This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Ethics Question of Your Day

edited March 2012 in Flamewars
I've found many, many threads discussing ethics, but not really a catch-all for many different ethics questions.

Here's a quandary I sometimes find myself asking: Suppose one has an opportunity to make a lot of money by being a talk show host, running for political office, or what have you by espousing and supporting political beliefs they find detestable. Would that be wrong? Would it diminish their actual beliefs?

What about a family discussion or a discussion with friends or co-workers? Does one have any sort of obligation to defend their beliefs if they hear them being discussed and subsequently derided? Specifically, say one is of a very liberal bent. If one goes to lunch with his co-workers and those co-workers start discussing abortion and it turns out that all of one's co-workers think abortion is an evil thing that should be made illegal, does one have an obligation to speak up?
«134

Comments

  • edited March 2012
    Here's a quandary I sometimes find myself asking: Suppose one has an opportunity to make a lot of money by being a talk show host, running for political office, or what have you by espousing and supporting political beliefs they find detestable. Would that be wrong? Would it diminish their actual beliefs?
    Imagine if say, a neo nazi espoused nice and happy political beliefs for money. Well, they aren't causing any harm. Whether it diminished their neo nazi beliefs is totally up to them in their own mind. The only problems are dishonesty and hypocrisy. So it's only as wrong if you think lying in and of itself is wrong. I personally believe in honesty, and I like calling out lies whenever I see them. But for something to be wrong, it has to be harmful.
    What about a family discussion or a discussion with friends or co-workers? Does one have any sort of obligation to defend their beliefs if they hear them being discussed and subsequently derided? Specifically, say one is of a very liberal bent. If one goes to lunch with his co-workers and those co-workers start discussing abortion and it turns out that all of one's co-workers think abortion is an evil thing that should be made illegal, does one have an obligation to speak up?
    There is no obligation to do anything. Free speech means freedom not to speak. If you want to avoid confrontation or keep your feelings a secret, then so be it.

    Then again, if you charge into battle bravely, there is an opportunity for heroics. But nobody can look down on you and say you were wrong not to go charging out of the trench.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • What about a family discussion or a discussion with friends or co-workers? Does one have any sort of obligation to defend their beliefs if they hear them being discussed and subsequently derided? Specifically, say one is of a very liberal bent. If one goes to lunch with his co-workers and those co-workers start discussing abortion and it turns out that all of one's co-workers think abortion is an evil thing that should be made illegal, does one have an obligation to speak up?
    There is no obligation to do anything. Free speech means freedom not to speak. If you want to avoid confrontation or keep your feelings a secret, then so be it.

    Then again, if you charge into battle bravely, there is an opportunity for heroics. But nobody can look down on you and say you were wrong not to go charging out of the trench.
    Agreed. I have kept quite in many discussions I have felt strongly about because I just didn't want to have the fight.
  • So it's only as wrong if you think lying in and of itself is wrong. I personally believe in honesty, and I like calling out lies whenever I see them. But for something to be wrong, it has to be harmful.
    What if a person was having a hard time finding a good job, but then talked to a chiropractor (or maybe an acupuncturist) and decided to go into the fake medicine field even though they didn't believe in the fake medicine, but they just wanted to make money?

  • So it's only as wrong if you think lying in and of itself is wrong. I personally believe in honesty, and I like calling out lies whenever I see them. But for something to be wrong, it has to be harmful.
    What if a person was having a hard time finding a good job, but then talked to a chiropractor (or maybe an acupuncturist) and decided to go into the fake medicine field even though they didn't believe in the fake medicine, but they just wanted to make money?

    That's wrong only because those professions cause harm.

  • So it's only as wrong if you think lying in and of itself is wrong. I personally believe in honesty, and I like calling out lies whenever I see them. But for something to be wrong, it has to be harmful.
    What if a person was having a hard time finding a good job, but then talked to a chiropractor (or maybe an acupuncturist) and decided to go into the fake medicine field even though they didn't believe in the fake medicine, but they just wanted to make money?

    Isn't that the whole point of fake medicine anyway? To scam people out of their money? :-P

  • So it's only as wrong if you think lying in and of itself is wrong. I personally believe in honesty, and I like calling out lies whenever I see them. But for something to be wrong, it has to be harmful.
    What if a person was having a hard time finding a good job, but then talked to a chiropractor (or maybe an acupuncturist) and decided to go into the fake medicine field even though they didn't believe in the fake medicine, but they just wanted to make money?
    Isn't that the whole point of fake medicine anyway? To scam people out of their money? :-P
    Scam the scared and helpless out of their money. ~_^
  • So it's only as wrong if you think lying in and of itself is wrong. I personally believe in honesty, and I like calling out lies whenever I see them. But for something to be wrong, it has to be harmful.
    What if a person was having a hard time finding a good job, but then talked to a chiropractor (or maybe an acupuncturist) and decided to go into the fake medicine field even though they didn't believe in the fake medicine, but they just wanted to make money?

    Isn't that the whole point of fake medicine anyway? To scam people out of their money? :-P

    If only it were always malicious. Some people genuinely believe that they're helping. That what they're doing is valid.
  • So it's only as wrong if you think lying in and of itself is wrong. I personally believe in honesty, and I like calling out lies whenever I see them. But for something to be wrong, it has to be harmful.
    What if a person was having a hard time finding a good job, but then talked to a chiropractor (or maybe an acupuncturist) and decided to go into the fake medicine field even though they didn't believe in the fake medicine, but they just wanted to make money?

    That's wrong only because those professions cause harm.

    Sometimes they're just robbers. I know some people who take supplementary fake medicine and they don't have additional problems. If you make sure it isn't advertised as a complete treatment and doesn't have anything harmful in itself in it I don't see a problem. Placebos are good.
  • Here's a quandary I sometimes find myself asking: Suppose one has an opportunity to make a lot of money by being a talk show host, running for political office, or what have you by espousing and supporting political beliefs they find detestable. Would that be wrong? Would it diminish their actual beliefs?
    Doing it for money isn't what is wrong with this. The real question is; if you espoused or supported political beliefs you found detestable, did you do harm to the things you believe in? If you have the opprotunity to make "a lot" of money by doing it, that probably means that people who support the the things you detest stand to gain "a lot" if you do it. What you believe in private is immaterial if your actions don't support it.

    For example, if you believe that abortion is a woman's right to choose and you are offered a pile of cash to attack it, that means you were probably in a position to do abortion a great deal of harm by doing so. The money is just a measure of what your integrity, credability and reputation are worth.

    The bottom line is, if you're going to sell out don't sell cheap; that's all you'll have afterward.
  • I would never argue in favor for the war on women, not for any amount of money. In fact, I'd document the proof that they bribed me and alert the media or something.
  • I would never argue in favor for the war on women, not for any amount of money. In fact, I'd document the proof that they bribed me and alert the media or something.
    That's the spirit! Keep that up and someone might offer to make you very rich ;)
  • Bare minimum, misrepresenting yourself is a form of dishonesty, albeit rather minor. Motive and context are relevant (devil's advocate, playing a board game, debate class etc). If you're asking the question "What should you do when..." you'll need to be way more specific about the matter at hand.

    On the second question, standing up for a thing is sometimes commendable, and under certain circumstances failing to stand up for a thing may become condemnable, but for the vast majority of situations it's an acceptable choice to avoid non-meaningful confrontation. Also the ethical status of the topic at hand a necessary component.

  • edited March 2012
    Joe, forget lots of money! This is a real argument my boss and I have had many times over the years in the low-margin, low-paycheck news industry.

    She likes to send reporters after UFO sighting stories when they inevitably crop up. Around Halloween time, she's always on the prowl for "real life" ghost stories and eye-witness accounts of the other-natural. She considers them entertaining, and not from a skepticism standpoint. She also saw no problem with sending a reporter out to check out a local homeopathy convention.

    In these cases, I always argue that our publications have an ethical obligation to fall back on those "fact" thingies and not contribute to the perpetuation of myths, pseudoscience, and outright lies. People are stupid.

    Speaking of, this is the same boss who this morning complained to me that her "Wikipedia isn't working."
    POP QUIZ: What was she talking about?
    a) Wikipedia
    b) Firefox
    c) Laser printer cartridge
    Post edited by Jason on
  • I'm gonna guess C) because at this point in her life she is just printing off Wikipedia articles and passing them off as news, and thus got confused?
  • Joe, forget lots of money! This is a real argument my boss and I have had many times over the years in the low-margin, low-paycheck news industry.

    She likes to send reporters after UFO sighting stories when they inevitably crop up. Around Halloween time, she's always on the prowl for "real life" ghost stories and eye-witness accounts of the other-natural. She considers them entertaining, and not from a skepticism standpoint. She also saw no problem with sending a reporter out to check out a local homeopathy convention.

    In these cases, I always argue that our publications have an ethical obligation to fall back on those "fact" thingies and not contribute to the perpetuation of myths, pseudoscience, and outright lies. People are stupid.
    c) Laser printer cartridge
    Doesn't reporting on these things let people see them and question them? Even if the reports are positive it should still be on the viewer/readership to question what they see/read. Those who do will see through the spin. Or do you see it as an obligation to prevent those who do not question from being exposed to misinformation and lies?

  • Doesn't reporting on these things let people see them and question them? Even if the reports are positive it should still be on the viewer/readership to question what they see/read. Those who do will see through the spin. Or do you see it as an obligation to prevent those who do not question from being exposed to misinformation and lies?
    The coverage of these things is always "balanced" in that it portrays the crazy UFO person as being a legitimate source of information on an event, balanced by an equal "skeptical" counterpoint. Far too much weight is given to the crazy side, and many people are led to believe by all of the coverage in this manner that there is in fact a story where there isn't.


  • Doesn't reporting on these things let people see them and question them? Even if the reports are positive it should still be on the viewer/readership to question what they see/read. Those who do will see through the spin. Or do you see it as an obligation to prevent those who do not question from being exposed to misinformation and lies?
    The coverage of these things is always "balanced" in that it portrays the crazy UFO person as being a legitimate source of information on an event, balanced by an equal "skeptical" counterpoint. Far too much weight is given to the crazy side, and many people are led to believe by all of the coverage in this manner that there is in fact a story where there isn't.

    Sadly, The History Channel is really, really guilty of this in a sort of backhanded way. They will air programs on that channel about actual history, and then they'll air programs about ancient astronauts, Bigfoot, Nostradamus, and stuff like that that have exactly the same tone of reporting as the actual history shows. I would not be surprised in the least if some kid grows up thinking ancient astronauts are real because he saw a lot of programs about them on The History Channel.

  • edited March 2012
    The coverage of these things is always "balanced" in that it portrays the crazy UFO person as being a legitimate source of information on an event, balanced by an equal "skeptical" counterpoint.
    This just isn't true. The fact is that real reporters* by and large use excellent judgment and do not offer false balance.

    The problem is that simply covering a UFO story in any way -- even skeptically -- still lends credence to the UFO idiots. The appeal-to-authority response that happens subconsciously for most readers is, "If it's in the newspaper at all, it must be credible." This is why readers wrongly assume anyone charged in a crime is guilty of said crime (see Casey Anthony, or alternately the Boston Legal two-parter "Schadenfreude" starring Heather Locklear).

    Even after reading and agreeing with a skeptical argument, faulty memories and impressions can also warp so that consumers think an article or opinion piece said something completely opposite.

    Studies have shown that people resist facts that don't fit their preconceptions anyway, and memory of an article is often just plain wrong.
    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
    http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/hoff.htm

    *Read: Non-sensationalist guys in the trenches. You know, the ones who are dirt poor because readers/viewers are more interested in embellished truths and "WHAT HOUSEHOLD SUBSTANCE COULD BE KILLING OUR KIDS, FILM AT 11" (see the Dr. Oz-fueled ABC News apple juice scare) than actual facts.

    @Joe: There was a semi-recent South Park about the History Channel idiocy. Seek it out, my son.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited March 2012
    I would not be surprised in the least if some kid grows up thinking ancient astronauts are real because he saw a lot of programs about them on The History Channel.
    Fucking this. I was talking with one of my coworkers the other day, and he's a generally cool, liberal, nerdy, late-20's/early-30's year old guy, but he started talking about the ALIENS WHO BUILT THE PYRAMIDS. Another coworker and I stood there, stunned, as he argued his case. Where did he learn these ridiculous things?

    The History Channel.
    Post edited by YoshoKatana on
  • I would not be surprised in the least if some kid grows up thinking ancient astronauts are real because he saw a lot of programs about them on The History Channel.
    Fucking this. I was talking with one of my coworkers the other day, and he's a generally cool, liberal, nerdy, late-20's/early-30's year old guy, but he started talking about the ALIENS WHO BUILT THE PYRAMIDS. Another coworker and I stood there, stunned, as he argued his case. Where did he learn these ridiculous things?

    The History Channel.
    You know we are all going to feel really dumb if aliens land tomorrow and want to sue our race based on patent infringement from their design of the pyramids.

    I actually did not know The History Channel was that bad until I watched the South Park episode that joked about it.
  • The History Channel was bad when I was in high school. I can only imagine how much worse it is now.
  • NeoNeo
    edited March 2012
    This conversation about giving time and attention to unsubstantiated crazy opinions passed off as "hearing both sides of the story" reminds me of a recent change NPR has made to their ethics handbook:

    In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth.
    http://ethics.npr.org/

    and

    At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly.
    http://ethics.npr.org/category/b-fairness/#1-fairness-in-storytelling
    Post edited by Neo on
  • edited April 2012
    The History Channel was bad when I was in high school. I can only imagine how much worse it is now.
    History Channel has really decayed a lot over the years. About the only channel I can think of that's decayed anywhere near the same amount is The Learning Channel, which went from a legitimate Discovery Channel competitor (with cool British imports like Connections 2 and The Day the Universe Changed as well as NASA backing) to the "tattoo, motorcycle, midget, and sideshow freak" channel after Discovery bought them out. A&E (the parent of History and where much of History's former history programming originated) and Bravo have also decayed quite a bit.

    What a lot of these channels seem to have in common is that they tried to be commercial versions of PBS. TLC was all about science/nature/etc. documentary shows. A&E was about fine arts, theater, and a smattering of history and biographies (later to be spun off to their own channels). Bravo was also about fine performance art until it became more or less the "trashy rich women reality TV" channel (although I admit I do like Top Chef -- but it's more of a game show than reality TV IMHO, plus I consider gourmet cooking to be something of a fine art anyway, so it gets a pass). Apparently, the PBS-like programming just didn't make any money, so they had to go the trashy TV route.

    This is why I give a big "fuck you" to people who say "we don't need PBS, the market will provide other avenues for PBS-style programming." The market has tried and failed.
    Post edited by Dragonmaster Lou on
  • Where is the new Cosmos going to be airing? Is it going to be on PBS?
  • Were Nazi medics evil? They were helping people, but the people they were helping were Nazis.
  • Were Nazi medics evil? They were helping people, but the people they were helping were Nazis.
    What if you were an allied medic, and you helped a Nazi?

    My great uncle was a Jewish allied medic who took part in the liberation of at least one concentration camp. I don't e, know very many other details. It's obviously not something he talked about. I do know he had a hat and a gun from a Nazi officer that he showed me. Pretty sure it was an officer, because who else has a pistol? I do not know if he killed someone, took it from a dead body, found it lying on the ground, etc.

    The way I see it, a person is a person. If you do anything to save the life of any person, it's good.
  • However, if you assist a person doing great harm, you are in effect doing harm as well as good.
  • Were Nazi medics evil? They were helping people, but the people they were helping were Nazis.
    What if you were an allied medic, and you helped a Nazi?

    My great uncle was a Jewish allied medic who took part in the liberation of at least one concentration camp. I don't e, know very many other details. It's obviously not something he talked about. I do know he had a hat and a gun from a Nazi officer that he showed me. Pretty sure it was an officer, because who else has a pistol? I do not know if he killed someone, took it from a dead body, found it lying on the ground, etc.

    The way I see it, a person is a person. If you do anything to save the life of any person, it's good.
    Granted, I'm not an expert in Jewish theology, but from what little I do know, it does say that "all human life, Jewish or non-Jewish, is equally sacred" and that one should always do one's best to save any human lives that are in danger -- even at the exclusion of other Jewish laws such as not working on the Sabbath (doctors, EMTs, and such are excused as it's their job to save lives), and so on. You're not even allowed to save a Jew over a non-Jew based on their Jewishness -- the only way you're allowed to choose who to save when you can only save one among multiple people is that you are to pick the one who's mostly likely to survive.
  • However, if you assist a person doing great harm, you are in effect doing harm as well as good.
    This is a quantitative analysis, not a qualitative one. The classic problem you run into with comparative ethics is the conflation of ideals and pragmatism.
Sign In or Register to comment.