Hey all, Bryan needs the help of EC. I have stumbled upon a question that I need a variety of perspectives on. The question is simple: "Why should people be ethical?" Application: "Suppose the world comes to a Dystopia, and everybody is living in poverty, governments fall apart, society crumbles. There is one man with lots of food and resources but he is unwilling to share to the general public unless it benefits him. How would you convince him to be ethical and share it with the public even if it does not benefit him?" Thank you for your participation!
As far as convincing him, he's unwilling to share unless it benefits him. So, you have to give him something of use or desire to him. Maybe material, maybe services, whatever he wants, I guess. Keep in mind, if he's being so unethical, the option does exist for everyone to also be unethical. So, the general public could kill this man and take his food and resources. That wouldn't be ethical either, so I don't know if that fits into the restrictions of your question. Good question.
Being humanitarian changes its normal meaning when the survival of everybody depends on one thing. People need food and resources. If this actually happened then I'm pretty sure someone would act in the intentions of the masses and take the power away from this guy, whether it's in death or not, and redistribute the food and resources more evenly. If you're talking about a less simplified imbalance of wealth and power far past the imbalance we have today, then I do think people would turn towards social revolution and the masses would expropriate the rich.
Your question itself is unethical. You want a different answer to a different question.....!!!! In general, the definition of ethics changes from person to person. I think its the circumstance in life that defines your move as moralistic .You have to be unethical sometimes and still do good to the people around you. Ya.. I just read Shantaram !
i think it would be pretty difficult to give him a reason why he should share his stuff, other than those like 'you should do so' or 'its the right thing to do' But ultimately surely that's what ethics are. They aren't a weighing up of what i get from this situation, its your instinctive feeling as to what is right and what is wrong. In this situation i believe the majority of people wouldn't need to be convinced to share what they have. I feel most people would instinctively know that it is the right thing to do, and thus would share. Or do i have too much of a naive view of people?
Yeah.. the entire thing surrounds the notion of "ethics". I'll respond to a few suggestions provided thus far. There is no such thing as a "wrong" suggestion; I am just responding with the prevalent theory of "ethics" from different schools. I do not have any credentials in ethics, so what I might be erroneous. The deontologists (a major school in normative ethics) believes that whether or not a person is ethical depends on their intentions.. So if he spared food but did not do it out of the intention of wanting to benefit others, a deontologist would claim that he is not ethical. The school of "consequentialism" (believes that the end justifies the means) agrees with you, but deontologists won't. It's the question of "killing one to save five". I feel too that ethics is subjective to its core. But doesn't that undermine the entire study of normative ethics? Why should we say that someone is behaving "unethical" when simply their ethics differ from ours? Yeah, I learned that a lot of theories on ethics are all based on the "instinct" that you mentioned.. They call it "common sense" ethics. But truly though, are these "instincts" by birth of all human beings, or are they more cultural in nature? Either way, it is pretty subjective as one's instincts might differ from another's.
I'm pretty sure that in such an extreme situation, even the most hardcore deontologists would stretch their philosophies to accommodate the needs of billions. That's why I used the term 'humanitarian'. I tend to be a tad nihilistic when it comes to moral boundaries…
it depends on the circumstances of the situation. if the guy busted his balls to get the food and properly store it, then i say he should be compensated for his hard work. Or if he busted his ass to get the food and store it but everyone around him was an asshole to him over the years or whatever then yeah he should be a dick about it. Now if it was my own personal survival and the survival of my family and friends, and I didn't know this guy at all I would just kill him and take it by force, i could care less about ethics and moral's when it comes to the survival of me and my family/friends (treat others, as you would want to be treated; if he's going to act like an asshole i'm going to treat him like one)
Isn't ethics by definition, the distinction between what is right and wrong? So why should you be ethical? Because it's what's right, so it's what you, by definition, should do. As for the application, idk. You could try to bribe him (he may have food and resources, but you have the rest of the world and its people) but that would benefit him, so that's out. Guilt him I guess.
well, he if he hording all the food, he probably is fat, because he clearly has all the food anyone could need, and more so... so you kill him, cut him up, take his food, and have fatguy bbq. okay... grossness aside. ethics is a idea, not a fact. it only has power when everyone involved agrees to abide by it. as long as fatty mcFoodHorder refuses to consider that what he is doing is harmful, than there is little you can do but take it by force.
To be honest, there is no reason at all to be ethical. There is no reason to be ethical, its a personal choice. I like a quote of Aristotle's "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." If he doesn't accept ethics, there really isn't any argument you can make, because there is no logical reason to be ethical (except for perhaps, you'll feel better about yourself if you are...).
