[voice]
Lets say you were told to do something by your boss and this certain something is typical viewed as being evil. But you don't know that to begin with. Do you go through with it especially if your life--er job is on the line? Does that make the person who did it evil or the person who thought it up more evil
( Read more... )
... Fascinating question.
"Good" and "evil" are generally arbitrary concepts, because they are defined using categories that are too broad. The more rational method is to think of ethics instead, and to base one's decisions on humanism codes so that one will reduce harm wherever possible and otherwise strive to make sound, logical decisions.
In your thought experiment, the person who conceived the job and told you to do it is the more unethical one. You were incapable of making a sound, rational decision because you did not have the information necessary to do so. Therefore, your actions were not motivated by prior knowledge, and although they were unethical, they were not done out of malicious intent. The boss, in this experiment, had access to this information and therefore had intent, so it is ultimately the boss who is the person who should bear the brunt of the charge.
Not all situations can be judged so easily, though.
Reply
Suppose the hard to judge situations would be when two parties are fighting over the same thing for different reasons, or same doesn't matter, and they both think they're right using their methods to get what they want.
Reply
Truly, though, compromise is always preferable to fighting of any sort. It is only through agreement that anything constructive occurs.
Reply
Reply
Sadly a war-free state hasn't seemed to be easy to replicate in other places, but I suppose Terrans are simply unique in some way. [The subtle implication here is "superior".]
Reply
Or your world is some sort of freaky utopia. So you're saying everyone in your world is content with what they have then?
Reply
I would not be so naïve as to suggest everybody is content with what they have - merely that Terrans no longer see fit to slaughter others over their possessions or for whatever other barbaric reason pre-Terran humans could conceive of. There are far more ethical and rational ways to deal with conflict than that. [This isn't necessarily true, and Terra doesn't exactly follow that, but Robert wouldn't really recognize this.]
Reply
You'd be surprised what people would go to to get what they want. But you buggers change like the seasons so--never really know.
Reply
"You buggers"? [Interesting wording choice.] Does that mean you are a non-human sapient yourself, then? I suppose if you had only 2012-time period hominids to judge by, your outlook would be logical.
Reply
Never said that. Just an expression I use--call it a verbal habit. Logical? Take it you weren't a fan of the past then.
Reply
[He pauses a moment to think.] Is there a reason you are deliberating on this particular mental exercise, though?
Reply
[ Crowley will pause as well and then very matter of fact he will reply. ] You mean thinking out loud? [ Mental exercise, really? He's never heard someone use that terminology before. ]
Not really.
Reply
Is that so? I often postulate thought experiments to consider in my spare time, so I thought that perhaps you might be a similar sort of individual. But at any rate, these kinds of questions are always fascinating to consider.
Reply
I guess that makes sense. Not much to do around here--so I guess postulating is a way of spending the time. Lots to postulate about this place at least. But it was fascinating huh?
Reply
And yes, I found it such. Philosophical, I suppose. Abstract reasoning is not my forté, but it is something I occasionally indulge in regardless.
Reply
Guess I'm just a bit bored. [ Okay very bored. ] Have to pass the time somehow, right?
Reply
Leave a comment