• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ethical Question

cnorman18

Critical Thinker
cnorman18
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
304
There are various opinions on this. I'm not sure, myself. I'd be interested in seeing those of others.

A poor man comes up to another man and says, "Please help me; my children are hungry and I have no money."

The second man has little money himself; he has only a dollar, his last, but he gives it to the poor man, embraces him, and weeps because he can be of no more help than that.

The poor man than approaches a rich man, and makes the same request.

The rich man says, "I don't know you or your children at all, and I care about you even less. I'll give you this just to get out of my face and leave me alone. Now go away." He hands him a $100 bill because he has nothing smaller, and it's pocket change to him anyway.

Now, which man did the better act?

Christianity's answer is explicit, given by Jesus himself; the first man.

Jews aren't so sure. From the poor man's point of view, he can get more food for his children with $100 than with $1, and he's probably happier that he ran into the second man than the first.

The question remains unanswered.

Comments?
 
cnorman18 said:
There are various opinions on this. I'm not sure, myself. I'd be interested in seeing those of others.

A poor man comes up to another man and says, "Please help me; my children are hungry and I have no money."

The second man has little money himself; he has only a dollar, his last, but he gives it to the poor man, embraces him, and weeps because he can be of no more help than that.

The poor man than approaches a rich man, and makes the same request.

The rich man says, "I don't know you or your children at all, and I care about you even less. I'll give you this just to get out of my face and leave me alone. Now go away." He hands him a $100 bill because he has nothing smaller, and it's pocket change to him anyway.

Now, which man did the better act?

Christianity's answer is explicit, given by Jesus himself; the first man.

Jews aren't so sure. From the poor man's point of view, he can get more food for his children with $100 than with $1, and he's probably happier that he ran into the second man than the first.

The question remains unanswered.

Comments?
Click to expand...

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.
 
With no evidence that the second man has any more access or ability to generate money than the first man, is it really more ethical to for the second man to effectively trade places with the first man, however kind that may be, thereby becoming a burden to others himself?

The ethical act would be for the first man to refuse the last dollar of the second man and seek help elsewhere.
 
It is not a mans decision as to which other man made a better charity.

Once you start counting you will find yourself always lacking.

I recommend not attempting to count, just attempt to give freely "good will" as best you can.
 
The two poor guys should have rolled the rich guy for the rest of his cash,
the snooty, disdainful git.
 
The first man the beggar asked should not have given away his money at all. You help no one by becoming a burden yourself - first earn so that you can survive, then give if you can afford (and if you want to).
 
--

Let's refine this just a bit to focus on what I perceive to be the intent of the question:

I would assume that the first giver is not destitute himself; that he has a job, etc., but simply has no more than a dollar available to him at the time. He will not become a burden himself by giving the poor man his dollar.

It seems to me that the question is this: What determines the relative rightness of a deed? Is it the motivation and attitude behind it, or the effect of the deed itself?

Does this boil down to the question of who is more important, the giver or the recipient?

Or perhaps whether "ethics" is about people, or about actions?

Saying that the two were ethically identical is obvious nonsense; the differences in attitude AND in effect were enormous.

Do we just cop out with "It depends on how you look at it"? If that's the only answer, I'm OK with it, but it seems a little vague to me.
 
Well if we're now saying that the first person is able to continue being a productive member of society, but he only had a dollar on him at the time...then I have trouble really giving two bits worth. See, that dollar isn't going to impact on the life of the recipient, and it's not going to have an impact on the life of the person who gave it either. In effect, the amount of money involved in the transaction is so little as to have no effect at all - the man may as well not have given anything away. Certainly (without any more information) it is not an immoral act, but it is still a worthless act.

As for the rich man giving away a hundred dollars - that's not going to have an impact on the life of the rich man one bit. It is, as the question is phrased, pocket change to him. However it does have the potential, however unlikely, to in some way change the life of the homeless man. A hundred dollars is enough money to get cleaned up physically - shower, shave, brush teeth, haircut, etc. - and that in turn makes the homeless man immediately more employable. For this example I'm assuming that the homeless man is capable of picking himself up - that he's not severely incapacitated physically or mentally, just that he's on hard times.

All in all, the first man's action was worthless - it will have no impact on either man's life. The rich man's action has worth - it will have no impact on the rich man's life, but may have a positive impact on the life of the poor man. Therefore the rich man's action was, in this situation, the 'better' action.

Note that this does not necessarily reflect the character of the people involved, simply the worth of their actions in the particular instance you have set out.
 
Well, if you now say that the second man is indeed 'rich', in that he has more money and/or the means to make more money, I would say that if he truly wished he could give more, as evidenced by his tearful display, then he should have made arrangements to give more. He should have brought the first man home with him for a meal and a shower, dropped by the ATM, whatever. By not taking any more actions than he could at that very moment, he has proven to me that he is not very ethical.

On the other hand, the third man, who seems to have been placed in the situation to show the arrogance of wealth, gave enough to make an impact, even though he could have easily had his driver or bodyguard throw the first man to the curb for him so he could continue on the the country club for caviar and champagne, while banging his beautiful personal assistant. Because, see, the third man is not always so abrupt with people down on their luck, its just that ever since he worked himself up from the gutter by working 3 menial jobs, investing whatever money he could wisely, and rising through the ranks to eventually run his own company, he has been besieged by every manner of person trying to get what he has earned. He has, though his own generosity, given away a vast chunk of his wealth to con men and thieves, and has become somewhat distrustful of beggars in general. In spite of all that, he gave away a hard earned $100 to a person who could be one of those dishonest people. I would say that makes him more ethical.

Backstories are fun, aren't they?
 
--

Region Rat said:
Well, if you now say that the second man is indeed 'rich', in that he has more money and/or the means to make more money, I would say that if he truly wished he could give more, as evidenced by his tearful display, then he should have made arrangements to give more. He should have brought the first man home with him for a meal and a shower, dropped by the ATM, whatever. By not taking any more actions than he could at that very moment, he has proven to me that he is not very ethical.

On the other hand, the third man, who seems to have been placed in the situation to show the arrogance of wealth, gave enough to make an impact, even though he could have easily had his driver or bodyguard throw the first man to the curb for him so he could continue on the the country club for caviar and champagne, while banging his beautiful personal assistant. Because, see, the third man is not always so abrupt with people down on their luck, its just that ever since he worked himself up from the gutter by working 3 menial jobs, investing whatever money he could wisely, and rising through the ranks to eventually run his own company, he has been besieged by every manner of person trying to get what he has earned. He has, though his own generosity, given away a vast chunk of his wealth to con men and thieves, and has become somewhat distrustful of beggars in general. In spite of all that, he gave away a hard earned $100 to a person who could be one of those dishonest people. I would say that makes him more ethical.

Backstories are fun, aren't they?
Click to expand...

I think they may be hardwired in. Humans seem to have a compulsion to finish an ambiguous picture or explain an ambiguous situation so they can make sense of it. Probably a survival trait, since so much of real life makes no sense at all.
 
cnorman18 said:
I think they may be hardwired in. Humans seem to have a compulsion to finish an ambiguous picture or explain an ambiguous situation so they can make sense of it. Probably a survival trait, since so much of real life makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

You may have realized that I added my back story because the condition of the original hypothetical changed, seemingly because the 'right' answer wasn't reached. A man with only a dollar tearfully gives it away to a man who has none is more ethical than a man with many dollars begrudgingly gives it to a man who has none. Obviously this was meant to favor the tearful man with one dollar. Your 'redefinition' of the tearful man opened the door to more redefinition.

By the way, in the original hypothetical, there are just a little well poisoning, what with the tearful poor man and the abrupt nasty rich man. Just my opinion, of course.
 
cnorman18 said:
Let's refine this just a bit to focus on what I perceive to be the intent of the question:

I would assume that the first giver is not destitute himself; that he has a job, etc., but simply has no more than a dollar available to him at the time. He will not become a burden himself by giving the poor man his dollar.

It seems to me that the question is this: What determines the relative rightness of a deed? Is it the motivation and attitude behind it, or the effect of the deed itself?

Does this boil down to the question of who is more important, the giver or the recipient?

Or perhaps whether "ethics" is about people, or about actions?

Saying that the two were ethically identical is obvious nonsense; the differences in attitude AND in effect were enormous.

Do we just cop out with "It depends on how you look at it"? If that's the only answer, I'm OK with it, but it seems a little vague to me.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is necessarily a cop out. Most people do not seem to think in absolute terms. We seem to have different means of dealing with different issues. When it comes to ethics we appear to have at least two and probably three paradigms from which we make decisions. We separate these into different ethical "theories" -- virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontology. Looked at from the viewpoint of intentions (if that is most important), then the first guy is most ethical. Looked at from the viewpoint of consequences, the second guy is more ethical/effective. Looked at from the viewpoint of virtue, the first guy is more ethical.

I guess you could say 2 out of 3 wins, so the first guy is more ethical; but that is just as arbitrary as total reliance on one or the other ethical theories. I'm afraid that the real answer is probably closer to the "cop out" position.
 
The real question is why the poor man didn't rob the silly prat after getting the hundred. ;P
 
If one adopts the position of arguing purely on the basis of outcomes, the rich man did the better deed; but it was compromised by his offensive behaviour. The poor man may have done active harm if that dollar should have been reserved for his own dependents, but at least he had manners.

Ethical argments ultimately depend upon the values one chooses to apply in assessing the outcomes. If you greatly value respect for others, or you value altruism, you will probably think that the poor man did the better deed. If you think material well-being is most important, then the rich man did the better deed. But the most honest way of assessing outcomes is simply to ask the people involved; in this case, ask the poor man if he would rather get $1 from a polite bloke or $100 from an arsehole; and on the flip side, ask the poor man and the rich man to decide between them who would least like to make their respective contribution. I think I can guess the answer to that one.
 
cnorman18 said:
Now, which man did the better act?
Click to expand...


I don't understand the question. What is the meaning of comparing the goodness of acts done by different people?

Every person can only choose what he himself will do. If there are a number of choices available to one person, it makes sense to ask which of them is better. The answer will determine how that person ought to act.

But what difference does the answer to your question make? Suppose the answer is "the first man". Ok. Now what? Or suppose the answer is "the second man". Again, now what?
 
It's a really "gray" question. Theoretically both donations are equal in ethics.

However, if you want to nitpick, it sounds like the poor man gave until it hurt. The rich man did not give so much that he did without later to make up for the shortfall. One can assume the poorer man had to economize to make up for the missing dollar. From this presumption I suppose one could make the argument that his donation was slightly more ethical.

There is some debate as to whether ethics is a black-and-white, either/or philosophy. Here's an analogy: two people are applying for the same job, and the job requires high ethical standards. Neither of them have a record of unethical behavior. One candidate seems more trustworthy than the other and gets hired. You can't say that the guy who didn't get the job is less ethical; neither of them had a record of doing anything unethical. Trust and ethics are related but not interchangeable.

Ethics requires no speculation. An act is either ethical or it is not. The act must happen before we can determine whether it is ethical or not. Trust allows one to discriminate against the potential for misbehavior that hasn't happened yet, and that's how it differs from ethics.

In our earlier example with the beggar, poor man, and rich man, if you change the question so that it reads "Who is more generous," I think it's clear that the poor man is the most generous. That is different from "ethical" though. I might even argue that it's impossible to be "more ethical" than another person who is also ethical. You are either ethical or you are not.

I have come full circle, and have returned to the position that both of the donations are equally ethical.
 
69dodge said:
I don't understand the question. What is the meaning of comparing the goodness of acts done by different people?

Every person can only choose what he himself will do. If there are a number of choices available to one person, it makes sense to ask which of them is better. The answer will determine how that person ought to act.

But what difference does the answer to your question make? Suppose the answer is "the first man". Ok. Now what? Or suppose the answer is "the second man". Again, now what?
Click to expand...


Those were my thoughts.

OK, I was actually thinking: How do we generate a formula for the relative goodness of charitable acts by different people; where's the data we can use to derive the parameters? But you said it better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom