Why should I make a case for it? Obviously my personal ethics and yours are different and that is ok. I think being a jerk is jerkish and unethical. Sometimes I do it anyway. You don’t think being a jerk is unethical. Sometimes you do it anyway (I would imagine) and probably have a clearer conscious. I can’t argue you into an ethical system you don’t share, nor do I care to.
The case I make is this: what needs to be respected are the desires, preferences, and interests of moral subjects. My approach is similar though not identical to Peter Singer’s preference utilitarianism. It’s not my job to second-guess other moral subjects, just as I don’t want them second-guessing my own preferences.
I think that my own preferences should be met (pretty much by definition of a preference), and I see no rational criteria by which my own preferences are more important than those of any other moral subject (I’m in a better position to meet my own preferences, but that doesn’t mean they’re objectively more important), so therefore, I think that other preferences should also be met.
That is not what “we” have wound up talking about. I said back on the first page that in a situation that transgendered people should answer their potential sexual partner’s questions honestly. **Dangerosa **and I were discussing a situation where such a question was NOT asked.
Considerate behavior is generally ethical, but it’s easy for me to think of inconsiderate acts that I would not consider unethical. (I don’t consider the following anecdote in any way analogous to the question posed by the OP, it’s just an example of inconsideration that is not unethical.) The other day I got distracted at work and missed an event I was supposed to attend in another building. Most of my coworkers did attend this event, and I’m still kind of ticked off that none of them stopped by my office to say “Hey Lamia, we’re on our way over to the event, are you coming?” But it wasn’t their duty to remind me, and I hadn’t asked to be reminded.
It would have been more considerate for them to check where I was before they left, but I don’t believe they did anything unethical. They probably didn’t think to wonder where I was at all, or assumed that I’d already left on my own. If they’d thought “Where’s Lamia? She probably forgot what was going on today. Well, too bad for her!” then I’d call THAT unethical, although I still wouldn’t think it was a violation of an actual duty. If I’d asked to be reminded and they’d agreed then not doing so would have been a duty, but otherwise the only person with the duty of keeping track of my schedule is me.
I’m about to head out of town and I’m not sure if I can clearly articulate the difference in the time I have left here, but Tina’s preference to keep her private information to herself has to be weighed against Bob’s interest in knowing this information. Some things just aren’t Bob’s business, no matter how much he might like to know them. The nature of their relationship and how relevant the information would be to the situation should help determine what Bob has the right to know or could reasonably expect to be told.
What you are describing is a problem in linguistics known as the paradox of the heap.
That is to say, one can look at a heap of sand and agree that it is, indeed, a heap of sand. Take away one grain. Is it still a heap? Take away another grain. Still a heap? At some nebulous point, the term “heap” must no longer apply, but at precisely what point is that? When do we change from one word to the other?
The paradox can be constructed to fit many other conditions: blue, fast, bald, empty, and I argue in this particular case, male and female. The definitions of any label are by their nature fuzzy and indistinct. Do we base our definitions upon genetics, upon secondary sexual characteristics, by orientation, by morphology, by mental state, or by some arbitrary self-labeling process?
There’s a woman I know who is vegetarian. I know this because she’s said so. However, I don’t know precisely what she will and will not eat, because I haven’t asked. I have never cooked for her, so the subject has not come up. If it ever got to the point where I was preparing a meal for her, or bringing snacks, or providing food of any kind, then either she should tell me, or I should ask.
Well, other than that I don’t see it as “being a jerk” (using the “what they don’t know won’t hurt them” rationale, mostly), I don’t disagree with this.
Naah, I don’t agree with this. The desires of lots of people frequently conflict with my own, or with my sense of morality. While I rarely directly interfere with others’ choices or actions, I still don’t hold their wishes as sacrosanct, morally. Morality, for me, very much consists of second-guessing and judging from my (IMHO) lofty moral plateau. Then again, I agree that that doesn’t make my opinion objectively more important. But since morality is subjective, it doesn’t have to. Hence no onus to meet others’ expectaions in this regard.
When desires conflict with other desires, whether they’re internal (I desire to stay in bed/I desire to keep my job) or external (I desire to drive that car/its owner desires for me not to steal their car), then sure, you have to adjudicate which desire “wins,” based on a variety of different factors. The Kantian imperative is one factor that goes into resolving this difficulty; judging the relative strength of the desires is another factor. What I said above, about the respecting of preferences (or desires, I tend to use the terms interchangeably), is a broad starting point.
Are there any cases in which the a person’s desire conflicts with your sense of morality, but not with any other extant desires? If so, I think that’s a crappy system of morality.
Too many times in my life I’ve found out - or had the other person find out. What they don’t know won’t hurt them - what they find out after the fact hurts them more. My world is too small to assume that there is such a thing as an anonymous hook up.
If I my action is not intended to hurt someone and then someone feels hurt by it its not my problem that hurt is self inflicted.
Nonsense. Your intentions aren’t relevant; what’s relevant is the foreseeable outcome of your decisions. Otherwise, the child who windmills his arms while walking toward his sister and asserting that if she happens to get hit it’s not his fault–this kid would have an airtight defense.
And to Lamia’s point, there is a difference between “thoughtless” and “inconsiderate” - it is thoughtless - no lack of poor intention - to forget you have an XY chromosome yourself and not mention it. Or to forget to drop by your coworkers desk and remind them about lunch. Or to forget that your mother just told you not to windmill your arms, you might hurt your little sister. The difference here is when reminded that someone is hurt, your reaction is “oh, I’m sorry, I never thought…” - not “its your damn fault you were in the way of my arms.” Its inconsiderate when you think of these things, but do them anyway.
Huh…you’re seriously not ethically worried about tricking somebody into breaking their religious convinctions? Isn’t that a bit assholish?
I know I make it a point to be an expert on everyone’s individual religious convictions before I so much as flirt with them.
:rolleyes:
I think the key word you’re responding to is “tricking”.
No, the entire sentence I quoted is filled with rhetorical traps, I reject the entire sentence and all its suppositions, assumptions, and implications of parsing games to come.
I meant precisely what I said, and it was in response to the quoted sentence in its entirety.
If you think it’s OK to trick someone into a relationship then I agree with bengangmo and dismiss your suppositions, assumptions and implications.
where are you getting the idea that I said it is ok to trick someone? Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have written plenty on this thread, have you actually read it and come to the conclusion that I said it is OK to trick someone, or that I have even discussed whether tricking anyone is acceptable or not?
Maybe you need to cite that instead of speaking for me.
You were addressing a statement where the keyword was “tricking” and dismissed it outright. If you don’t think it’s OK to trick someone then you would be in agreement with what bengangmo said (at least that statement).
No I rejected it because the horrible rhetoric that was sure to follow, which you are demonstrating well, is nothing but a minefield of timesuck in search of nothing.
I rejected the statement because it is fallacious in too many ways to discuss here, by me anyway. So many I can’t find a “keyword” because it reeks of a larger agenda.
If I want to say it is OK to trick someone, I am perfectly capable of saying it in plain English.
Period.
As if anyone pn earth is responsible for another person’s not straying from their religion, as though anyone can possibly know everything about every religion, and how each individual, with their own unknown life history, might interpret it. :rolleyes:
Once again, if romancing a type of person is going to cause you harm, then ASK before you go so far down the road that you risk getting hurt. Otherwise, the risk is all yours, and willingly accepted.
If you wish to debate that last paragraph, let me know. Otherwise, forget wasting time on your rhetorical traps with me.
A hypothetical scenario:
Suppose you’re attending a costume party, and you happen to be wearing the same costume as a particular guest’s wife. At some point, that guest approaches you and says “Honey, why don’t we ditch this boring party and go back to the house and have sex? And just for fun, let’s leave our costumes on.”
Now, you don’t know for certain that the guy isn’t trying to cheat on his wife with some “honey” he just met. But more likely, he only wants to have sex with you because he thinks you are his wife.
Don’t you have an ethical obligation to tell him he’s mistaken? You might say “Well, it’s also unethical to have sex with married men”, whether they want to cheat on their wives or not. Perhaps so, but that’s not the obligation I’m asking about – I’m asking about your ethical obligation to the man.
If you are obligated to tell a guy who wants to have sex with you (but probably wouldn’t if he knew you weren’t his wife) that he’s mistaken, then why wouldn’t you also be obligated to tell a guy who wants to have sex with you (but probably wouldn’t if he knew you weren’t born with female genitalia) that he’s mistaken?
[I realize that, costumes or not, the man would probably realize you weren’t his wife at some point. But for the sake of this comparison, assume that he wouldn’t notice, at least not until he’d already proceeded further than he would want to with someone who’s not his wife.]
Maybe. “Don’t be an asshole” is not the foundation of my ethics, though.
I don’t think so, no. Once again, caveat emptor, not caveat venditor.