[Buddha-l] Ethical Dilemmas

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 10-06-10 18:24, Dan Lusthaus schreef:
> Erik,
>    
>> Let me remind you that ethics is not about the best decision, but the
>> about which decision one can justify the best.
>>      
> That's an odd -- and dangerous -- definition of ethics. Anything can be
> "justified" after the fact.
>    
No, this just the difference between ' is'  and ' ought' . We 're not 
talking politics or retorics, but ethics. So if to the best of your 
knowledge drilling oil into deep sea has the most benefit for the most 
people, it is ethically justified. You may get sued if you're sloppy, 
but ethics is not the same as penal law.
>    
>> So it's a decision to the
>> best of your knowledge.
>>      
> Different situations have different stipulations. Deciding who gets the
> first cookie is not the same as deciding who lives and dies, and the
> requisite information and grasp of principles is radically different for
> each situation.
>    
Now that is what I call dangerous. You can wipe your ass with principles 
and ethics if the stakes are high enough. The gosts of Stalin and Poll 
Pot are applauding.
>    
>> It is obvious that the decision that causes he
>> least amount of victims is the easiest to justify, no matter what kind
>> of ethical vision you use.
>>      
> Nonsense. There is nothing obvious about it. It depends who they are. They
> are not simply equal-unit integers. Quantity might be one factor to
> consider, but not the sole factor, nor will it invariably trump all other
> factors.
>    
Thank you for this subtle wisdom, but I don't do bigotry. Every human 
being has my solidarity: men, women, old and young educated or not, any 
race.
>
>    
>> The most difficult one is when you have two
>> persons against each other.
>>      
> Only if they are "equal in every respect" -- which rarely is the case.
>
> Let me illustrate the insufficiency of relying on quantification to decide
> by offering a well-known example from the rabbinic tradition.
>
> Situation 1:
> Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person
> X be turned over to them (they intend to kill that person), and they will
> let everyone else go. Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do?
>    
Disregard the blackmail.
> Situation 2:
> Your city (group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand you hand
> over any person to them, and they will let everyone else go. (they intend to
> kill that person.) Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do?
>    
As before.
> Situation 3:
> Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person
> X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. They want
> Person X for a capital offense, for which Person X is known to be guilty.
> Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do?
>    
Offer a public trial. No blackmail.
> Situation 4:
> Your city (or group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand Person
> X be turned over to them, and they will let everyone else go. Person X is an
> innocent person, Otherwise they will kill everyone. What do you do?
>    
As before.
> Situation 5:
> Your city (group, or caravan) is under siege. The attackers demand you hand
> over any five (or ten, or twenty) persons to them, and they will let
> everyone else go. (they intend to kill those people.) Otherwise they will
> kill everyone. What do you do?
>    
Disregard the blackmail.
> Your supposedly "obvious" justification is why the Nazis could fill
> concentration camps with innocent people. "We" were saved by turning "them"
> over, and there's more of us than them. Hallelujah! Obvious!
>
>    
Let's not go there Dan. Ethics is the best without retorical violence. I 
personally have no affection for any kind of bigotry. I would even 
testify against my own brother if he were a kind of Mladic and he would 
return the favour. We both know it and we're proud of it. An important 
argument is that all this taking sides with next of kin is only short 
term benefit and disastrous in the long run.

erik