Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with morality

Is extreme but consensual sadism immoral?

limon — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:44:48 -0800

What is a good argument for the immorality of terribly sadistic but ultimately consensual sex, from a secular perspective? In another online community I participate in, it is common for people with unusual and interesting life experience to post about it and invite questions from other users. Recently, someone into BDSM posted.

He confessed that he liked "to see women crying, bleeding and worse". When pressed to elaborate, he added that he has been "involved with things such as cutting, branding, piercing, bone-breaking, head-shaving, and more". All, of course, completely consensual.

Now, I consider myself pretty open-minded when it comes to sexual kinks, including BDSM, but I have a very strong moral intuition that what he does crosses a line and is terribly, terribly wrong.

I can't, however, justify it very well. I tried, and the best I could do was a very convoluted argument. I conjectured that many of his partners were victimized at one point, and that this somehow makes their consent non-relevant, since they are motivated by trauma rather than authentic, autonomous desire.

It's not a very strong argument, and I'd like to be able to do better. But if you think I'm being prude and moralistic, I'd like to hear your reasoning, too.

No room if you 'aint hitched?

smoothvirus — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:06:18 -0800

Do hotels or motels refuse to rent rooms to unmarried couples anymore? I took my girlfriend on a romantic getaway to the beach this weekend, and while I was not very concerned about it, I did wonder if it would be a problem. Back in 1991, I visited a platonic friend in Indiana and when she reserved the room for me, she had to lie and tell the manager that I was her cousin, even though she was not spending the night in the room. We were not romantically involved but the manager would not rent a room to an unmarried couple. This was a major chain motel in a big city in Indiana. I did go out on the Internet to see if this sort of thing still goes on but did not find anything, save one notable exception.

P.S. My girlfriend and I had an absolutely wonderful stay on Cape Hatteras in North Carolina this weekend. Go if you get the chance!

Is health care a Ponzi scheme?

Area Control — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:43:35 -0800

Is health care a Ponzi scheme? I'm trying to work out my feelings about the health care debate, and our moral obligations to take care of each other. Will improved health care just lead to larger populations and longer life spans, and more and more expenses to take care of them all? Am I a bad person for thinking this? I smoke, so I'll probably check out early without consuming all your future resources on my elder care. Does this mitigate my xenocidal tendencies or make them worse?

I want to see more bad people

reenum — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:48:37 -0800

Please suggest movies, TV shows and books that feature unrepentant, amoral characters I was a big fan of Seinfeld when it was on, and now love It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia and Eastbound & Down.

The common thread running through these shows is a character or group of characters who are often selfish at best, amoral at worst and unrepentant about it. Also, the characters don't seem to have an epiphany that makes them "good", like the case with many movies and books. For example, I loved the movie Roger Dodger until the ending.

I want more of this. I'd love suggestions on TV shows (except Weeds), movies, and nonfiction books or biographies. I've read about such characters in fiction, so don't need recs on those sorts of books.

Thanks!

How can I justify having luxuries while others lack necessities?

espertus — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:05:02 -0800

How can I morally justify spending money on luxuries while others lack necessities? Many reputable charities offer ways to save or vastly improve the lives of people in extreme poverty for small donations. What type of person am I if I spend $10 on a movie ticket, for example, that could be spent on mosquito netting to protect a poor child from malaria or to vaccinate dozens of children against measles? I don't see how giving a fixed percentage of my income, such as tithing, absolves me of further moral responsibility.

Comprehensive book on moral philosphy?

the other side — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:27:12 -0800

What is a good introductory-level book on moral philosophy? I'm looking for something that covers a lot of ground in terms of different approaches to morality. Is there a book/author who gives a particularly enjoyable and comprehensive look at the subject?

Note: Not really looking for something that strongly argues for a particular viewpoint, though it's okay if the author slightly favors a particular approach as long as it doesn't impede a fair and honest accounting of other approaches.

Alcohol Ethicists, do they exist?

vegetableagony — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:50:57 -0800

What are some definitive scholarly sources on the ethics of alcohol? I have been wondering over the past few weeks about what scholarly work has been done on the topic of the ethics/morality of inebriation and other altered states of consciousness.

e.g.
Do actions carry different moral weights depending on whether or not the were done under the influence of alcohol?

In what ethical framework should we view actions carried out while someone has (intentionally) drunk enough to not remember their actions?

How should we analyze the initial choice to drink to excess?

(I am not trying to analyze any one situation in particular; these are just a spattering of questions on the tropic I had wondered about.)

I am not interested in alarmist articles with little backing evidence about how evil alcohol is. I am more looking for scholarly philosophical analysis (i.e. more phd's and fewer pop ethicists). Still would be interested if the analysis were not specific to alcohol, but instead analyzed states of (voluntarily-induced) altered consciousness.

I realize that this is a topic that many people feel strongly about, but I am less interested in peoples' personal opinions, than in influential published articles/books.

[ethicsfilter] two of my friends are getting it on. one of them has herpes. should I tell the other?

krautland — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:34:54 -0800

[ethicsfilter] two of my friends are getting it on. one of them has herpes. should I tell the other? two of my friends, one very close and the other a little more than an acquaintance, are interested in each other. just to distinguish them I am going to call them 'acquaintance' and 'friend.' I happen to know the acquaintance has herpes.*

the friend keeps talking about the acquaintance and how flirtations are progressing. we are having more or less daily conversations about this and the friend is naturally excited. I am frequently asked for opinions, details and tips concerning acquaintance, if not outright help. I have reason to believe this is getting somewhere fast but don't wish to speculate about how serious they are.

I am conflicted about violating the privacy of acquaintance in order to be a friend to friend. were I friend, I'd hope my friend was watching out for me. were I acquaintance, I'd probably feel pretty violated were someone else to share such information without my consent.**

the acquaintance does not know I am aware of the romance or the extraordinary circumstances that concern me and my conversations with the friend lead me to believe that this issue has not been discussed. I do not think I am in a position to approach the acquaintance about this at all and suggesting otherwise is most likely not going to help me much.

the only two options I do see are either to tell the friend or keep quiet.***

which is the ethical option for me to take?

*I am not speculating but have no further details.
**this of course is assuming I'd know someone had talked but I'm sure you get my point.
***there may be a third option. suggest away as long as it does not force me to address the acquaintance about this.

Heuristics and Morality

not sure this is a good idea — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 09:53:11 -0800

Any pointers to books/people/readers/papers on heuristics in morality? [Background: I believe most people make moral decisions based on heuristics that they have picked up from their cultural environment. There's a paper showing why this is not always such a good idea here. I am also somewhat sceptical of most ethical theories. In my experience, with practical problems in a complex world, you can justify almost anything by picking a sympathetic logical frame for the issue. So rather than discarding heuristics, I'd like to know what a good heuristic might be.]

At a very simple level: question authority might be a useful moral heuristic. But I am not so much looking for aphorisms as reports of work that examines the whole approach (ie using heuristics in a positive way to solve ethical problems). Even a suitable google phrase might be useful (I tried "applied ethics", for example, but that is more concerned with applying the kind of "first principles" approach that I have little faith in).

Alternatively, if this is hopelessly naive and uninformed, is there an introduction to ethics I should be reading that addresses the issues of complexity and incomplete information?

Thanks.

Trying to think out the ethics involved here ...

WCityMike — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:34:07 -0800

I have an ethical or logical quandary that I'm trying to puzzle out. I became an Eagle Scout in 1993. Recently, my membership in the National Eagle Scout Association came up for renewal; I declined to renew my membership due to the Scouts' stance on homosexuality, agnostics, and atheists. I feel that their positions are unethical in that they advocate discrimination and intrude into areas of people's private lives which have no relevance to Scouting.

However, unlike some Eagle Scouts, I declined to send in my Eagle Scout Award to national headquarters as a protest. I declined to do so because I feel that I earned that award by virtue of a lot of hard work over the course of my childhood and adolescence, and I won't deny myself an award I rightfully earned. (Furthermore, I did this work over years of service in which Scouting as a whole was nowhere near as neoconservative as they are nowadays.)

At the risk of sounding like a nerd, for shorthand, let's say that my feelings about Scouts are "principle x". And the caveat — that I won't deny myself the benefits of being an Eagle Scout — is "caveat y".

Now, I'm wondering whether or not to take "action z". Do you know how your college's alumni department got in touch with you a few years after you graduated, offering you the chance to list yourself in, and buy, a national directory of alumni, ostensibly one you could use to get back in touch with people, and for business networking purposes?

Scouting is now doing that with Eagle Scouts, and given the number of Eagle Scouts alive, that's going to be one huge directory — presumably a very useful one, given the number of Eagle Scouts alive.

I am trying to decide whether listing myself in the directory, and ordering a copy, is ethically consistent. On one hand, it breaks x because I'm giving money to them by virtue of purchasing the directory. I'm uneased by that.

On the other hand, the use of this directory for general networking could be invaluable, and thus, that caveat y comes into effect: this directory would definitely be a very useful tool for networking, and thus could easily be considered a benefit of having reached Eagle.

Given principle x, and given caveat y to principle x, is action z morally consistent with x and y? Or is it more moral to not participate in the directory?

(I know that speaking solely in a practical sense, whether or not NESA gets a few bucks from me as a trickledown makes little practical difference to them. I'm trying to consider the underlying principles involved, though.)

If you feel differently than I do about either Scouting, their positions, or how I reacted to those positions, I respect your right to feel differently, but that's not my question, and I prefer this thread not run aground on that.

Why morality?

wigglin — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:39:30 -0800

Why do theists bring up morality when arguing for the existence of god? Whenever I am arguing with a believer about the existence of god, they inevitably bring up morality. Their view being that for there to be any morality, it must be derived from an ultimate authority. This makes no sense to me. Obviously our sense of morality has changed through out history, so what reason is there to believe that such a thing as absolute morality exists? Why can’t morality be based off of reason, human solidarity, and the desire to limit human suffering?

Just because it would be nice if there were absolute moral laws to live by, doesn’t necessarily make it true. Something being pleasant does not say anything about its truth value, a fact that I find theists often ignore.

That said, let’s assume god does exist and you are a believer, why bring up morality? How could anyone have any idea what god wants us to do? Unless god is speaking to you directly, your personal morality is as made up as anyone else’s. Religious texts, which are supposedly the word of god, are full of things that modern society deems morally abhorrent(slavery, sexism, child abuse, racism, etc.), so they are irrelevant when talking about morality.

Thanks!

"Hang on...what am I doing?!"

greytape — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:37:43 -0800

Looking for first-hand accounts of acts of genuine evil. I'm looking for first-hand accounts from people who have done stuff that, at the time or later, is considered to be unspeakably evil. Stuff like abusing children, genocide, mass mutilation/rape. I'm intrigued to know what is going through people's heads as they do these kinds of things.

Suggestions for books, articles, interviews, documentaries are all helpful. Thanks!

How can this pilgrim acquire faith?

mr_book — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:24:00 -0800

Please help this petty agnostic acquire faith in a higher power. I am a 27 yr old agnostic who has attempted the practice of several different religions over the years, eventually calcifying into what my friends have called a "big, bad atheist." After realizing a few years back that atheism wasn't the way to go for me, I started saying that I was an agnostic. I'm not sure that that label fits either.

Every time I've tried experimenting with a religion, I've been fascinated by all of the rituals and mythology which went along with it, but I've never been able to really buy into it. I can't seem to believe concepts like resurrection, reincarnation, angels, the goddess, animistic spirits, et cetera.

I dislike this. I don't want to go through my life not experiencing Faith. I've talked to several people about this, looked online, read books, but what it almost always comes down to is: "If you don't have faith, you can't accept an explanation. If you do have faith, no explanation is necessary." That's all well and good, but it doesn't help me. It's the philosophical equivalent of saying: "Tough rocks, kid."

I've recently come to the conclusion that even if reincarnation, resurrection, et cetera are complete bullshit, I think my experience of the world would be better and fuller is they were not.

I've received advice like "do community service" and "visit a church more often" and "pray" but that's not helpful. I'm not looking for morality - that I can do on my own. I'm also not looking for a religion - I don't need a spiritual bureaucracy telling me how to live my life. What I'm interested in is acquiring Faith itself, not its trappings.

If there are any personal experiences out there which can help, or any advice toward the subject, I'd be grateful. I'm interested in an actual method for acquiring Faith. Literally, how do I get it?

Lawful Evil Movie Scenes?

middleclasstool — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:21:22 -0800

Video clips that demonstrate the difference between rules and morals/ethics? A friend of mine is teaching a lecture soon on the difference between rules and ethics, specifically underscoring situations in which one can follow the rules perfectly and yet still be engaged in unethical behavior.

For illustration/class dissection, he wants suggestions for film clips that he can show, so I thought I'd pick your brain. Obvious examples are those who turned over Jews to the Nazis or named names to HUAC in the '50s, but rather than whole films or genres, he's looking for specific scenes that will make for good illustration and discussion. Ideas?

"In war, brutality is good because it makes the war end quickly." I disagree; help me think about why.

devilsbrigade — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:08:19 -0800

Someone quoted to me a quote last night that was along the lines of, "War is a brutal and horrible thing, and the more brutal and horrible it is, the faster it's over." He used this both in defense of using nuclear bombs in WWII and in support of a similar approach for Iraq. I don't agree. This points to a larger issue for me. I knew I didn't agree, but aside from some token phrases I couldn't really come up with a strong argument against what he said. That annoys me.

I don't care about this one argument all that much, so I don't need reasons why its wrong, per se. What I'm actually asking is what types of things (maybe even specifics, if you have suggestions) I can read that will shore up my base positions, both for myself and for explaining them to other people. Most of the philosophy I've read has tended to be very abstract, or interaction/interface to nature-focused, neither of which helps in situations like that.

How okay is it to purchase from a pawnshop?

ThinkNut — Sat, 05 May 2007 01:05:11 -0800

What is the risk of buying stolen or otherwise morally questionable goods from a pawn shop? Me and my SO were cruising a pawn shop today in a busy, but somewhat sketchy, part of town, and we noticed a high percentage of some unusual items beyond expected items suhc as TVs, bikes, jewelery, cameras etc. In particular, there were a lot of tools and toolboxes I would expect to find useful to professional tradesmen, a few (nice) lawn mowers, and various other high quality specialized items.

I understand from googling that pawn shops are fairly highly regulated in many areas, with the pawnbroker associations claiming that less than 0.01% of items are actually hot. I find this a bit hard to believe, so I'm wondering if anyone knows if this is a realistic estimate, and if not, what is a more realistic number?

I saw a couple of nice things that I would probably look at again (camera equipment mainly) but something doesn't sit well with my conscience about buying from a place that primarily feeds on others unfortunate situations (either through theft or misfortune). Not really knowing much about the places however, I'm wondering if this is a narrow view of their true function...

Art Relationship Morality Filter

Anonymous — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:21:22 -0800

Art Relationship Morality Filter – Have recently discovered my newly wed wife has lied to me about the contents of a painting that takes pride of place in our small flat. My wife is an artist and the small flat we share has her work up on the walls. There is a painting that takes pride of place and due to its size our attentions cannot help but be drawn to it everyday. I once asked who the person in it was to which she replied ‘oh it was just a quick sketch done during art class of the person next to me’ – I may not have an artists eye but clearly a lot of time was spent painting it but I decided not to labor the point.

I came across some photo albums whilst clearing out some storage space and she has shown me lots of albums so flicked through some to while away some time. I came across a picture of the spitting image to the person in the painting and it is now clear that this was a former partner. We are both sensitive and prone to depression and I am conscious of opening a Pandora’s box if I confront her about it. Is it wrong of me to feel incredibly upset that I) she lied about it ii) that she feels the need to have it on the wall. I am not expecting her to erase the past but am confused as to how I am meant to deal with her past partners. It is her artwork and I feel that if it were merely a photo I could be outraged but the fact she painted it changes things somewhat. Every morning I wake and see it and feel queasy but do I have any right to confront her and demand it is put away? Won’t this just make her resent me? Should I bite my tongue and deal with my own reaction? Thanks.

How do I convince my roommate that we need a maid?

santry — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:29:36 -0800

Jimmy (my friend/roommate/landlord) and I both like to have a sparkling clean apartment. He thinks it's lazy and morally objectionable to hire a maid. I think my free time is valuable so I don't want to spend it cleaning bathrooms. Since cost isn't a concern, how do I convince my roommate that we should just leave the cleaning to the professionals and hire a maid? I live in an apartment with 2 other guys and we're all in our very late 20s. One roommate (let's call him Jimmy) is my best friend from college. He also owns the (whole) house. We'll call the other roommate Bradington.

None of us are very good about cleaning. The place isn't a sty, but real cleaning (vacuuming, dusting, washing the hardwood floors, etc.) happens only every couple of months. The kitchen stays pretty clean since we use it all the time. I'll admit that I'm the worst about cleaning. I don't enjoy it, so I 'm the last one to do it.

I've found a maid who will come for 3 hours every two weeks and, for $75 per visit, will make the place cleaner than it ever has been. She came once as a sort of trial visit and we all agreed the results were fantastic. Much better than we could ever do.

Jimmy (the friend/roommate/landlord) has a moral objection to hiring a cleaning service. He thinks it means we're lazy good for nothings and that we should just do the cleaning ourselves. The money isn't the issue. He also says that he enjoys cleaning, and that, for him, it's a good stress reliever.

My philosophy is that my time away from work is valuable and so spending hours out of every month vacuuming and cleaning bathrooms has a huge opportunity cost (i.e., I could be doing things that I enjoy, working on new projects, etc.). Couple that with the fact that professionals do a *much* better job and I think the maid service is a pretty compelling option.

Bradington, our other roommate, is on "my" side and thinks we should hire the maid.

So how do I convince Jimmy? Is there no convincing him? Since he enjoys it so much, should we work out some deal where he does some portion of the cleaning himself, and the maids do the rest?

Help Sophie Make a Choice

grumblebee — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:06:01 -0800

You're a single mother, with no living relatives except your twin daughters, who are both dying of kidney failure. You have one kidney to donate. Is there a moral/ethical philosophy that deals with such rock/hard place dilemmas? Maybe you can point out a loophole -- the mother could give both her kidneys, sacrificing herself to save the two kids. But work with me here, okay? (The mother only has one healthy kidney.) My point isn't about this specific dilemma -- it's about making choices in which, whatever you do, someone gets deeply hurt.

Another -- less plausible -- scenario: a madman holds your family at gunpoint and says he's going to shoot one of your kids in two minutes. He wants you to choose which one, and if you don't make a choice before the time is up, he'll shoot them both.

Or, more pedestrian: you're a middle manager who has been ordered to fire one of two people, both of whom have equal merit.

Sometimes the "someone has to lose" scenario is due to the complexity of a system. It may be that preventing environmental harm means forcing a company to buy expensive, eco-friendly equipment, which may hurt their bottom line, forcing them to fire workers.

Most moralizing I've heard assumes there's a correct answer -- or at least a lesser of two evils. But this dodges much of real life. The "wisdom" I have heard usually boils down to "we live in an imperfect world", which just describes the problem.

When there is no good choice -- yet one has to make a choice -- an option is to use randomness. But there's something so cold (though fair, I guess) about flipping a coin to see which daughter gets the kidney. It would feel, to me, like I was dodging the humanity of the situation. Truthfully, these situations are so horrible that the common way to deal with them seems to be denial. This could involve oversimplifying a complex problem (at least we're not hurting the environment) or justifying a random action (I looked into Lizzie's eyes and could tell she accepted her fate...).

One of the reasons I so hate politics is that it almost always involves this sort of denial. Almost any complex political decision is going to hurt someone, and (probably because admitting this would mean losing votes) the decision makers almost never deal with this dead on. ("We're going to stop the company from making massive lay-offs. Unfortunately, this WILL impact the environment...")

What have "the wise men" said about grappling with such dilemmas?

Is it ever right to allow a population to starve?

hoverboards don't work on water — Mon, 01 May 2006 05:19:52 -0800

Please help correct my cold utilitarian calculus: is it ever right to allow a population to starve? A Michael Buerk BBC documentary on Ethiopia a while back said something along the lines of having "merely created a nation of half-starved beggars" by aiding them during the 1980s famine. The underlying hypothesis seemed to be this:

If a country of 15 million people can support itself in food most years, but only support 10 million during a drought, then 5 million will starve. However, if an outsider steps in and donates 5 million food rations, the country lives on.

Every 10 years or so the drought recurs, except in the intervening 10 years, the population doubles. Now the country has 30m people, and can only support 10m. So 20 million will starve unless outside aid is delivered.

Another ten years on, 60 million people with food enough for 10. 50 million starve unless food aid is delivered.

At some point, the outsiders will become unwilling or unable to continue supporting the poor country, and no food aid will arrive. If this is 30 years on from the original drought, 110 million people will starve.

So would it have been right to withhold food aid initially, resulting in only 5 million deaths rather than 110 million?

Given that the parameters of this scenario are accurate (population will continue to grow while food is available, food aid will eventually stop), the answer seems to be yes. It doesn't feel right though.

From whence do you derive your moral code?

agropyron — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:40:38 -0800

Atheists and agnostics: From whence do you derive your moral code? I get the sense that most of us who reject traditional Christian morality get by on an innate sense of what is right and wrong, or simple rules such as the golden rule, or "Do as you will, and harm no one" (Wiccan, I think).

Is there any secular writing, speech, poem, tradition, etc, from which you derive your code of ethics? Failing that, I'm also interested in non-Christian writings/traditions.

How do I align my values with my career?

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:17:03 -0800

Please help me better align my values with my career. I'm a software engineer. I currently work for a large defense contractor and, as a liberal who often disagrees with the U.S.'s use of force, I obviously have a tough time finding work I like to do there. I have been able to find work which doesn't flagrantly violate my values so far, but I'd like to feel passionate about my work, and I don't think I'll be able to there.

So, find another job, right? But where? Everything I read about computer programming these days is negative: it's being outsourced to India, workers are expected to work long hours and to be constantly on call, there's no job security, etc. Additionally, I'm not going to feel passionate about raising my boss's stock price by a 1/4 of a percent, so I'm not sure I'll feel much better at a big commercial place. At least at my job, people are trying to do the right thing as they understand it. Also, it pays well, is secure, and basically everything else except for the general thrust of the whole company is perfect. Perhaps most importantly, I don't live in an area with a whole lot of jobs.

How can I either navigate the company I'm in now or find a new one in order to maximize the alignment of my work with my values?

How close of an alignment should I expect?

Personal anecdotes will be appreciated as well.

Robotic Pharmacy

AlexReynolds — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:11:07 -0800

What is the need for a human pharmacist in this day and age? I was reading the following thread about religious pharmacists refusing to dispense prescribed drugs that, for whatever reason, offend their moral sensibilities.

I am curious why the job of the pharmacist couldn't be replaced with an automated (robotic) operation, given a few observations:

• most if not all drugs, generic or otherwise, seem to be sold to stores in prepackaged dosages, eliminating the need for a pharmacist to mix products

• careless human pharmacists can make serious dosing or product errors and electronic prescription processes would further reduce interpretation problems

• nosy human pharmacists in an increasingly theocratic state seem prone to stick their business into others' private heathcare decisions

• drug stores would likely want to cut staff costs and reduce the likelihood of lawsuits from dosing or product selection mistakes or inappropriate decision making

Not that I want to put someone out of a job per se, but I'm curious what exactly are the roles of a human pharmacist today that can't otherwise be automated? What requires human intervention in this line of work?

Is it wrong to have an affair?

Mean Mr. Bucket — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:06:16 -0800

Is it wrong to have an affair?

Boycott an organization, or work within to change it?

Doohickie — Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:22:57 -0800

Philosophical question regarding opposition: When is it appropriate to leave or boycott an organization when one disagrees with its policies, as opposed to actively working with or within the organization to change its policies to your liking? Recent posts regarding gay ministers and Boy Scouts make me wonder whether boycotting organizations is the best approach, or whether one should remain within an organization in an effort to reform it?