "good" thing. He probably thought killing millions of people was somehow serving the greater good. However, just because he might have had good intentions doesn't mean he behaved ethically. Society measured the outcome, and pretty much unanimously declared that individual human rights to life trump any possible perceived benefit of "racial purity", and we all declare that Hitler's behavior was unethical.

Intent alone does not make a good person, or a good action. We encourage each other to have empathy and compassion for other human beings not because those attributes are "good" all by themselves. We encourage those behaviors because it increases the likelihood that those members of society who need help will get it from those in a position to give help. Encouraging this behavior increases the survival rate of our clan/society/group/species. The "goodness" comes from the actions and their outcomes, not the intentions.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think that ethics is an illogical process in the end. You can make up a logical structure of ethics that follows lines of logic, but in the end it's a subjective process more based in emotion than anything else. I think that logic is essentially an attempt to structure already prevailing and personal beliefs, more than it is a way to reach actual ethical conclusions.

 

[rocketdodger]

So, would you reprimand a trucker who did not check his breaks precisely the same if there were no consequence as one who killed a child as a result?

No, because the punishment of something takes into account many more factors than just the ethicality of the decision that led to whatever happened.

I would claim that the ethicality of the decision is the same regardless. The fact that someone actually died in the second case just means the trucker is in alot more trouble.

 

[rocketdodger]

I do not agree. I do not think that you can name any act or behavior that no matter the circumstance would always be ethical or inethical.

Of course not. My argument is that if an action is ethical or unethical when it is made, however we decide that, then it will remain so for the rest of history.

You can't generalize acts or behaviors, I agree. But you can label a specific instance of an act or behavior as being ethical or unethical, ineed we have to in order to make decisions every day.

Intent alone does not make a good person, or a good action.

..snip..

The "goodness" comes from the actions and their outcomes, not the intentions.

I agree. But is "goodness" the same as ethics? I don't think so. Ethics has to do with whether a decision made is in accordance with the standards of right and wrong held by whoever is doing the judging. "Goodness" is simply a form of utility measurement.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, because the punishment of something takes into account many more factors than just the ethicality of the decision that led to whatever happened.

I would claim that the ethicality of the decision is the same regardless. The fact that someone actually died in the second case just means the trucker is in alot more trouble.

But why is the trucker in a lot more trouble? Isn't his being in more trouble an issue of ethics in the first place?

It seems to me that you are defining ethicality in an overly restrictive fashion to reach the conclusion that only intent is important to ethics. If you have defined ethics as only concerning intent, then that is fine for you. Most of the rest of the world uses a more inclusive definition.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I agree. But is "goodness" the same as ethics? I don't think so. Ethics has to do with whether a decision made is in accordance with the standards of right and wrong held by whoever is doing the judging. "Goodness" is simply a form of utility measurement.

Aristotle considered the "good" as the entire point of ethics.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I get what you're saying though, that intent is an important factor in the decision making process about ethics. How does one ever really know a person's intent, though? I mean, in the OP we have a situation where a poor person asks a rich person for some help, and the rich person gives them $100. Does it matter what the rich person said? The bare facts of the case show that the rich person provided help to the poor person when requested.

And as to the poor person who gave $1 and wept for the beggar, how do we know what his true intent was? Did he give that dollar out of a genuine desire to help the beggar, or did he give it knowing full well it made no difference, but it helped him to feel good about himself?

We cannot know intent with absolute certainty, but when has absolute certainty ever stopped us?

A very large part of our brain is concerned with gleaning intent in others. We try to discover who cheats and why so that we can prevent it in the future. We gossip so that we can discover what other people think when we are not present to discover this information on our own. Much of our interaction with other people consists in our building a model of their internal world based on empathy and guesses of intent based on their actions.

When we fall in love, we build an expansive internal world of the person we adore. It isn't necessarily true, but that is what we do. In fact, it is possible that our internal sense of self is simply an internally directed application of the techniques we inherited to understand the motivations of others so that we could predict their actions.

We do the same thing with ethics. It is a large part of what ethics is.