Ethics

[joreth]

tacit has written a post on ethics and I want to direct everyone's attention to it because it's a good thought-provoking post.  But I also wanted to repost my own response to add to my "me manual".

The entry is tacit's own response to a question about ethical considerations regarding relationship cheating.  For instance, most people agree it's unethical to cheat on your partner, but many people don't think it's unethical to be the person the cheater is cheating with.  tacit's journal entry includes a poll with several situations where you are supposed to give your opinion on whether or not that situation is "ethical".  Rather than repost the poll here, or the many many many responses to it that prompted my own response, I just suggest ya'll go and read it.  I'll wait.



I hadn't even made it all the way through question #2 when I came up with a "what if" to ask tacit.  These questions are very difficult to answer, especially if one is in the habit of asking "what if".  But I took the poll using the simplest assumptions, sort of the Occam's Razor method to poll-taking.  Then I read the responses, which are almost exclusively filled with "but what ifs". 

Here's my response:

First of all, I think that waffling on the "what ifs" defeats the purpose of this poll, which is to discover a person's overall ethical mindset. There are going to be fuzzy areas, grey areas and exceptions to EVERYTHING. I'm the queen of the what-ifs. That's not the point. The point is, where do I draw the line between ethical and unethical behaviour? If I think being the "other woman" is generally unethical but can think of some exceptions where it might be OK, that gives an indication of where my ethics lie. So the answer is "no" because *generally* I think it's bad.

(for the record, I can't think of any exceptions that make it "ethical" in my rule book, but that's a whole separate discussion).

I also had to go with "unethical" in the prepubescent sex questions even though I was a very sexual child and I believe that some individuals *are* capable of making those kinds of decisions at younger ages than others, because *generally* I think it violates the whole informed consent deal. The phrase "pre-pubescent" implies that the body is not yet developed for a sexual relationship, regardless of mental status and I think that helps to narrow down the "exceptions" a bit. Now, if we're talking 17 year olds ... that's a lot fuzzier. I think it's safe to assume that the intention of the question was not to make exceptions for a person who would naturally find it distasteful but is required to do so in order to prevent further or larger injustices (i.e. a cop collecting evidence) or by trickery and deceit.

Part of the problem, I think, has to do with varying definitions of "ethics". I like tacit's other post on ethics, where he describes how the "ethical" consideration has to do with the path of greater courage. For instance, *in general*, lying is wrong. But the neighbor hiding the Jewish family when the Nazis come knocking at the door and deliberately lying about their whereabouts takes greater courage than telling the truth and is therefore not unethical.  I would like to add that my definition of "ethical", in addition to being the courageous choice, also includes not deliberately harming other people by action or inaction and taking responsibility for my part in the law of unintended consequences.

I like to take the path of greater courage, even though I have faltered in the past and I'm sure will falter in the future. It's frightening and it hurts, but I think it makes me a more ethical person. When it comes to telling the truth, yes there are other considerations like "is it necessary". For instance, my mom really doesn't need to hear the details of my BDSM and sex life. But when it comes to courage, it is more courageous to stand up to my parents and be honest about who I am romantically involved with and how important they are to me then to hide behind a safety blanket of "they don't need to know". So I won't be telling my mom that I spent most of this morning shackled to zen_shooter's ceiling, but I also won't hide his existence from her because it might be "easier" than trying to explain why I'm dating him when I am already dating tacit.

Courage is difficult and terrifying. But in the end, I have very few regrets about my life, I sleep with an easy conscience, and I wrestle with very few demons or moral dilemmas. I genuinely like myself and who I have become. Not many other people can say that about themselves. 

Comments

[leora.livejournal.com]

I think what it boils down to is that you only have a right to relevant informed consent. For sex, what is relevant is whatever youthink is, so that makes it broader. But for most transactions that isn't the case. And just because you care about some unrelated issue doesn't oblige other people to tell you their standing in that regard when trying to interact with you.

Actually, people often feel they do have a right to more info than they do. They want to know why someone has the disability aids that they have before letting them have accomodations for their disability. They don't have a right to that info. They have a right, in many cases, to some sort of proof that an animal is a guide animal or that the person has been authorized to have a handicapped placard or similar disability transportation pass. They don't have a right to the medical details. And in many cases they might want to make their personal, uneducated judgement on which disabilities are worthy of helping and which aren't, which can make keeping your mouth shut if you have an unpopular disability a very good idea. And yes, I should get to sit in the seats reserved for the disaabled whether or not you think my disability is real and whether or not you know someone who knows someone who had the same symptoms (you assume) who got better just by exercising, taking vitamins, or getting accupuncture or whatever other thing you think is all I need to do.

Now that your other response came in, I think the general point is that what you see as exceptions I see as most interactions. I think the case where someone is owed information is the exception, which is why I stated that in my first comment.

Which means, I don't think we really disagree on ethics, so much as we view the world differently or have different experiences. And yes, explaining your viewpoint in your journal is a good thing to do. :) It just causes people like me to ramble about their viewpoint.

[joreth]

"Which means, I don't think we really disagree on ethics, so much as we view the world differently or have different experiences"

I agree, this is a valid statement :-)