Ethical question of the month

[Rodion Romanovich]

...well, not that I'm sure I will post one each month, but I may, if I'm not too lazy...

Here's the question:
You're in a particular scenario, where you can choose between two options, let's call them A and B. If you choose option A, something pretty harmless, but not entirely to your liking, happens. If you choose option B, a new situation, let's call it C, arises. In scenario C, a lot of people will choose to commit horrible, despicable actions which you think are horrible beyond reason. You would never dream of committing such actions, not even in scenario C, but a lot of others would (but these others will almost certainly not commit them in the scenario created by choosing A), unless you can make them change. There may not be too great chances that you can make them change, however.

So, in the initial scenario, when you are to choose between option A, and option B, and consider the above information, which option should you choose? Or do you need further information before you can make the decision? If so, which information would make you able to choose?

I find this ethical question quite fascinating as the pattern captures a great number of the different ethical issues that I have changed opinion in during the most recent years. I'm interested to see which view is most common, my old view, or my new view, as I often meet people who frown at my new personal preference of action in a situation like the one above. My new choice is usually A, while previously I often found myself choosing B. Often, it seems when I explain I hold opinion A, that a lot of people think I hold the same opinion as the people who choose to commit evil deeds in scenario C above. I see it the opposite way: by choosing A, I show more clearly than one who chooses B, that I'm totally disgusted by the potential evil deeds in scenario C. Am I right or am I wrong?

[macsen rufus]

Hmm, the question seems a bit abstract - do you have any specific example in mind you could give to illustrate? I generally find the ethics of situations to be in the particulars rather than the generalities. The only point in general which I could offer so far would be that one is only responsible for one's own actions. What someone else chooses to do in response is their own responsibility :bow:

[Fragony]

Are we trying to achieve the same thing with both A and B? And would B have the biggest individual payoff? Would be more fun if C was a minor possibility, and everyone would have to chose between A and B. Who does what :beam:

[lars573]

Your question is very flawed. As there are zero personal benefits for making either choice. In fact it seems purposefully vague to rig it so a person chooses option A)

[atheotes]

From the details provided i am not sure if anyone would choose B. I am not sure about generalisng for ethics either.

[Goofball]

Hmm, the question seems a bit abstract - do you have any specific example in mind you could give to illustrate? I generally find the ethics of situations to be in the particulars rather than the generalities. The only point in general which I could offer so far would be that one is only responsible for one's own actions. What someone else chooses to do in response is their own responsibility :bow:

How about this:


You're in a particular scenario, where you can choose between two options, let's call them A and B. If you choose option A, something pretty harmless, but not entirely to your liking, happens contraceptives will be legal and available to all women who want them. If you choose option B, a new situation, let's call it C, arises, in which all methods of birth control are illegal. In scenario C, a lot of people will choose to commit horrible, despicable actions abort unwanted pregnancies, which you think are is horrible beyond reason. You would never dream of committing such actions aborting a pregnancy, not even in scenario C if it was an unwanted pregnancy brought about because of the lack of contraceptives, but a lot of others would (but these others will almost certainly not commit them not have to have abortions in the scenario created by choosing A) if contraceptives are not available to them, unless you can make them change convince them to remain sexually abstinent. There may not be too great chances that you can make them change convince them to remain sexually abstinent, however.

[rotorgun]

We in the military often have to deal with these kinds of moral dilemma, such as wether or not to issue an order to a group of individuals which could knowingly lead to their certain injury or death, balanced against the need to preserve the greater of part of your force. Option C, in this case, would be where a failure to act on your part, or giving into your own desire to complain about the situation will only lead others to make poor choices as well-such as inciting to mutiny, etc.

I think Goofball's example is a great one as well, showing the moral dilemma of encouraging a lack of sexual abstinance by making contraceptives widely available to reduce the number of potential abortions through unwanted pregnacies. In both cases, a realistic mindframe must go into the decision.

[macsen rufus]

Hmm, I'm afraid I see absolutely no dilemma in Goofball's re-write. I'm 100% for option A, period. It's not my place to control or preach anyone's sexual behaviour. To take option B requires an a priori assumption that sexual abstinence is a good thing, so good it needs to be imposed on people. Sexual activity is not bad in and of itself, but people do need to be educated about all its potential consequences, especially in relation to their own circumstances (ie age, disease, gender, emotional impacts etc) so they are capable of assuming the necessary responsibility for their actions and choices. But dilemma? None there for me.

[IrishArmenian]

A of course! This takes no thinking!

[Goofball]

Hmm, I'm afraid I see absolutely no dilemma in Goofball's re-write.

That's because you're not a Republican trying to secure the goodwill of the Christian Right...

:beam: