Degrees of ethics

[PaulG]

Hi everyone,

This is my 1st post other than an introduction, so please go easy on me

Scenario: A and B work in the same agency which has a high level of responsibility in the community, as well as a significant contact with the police. Both individuals have been employed by the agency for approximately the same time. Both individuals regularly commit minor breaches of the law, however, A states that he can get away with it because of his relationship with the police. A has an expectation that any minor infractions of the legal system will be ignored or covered up because of that relationship. B, on the other hand accepts that the behaviour is illegal, however, states a willingness to accept full punishment, even increased punishment because of the position held.

Discussion: A's attitude suggests an expectation that an additional breach of ethical behaviour is an expectation. B believes that full punishment should be expected and, therefore, willing to accept that. A can be seen to be less ethical due to the expectation that further unethical behaviour will occur should A be caught. Therefore, B is in a more ethical position than A.

Questions: Is the above discussion valid? Can ethical behaviour be graded in terms of an individual's expectations?

I hope I have presented this sufficiently. If not, please let me know how to improve it.


PaulG.

[de_budding]

I think first that the assumption of law as a definitive ethical code needs addressing; here is a list from the BBC of the most 'most ludicrous laws'...

# 1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament
# 2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king or queen’s image upside-down
# 3. It is illegal for a woman to be topless in Liverpool except as a clerk in a tropical fish store
# 4. Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned
# 5. If someone knocks on your door in Scotland and requires the use of your toilet, you are required to let them enter
# 6. In the UK a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman’s helmet
# 7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen
# 8. It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing
# 9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armor
# 10. It is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls of York, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow

I personally disregard these laws, and could go on to assert that it is unethical to impose such a system of control on the general public. But lets assume that this is 'the' ethical code, and we are asking- if expectations (or intentions- expectations of one's actions/self) of an ethical sort count as ethical behavior, on the same level as committing ethical actions (ethical actions being that which are governed by law as 'legal').

I would say intentions and expectations count for a lot in a court of law, the difference between man slaughter and murder (the former within our law system being more ethical) is expectations or intentions is it not?

A man goes to push his wife (who is at the top of some stairs) and on approach expects himself to kill her in doing so, is comparable to a man who, on approach didn't expect himself to kill her, but expected himself to surprise her, as a joke, but unfortunately she fell down the stairs and died.

In this respect the expectations we have of our self and our actions governs how ethical we are, but this is coupled with actions. I don't think we can start to judge ethics in the scope of law without actions to impact and judge each other by. But once actions happen we then decide to look at the intentions and expectations of the commiter, to decide how 'evil' said person is. SO...

Can ethical behavior be graded in terms of an individual's expectations?

I would say no, not of each other especially, just because I expect you or me to behave better just shows a more controlling and and domineering character. But if you couple your expectations with actions, i.e follow through and act out your expectations or, lead by example if you will. You are then being more ethical.

Also I want to quickly add that my personal ethical code (as opposed to law) could include such rules as- it is right to run over pedestrians who step into the road, and I expect people/myself to do this and I then go on to lead by example and act according to my expectations... In the eyes of every one I'm sure I am unethical... I think back to my first paragraph, there is no real objective ethical code, so there is no real right or wrong.

Dan.

[Ron C. de Weijze]

Individual expectations must submit to cultural expectations, therefore a non-criminal not submitting to criminal cultural expectations is breaching 'ethical behavior', e.g. when writers and cartoonists are on death-lists or thrown in jail.

[PaulG]

If I ever get to the UK, I'll try to find a tropical fish shop in Liverpool (sorry, couldn't help that).

I see your point, the reality of intent in any action does have an impact on the interpretation of that action. It can be said that actions, in and of themselves, have no value. The interpretation of those actions, either by the actor or observers, places a value on them. The example you gave of someone scaring someone else at the top of the stairs is a good one, but, I don't think it really fits with what I was initially writing about. Lets say that A and B both speed on their way to and from work. We have an action and an intention, but there is no legal intervention at this stage. A's belief that he will be let go because of an unethical act of the police would, I contend, appear to be more unethical to an outside observer than B's. I don't believe that this question is about actual criminal behaviour or judicial responses to such behaviour, as much as how individual's perceive their positions from both individual and social ethical positions.

PaulG.

[de_budding]

A and B both speed on their way to and from work. We have an action and an intention, but there is no legal intervention at this stage. A's belief that he will be let go because of an unethical act of the police would, I contend, appear to be more unethical to an outside observer than B's

I think both would superficially be judged as equally unethical for speeding and endangering the lives of the general public, again, until A's expectations come to light and are coupled with actions- for example A does get arrested and demands his phone call, he rings the police chief's wife and voilà, charges are dropped. I would say exploitation of the rules is always a hot button for me because society works hard to uphold a structure which is easily undermined by rats and thieves, in that respect I would judge A as unethical but also the police chiefs wife.

'to an outside observer' the intentions and expectations will never be apparent until they are fulfilled by actions and the ethics judged via the ensuing consequences. In that respect I maintain that, no, you can think and expect what you want and be ethical. Your example of A speeding has demonstrated that already, the actions of speeding is the result of A's expectations of the police.

What about this- 'A' knows full well that no matter what he does, he will be let off the hook because of his situation with the police chief's wife (use your imaginations - maybe she works in a tropical fish shop) But he chooses to act within the same ethical conduct as 'B', who has no such advantage when it comes to avoiding the repercussions of the law. Is A now more ethical because even though he could break the law he chooses not to? Or again is it neither more/less ethical because he keeps his little advantage to him self and no one knows that he could, if he wanted, kill some one without fear of any repercussion.

Perhaps true nobility and ethical status lies within doing what is right for everyone, regardless of what you can can't get away with. But the only problem now is, what- if anything, is right for everyone? Again, no objective ethical code means no grounds for judgment. Perhaps I am just to ethically sceptical.

Dan

[PaulG]

Ok de_budding, I think I have seen the error of my ways. I have been talking about what can only be seen as abstract concepts at this point, that is, neither A or B have had to demonstrate their convictions in terms of dealing with their behaviour.

PaulG.

[Arjen]

I would like to counter argue de_buddings position that ethical behavior is only relevant when having to demonstrate their convictions in terms of dealing with their behavior as PaulG puts it.

The thing aout ethical behavior is that, when operating under a hypothetical imperative, with a 'goal' in mind, one does not consider what actually is 'good'. One dreams the 'goal' to be 'good'. Such 'goals' will differ from person to person and therefore such 'goals' are called hypothetical; because of their subjective nature. No matter how lofty the 'goal', it cannot be 'good' for all. Take for example 'peace on earth'. That would not be 'good' for a slaverace for instance. That peace will only be 'good' for them when they are no longer slaves. At that precise moment this particual 'goal' would turn for that particular group.

A more prudent ethical position would be a categorical imperative, with duty to the (moral) law in mind. One takes such a position by acting only according to that maxim which one can think one would like everybody to act according to.

In that sense B indeed has the more ethical position, no question about it. The reason I am able to conclude this is because of the thought that no human actually knows what 'good' is, but can only guess at it.

[de_budding]

I had an inkling you might reply Arjen; I buffed up on Kant's duty ethics and I have come to the conclusion that neither are really acting in what I would call an ethical sense, but if any one is, it is in fact A!. The two maxims that need to be subjected to the categorical imperative are... 'It is right to break the law if you can get away with it' (A) and, 'it is right to break the law if you accept the consequences when caught' (B)... do either of these 'maxims' show any sense when generalized and tested as categorical imperatives?

(A) generalized- It is right for every one to break the law if they can get away with it.

(B) generalized- It is right for every one to break the law as long as they accept the consequences... wait a minute do we have a choice to accept the consequences... NO! if your caught your caught, you do not get a choice- unless your B... so this can be revised as- it is right for every one to break the law.

At least A's maxim doesn't contradict itself, it implies a world where there are an elite few who have a right to break the law and it is not wrong for the to do so ( sure a little biased and elitist but better than B's world)... this is at least a functioning society- unlike B's! B's maxim when generalized implies a world where there is in fact no law, the maxim contradicts itself, 'It is right for every one to break the law' every one can break the law so there is in fact no law that exists, every one can and SHOULD (as it is right)- thuscan exist that mentions law. In this sense Arjen, is not A more ethical, in that he at least allows for law.

Is not A more ethical when the categorical imperative is used?

notes: The system I revised and used suggest we should- create maxims, like- 'it is right to break the law if you can get away with it'... you next have to generalize it (apply it to every one)- 'it is right for EVERYONE to break the law if they can get away with it'; after generalization if your maxim doesn't contradict itself you can at least say follow it with duty knowing your not following out of inclination, or to make yourself feel good about your self. I think what highlights this all, is you KNOW when you are doing something out of duty and when your doing it for self satisfaction, the 'sense of duty' is so obvious to me that I get frustrated to see people operate away from it... which most do

And PaulG, I don't think there was any error in your ways, just difference of opinions. And personally I think a good will, a sense of duty and a good heart can only exist if you think and act in accordance to your own ethical maxims when no one else is around. love these new emoticons.

Dan.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by de_budding

I had an inkling you might reply Arjen; I buffed up on Kant's duty ethics and I have come to the conclusion that neither are really acting in what I would call an ethical sense, but if any one is, it is in fact A!.

Well, well, mr. de_budding, when brushing up on Kant's ethics I would think you would have seperated the duty fotm the goal ethics.

As wittgenstein say's:
"A philosopher not entering into discussions is like a boxer not entering into the ring."
So, put up your dukes!

Somehow it feels as if you are actually trying to make Kant's ethics into a mockery of itself. In that sense you are most definately not ethical. The goal you are wielding is one that has in mind to overthrow the moral law. That reminds me of sophistry. Or am I mistaken?

The two maxims that need to be subjected to the categorical imperative are... 'It is right to break the law if you can get away with it' (A) and, 'it is right to break the law if you accept the consequences when caught' (B)... do either of these 'maxims' show any sense when generalized and tested as categorical imperatives?

At this point it is still clear that A has no intention whatsoever to act in a way that A can also will everybody to act in such a manner; A has just the opposite intent. Thereby showing a very unethical position with a 'goal' that would do slavedrivers proud. B on the other hand has no expectations, but simply awaits his lot. Although the criminal act which put B in the situation to be judged was most likely not very ethical, at east B is not consciously working toward an overthrowal of equal rights or the suppression of others.

(A) generalized- It is right for every one to break the law if they can get away with it.

(B) generalized- It is right for every one to break the law as long as they accept the consequences... wait a minute do we have a choice to accept the consequences... NO! if your caught your caught, you do not get a choice- unless your B... so this can be revised as- it is right for every one to break the law.

The generalisations you are making here are generalised by your own thought-objects I think. As stated above I also think you did so with a certain 'goal' in mind: the overthrowal of ethical behavior and equal rights in your reasoning.

A few remarks:
1) Your generalisation of A has nothing to do with A's intentions in the sense that A does not want everybody to get away with it, just him. As is always true for people wieding 'goals'; it would no longer be beneficial. People wielding 'goals' always use double standards.
2) Your generalisation of B has nothing to do with B's intentions in the sense that B is not concerned with anybody or anything else except seeing what is going to happen.
3) Although I may be reluctant to say that one should just await anothers judgement B at least has no intention to create a double standard and therefore (at this moment) is not acting in an unfair manner. B's intentions at this moment is at least not the most unethical, which A's intentions obviously are.

At least A's maxim doesn't contradict itself, it implies a world where there are an elite few who have a right to break the law and it is not wrong for the to do so ( sure a little biased and elitist but better than B's world)... this is at least a functioning society- unlike B's! B's maxim when generalized implies a world where there is in fact no law, the maxim contradicts itself, 'It is right for every one to break the law' every one can break the law so there is in fact no law that exists, every one can and SHOULD (as it is right)- thuscan exist that mentions law. In this sense Arjen, is not A more ethical, in that he at least allows for law.

A's maxim does contradict itself because it has the necessity for a double standard. Only in your thought-objects is this the other way around.

notes: The system I revised and used suggest we should- create maxims, like- 'it is right to break the law if you can get away with it'... you next have to generalize it (apply it to every one)- 'it is right for EVERYONE to break the law if they can get away with it'; after generalization if your maxim doesn't contradict itself you can at least say follow it with duty knowing your not following out of inclination, or to make yourself feel good about your self. I think what highlights this all, is you KNOW when you are doing something out of duty and when your doing it for self satisfaction, the 'sense of duty' is so obvious to me that I get frustrated to see people operate away from it... which most do

Because of the double standard involved those maxims are hypothetical ('goals').




Well mr de_budding, will you at least tell e why you set out to contradict Kant's ethical philosophies?

[de_budding]

Arjen,
Ok so the mistake was when I qualified goals as ethical maxims? I was under the understanding that one can take an ethical opinion like- 'it is right to steal' and turn it into a universal generalization (to prove you will it to be universal and not just for yourself) - 'it is right for everyone to steal', and then look for contradiction in the universal, like it is impossible to steal if every one is morally obliged to steal because there is no personal property to steal, it is all stolen.

Your generalization of A has nothing to do with A's intentions in the sense that A does not want everybody to get away with it, just him.

So A's maxim would be more along the lines of 'it is right for me and me only to break the law [because I can get away with it?] <--- this last bit needed? And that can't be generalized simply because it would contradict itself in that, A could not be the only one who could break the la if he applied it universally and every one could break the law. So in that respect I see that A has not even developed a ethical maxim, he is acting out of self concern only.

But B who happily speeds isn't applying his maxim either- B is not concerned with anybody or anything else except seeing what is going to happen. So it is right for him to speed [break the law] as long as his is preoccupied with seeing what is going to happen? Again I think no matter what spin we put on B, he will be breaking the law be and any maxim he tries to qualify as universal will include everybody breaking the law.

So am I wrong to suggest Kant would find neither A or B ethical because neither can generate a maxim 'whereby [they] can at the same time will it should become universal.' But we can in our own opinion of ethical operation suggest B is more ethical because at least his maxim can be generalized, where as as soon as A's maxim is generalized it contradicts itself because of the double standard (hypothetical goal). Any ethic that states 'me and me only' can never even get as far as being generalized and there for is more unethical than a maxim that can be generalized, but when it is shows contradictions, like 'every one breaking the law', if the law is broke by all, there is no law that exists to be broken.

So I repair what I say about A, and realize he is not even thinking ethically, but looking at B closer- he still has no ethical intentions and therefor they are no as bad as each other.

Dan.