Freedom

Rhinoqulous wrote

They probably won't display ethical behavior.

If their unethical behavior breaks the law they should be contained just like everyone else. If they don’t break the law they should be left alone.

<edit> I suppose this does come back to freedom. A persons right to freedom ends when they become a danger to others.

Philboid Studge wrote

That would be unethical.

So, why should someone who doesn't have empathy act ethically? Why not just be unethical? I understand that a person would be "nice" to someone else if it benefits them, but what if acting ethically doesn't benefit them and they are powerful, why should they act ethically?

Philboid Studge wrote

What's this gotta do w/ freedom?

I was thinking about freedom and human rights, and it led me to those questions.

c8 wrote

So, why should someone who doesn't have empathy act ethically? Why not just be unethical? I understand that a person would be "nice" to someone else if it benefits them, but what if acting ethically doesn't benefit them and they are powerful, why should they act ethically?

Fear of repercussions. Laws exist to help avoid just such situations its not perfect but it helps.

Why should someone act ethically? How are those ethics defined? Do people deserve certain rights? Why do they deserve them?

1. It depends. Perhaps in some cases the ethical thing is to not act ethically.

2. I think morality (not sure if that's actually separate from ethics, Rhinoq can clear that up for me I'm sure) is personally defined with heavy imput from exterior influences (read - culture, family, etc.)

3. "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it." -W. Mooney, Unforgiven

4. I don't think that people "deserve" rights.

ocmpoma wrote

1. It depends. Perhaps in some cases the ethical thing is to not act ethically.

2. I think morality (not sure if that's actually separate from ethics, Rhinoq can clear that up for me I'm sure) is personally defined with heavy imput from exterior influences (read - culture, family, etc.)

3. "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it." -W. Mooney, Unforgiven

4. I don't think that people "deserve" rights.

As I understand it it’s a question of connotations not definitions when it comes to morality vs. ethics.

Ethics tend to be personal and social
Morality tends to be a set of rules usually religion and geographically based

[Rhinoqulous]

c8 wrote

So, why should someone who doesn't have empathy act ethically?

Fear of repercussions and/or agreement with the social contract.

Why not just be unethical?

They probably would show a tendency towards unethical behavior.

I understand that a person would be "nice" to someone else if it benefits them, but what if acting ethically doesn't benefit them and they are powerful, why should they act ethically?

They probably wouldn't, and if we look at history, people in this position usually haven't.

c8 wrote

So, why should someone who doesn't have empathy act ethically? Why not just be unethical? I understand that a person would be "nice" to someone else if it benefits them, but what if acting ethically doesn't benefit them and they are powerful, why should they act ethically?

1 and 2. Well, should someone act ethically? Isn't that an ethical question? What about the question, "Will someone with no empathy act ethically?" or, "Can someone w/o empathy act ethically?"
Let's assume that helping an old lady across a busy street is ethical. Consider: a bank robber helps an old lady across a street in order to appear less conspicuous to the cops. Is his helping the lady ethical?

3. Your third question (why should someone with power act ethically?) is fairly commonly addressed, I think, by the phrase that power corrupts. Again, you're asking why should someone act ethically. That should is a tricky word to use, it makes the whole conversation kind of murky. Why should any of us do anything at all? By their nature, such questions are hard to address.

[Choobus]

Philboid Studge wrote

Fighting for freedom? "If I'm going to get my balls blown off for a word, my word is ... 'poon tang'."

as written this appears to be two words. Come on Phil, are you trading your balls for poon, or tang?

[Philboid Studge]

One ball for each.

Just Us Chickens wrote

Fear of repercussions. Laws exist to help avoid just such situations its not perfect but it helps.

What if there are no repercussions to fear? You make the laws, you are "the strong arm", and you have complete control and power. Why act ethically if it doesn't benefit you?

c8 wrote

What if there are no repercussions to fear? You make the laws, you are "the strong arm", and you have complete control and power. Why act ethically if it doesn't benefit you?

Are you referring to a single person making the laws or an unethical regime?

If the latter is the case a peasant uprising would be a good thing to worry about
If the former well a peasant uprising is still a good thing to worry about

There are always repercussions

[Rhinoqulous]

c8 wrote

What if there are no repercussions to fear?

Like I said, the person (moral agent) in question probably wouldn't act ethically.

Why act ethically if it doesn't benefit you?

See above.

You make the laws, you are "the strong arm", and you have complete control and power.

Are you referring to the most unethical moral agent in "history", the God of Abraham?

More quote mining:

"I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." -Aristotle

ocmpoma wrote

1 and 2. Well, should someone act ethically? Isn't that an ethical question? What about the question, "Will someone with no empathy act ethically?" or, "Can someone w/o empathy act ethically?"
Let's assume that helping an old lady across a busy street is ethical. Consider: a bank robber helps an old lady across a street in order to appear less conspicuous to the cops. Is his helping the lady ethical?

Why have ethics if people shouldn't act ethically?

If ethics are defined by acting out of empathy, I guess my answer would be no.

ocmpoma wrote

3. Your third question (why should someone with power act ethically?) is fairly commonly addressed, I think, by the phrase that power corrupts. Again, you're asking why should someone act ethically. That should is a tricky word to use, it makes the whole conversation kind of murky. Why should any of us do anything at all? By their nature, such questions are hard to address.

I don't know. I think I typically do things that I believe will bring me the most benefit.

Just Us Chickens wrote

Are you referring to a single person making the laws or an unethical regime?

If the latter is the case a peasant uprising would be a good thing to worry about
If the former well a peasant uprising is still a good thing to worry about

There are always repercussions

I don't think it really matters one way or the other.

There may always be some form of repercussions, but what if they don't fear them?