Killing consistently

[mrblue92]

*Originally posted by jharding *
I’m not sure I buy into some crisp distinction between want and need. Do we need water to live? Yes, of course. Do we need ethics to live? Well, maybe not in the same sense that we need water, but certainly moreso than we need Play Stations, Cinnabons, or Monday Night Football.

I don’t think anybody is saying there is well defined distinction. Technically people don’t need much more than the minimum amounts of food, water, and oxygen required to sustain life. Housing, clothing, and sanitation (among the other basic necessities) go a long way to improve the quality, but most animals go without. A more relevant example perhaps is what people want to eat versus what they need. I may want steak, but do I really need it? Maybe I could subsist off rice and tofu, but my desire for meat overrides any compunctions I have (which are basically nonexistent) about implicitly supporting the slaughter of beef cattle. There are those who would claim this is unethical, that I am benefiting from the destruction of another creature, but I have no problem with that–it’s the natural order of things from my perspective.

Continuing from that line of thought, that I need food and I choose to raise cattle or grow corn, I would see no ethical problem with killing wild animals that try to eat my livelihood, whether it be wolves or crows. If, however, I were to hunt wolves just to leave them rot in the woods because I thought it was fun, someone could easily draw an ethical line between those two actions. Thus the conclusion that as we retreat further from killing for biological necessity or mercy into killing for pleasure, greed, etc., we usually find ourselves in areas of grey or dark terrain.

Yet, a society without ethics will not be long of this world.

Do bees or ants have ethics?

Regardless of how these ethics are derived (a different topic altogether), they are a necessity for individual and group survival. Hobbes talked about human life without some sort of social contract–it would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Ouch!

Actually I think how ethics are derived is really the point here. (Pjen: “I find it difficult to construct a rational and socially acceptable and practical framework that is internally consistent.”)

Are ethics beneficial? Of course–they are society’s lubricant. Are they a necessity for individual human survival? I’d argue no, not at all. What ethics does a man living alone in the woods need?

So, short answer, we do need some system of ethics

It all depends upon your definition of “need”. We need them for society to operate efficiently and the general welfare of humanity; we do not need them for survival. In that way, they are a luxury, admittedly more so when we drift into situations that do not involve the death of one of the parties.

Example: in no culture has it ever been acceptable to kill within the group.

Are you sure about that? ISTR duelling being tacitly accepted at some point as a means of resolving disputes. Or was it always illegal in every culture?

[Jeremy_s_Evil_Twin]

*Originally posted by Pjen *
Similarly if a corporate body exercises due care to avoid killing people, then there would be no case to answer. However, if the corporate body acts recklessly, or intentionally, to act so as to kill people, it would seem to be homicide, but is in fact not usually treated as such, either legally or socially.

Somehow I think ValueJet will disagree with that.

Ok, now that I know what “corporate homicide” is, I’m not sure it can be equated with other forms of homicide. A worker on the Golden Gate Bridge, or a NASCAR driver, assumes the risk of death by taking on a dangerous job. Nobody is forcing the worker to risk his life. Deaths that result from hazardous jobs should be judged as accidents, not homicides.

Same goes for consumer deaths, to an extent. There’s an assumed risk of death involved in driving a car or flying on a plane – crashes happen all the time, and are not always the cause of manufacturer neglect. However, the line does get blurred in cases like ValueJet, or a car company that ignores safety standards.

Originally posted by mrblue92:
Do bees or ants have ethics?

Cute. Well, if humans shared a hive-mind, there would be no reason for laws or a social contract. Individual hives do wage war on each other all the time, though.

[Pjen]

*Originally posted by Jeremy’s Evil Twin *
**

*Originally posted by Pjen *
Similarly if a corporate body exercises due care to avoid killing people, then there would be no case to answer. However, if the corporate body acts recklessly, or intentionally, to act so as to kill people, it would seem to be homicide, but is in fact not usually treated as such, either legally or socially.

Somehow I think ValueJet will disagree with that.

Ok, now that I know what “corporate homicide” is, I’m not sure it can be equated with other forms of homicide. A worker on the Golden Gate Bridge, or a NASCAR driver, assumes the risk of death by taking on a dangerous job. Nobody is forcing the worker to risk his life. Deaths that result from hazardous jobs should be judged as accidents, not homicides.

Same goes for consumer deaths, to an extent. There’s an assumed risk of death involved in driving a car or flying on a plane – crashes happen all the time, and are not always the cause of manufacturer neglect. However, the line does get blurred in cases like ValueJet, or a car company that ignores safety standards.**

Let me try to explain further:

Employees: If a company takes reasonable precautions to protect its workers from harm, then it will not be culpabale. However, if it is reckless or harms with intent, then it would be culpabale. This is time dependent. In the nineteenth century, a death rate of 6000 people to build a railway was a risk that was reasonable given the level of technology. If a parallel track to the Central Pacific were to be built today and it cost 6000 lives (now avoidable) that would be corporate homicide.

Consumers: If a company prduces a product which is designed within the best practices of that industry, and that product kills, then that is non-culpable. If the corporation is reckless or intentionally designs an inferior product to increase profit, then that is culpable. This is also technology dependent.

This view of whether corporations can be seen as guilty of corporate homicide is decided societally. In the US there is a tendency to allow corporations to act recklessly, but control them by civil actions. In continental Europe there is a tendency to hold corporate directors personally criminally responsible for actions of the corporations. Britain is currently moving closer to both models- considering greater criminalization of culpable acts of corporations, and making it easier to mount class actions in civil courts.

[Jeremy_s_Evil_Twin]

*Originally posted by Pjen *
Employees: If a company takes reasonable precautions to protect its workers from harm, then it will not be culpabale. However, if it is reckless or harms with intent, then it would be culpabale.

I think I need an example of a corporation that “harms with intent”. I can’t think of any corporation that is in the business of harming or killing people.

This is time dependent. In the nineteenth century, a death rate of 6000 people to build a railway was a risk that was reasonable given the level of technology. If a parallel track to the Central Pacific were to be built today and it cost 6000 lives (now avoidable) that would be corporate homicide.

But that doesn’t happen today. You seem to suggest that there is some sort of malice involved. I’ll agree that there are cases of negligence that lead to criminal charges, but these are usually placed against an individual at the company who failed in his duties to provide a safe environment. And even if the company is sued in cases of wrongful death, the death itself is still listed as an accident. A preventable accident, perhaps, but not a homicide.

Consumers: If a company prduces a product which is designed within the best practices of that industry, and that product kills, then that is non-culpable. If the corporation is reckless or intentionally designs an inferior product to increase profit, then that is culpable. This is also technology dependent.

Okay, this is pretty clear. We seem to be arguing definitions instead of ethics, however.

[Pjen]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jeremy’s Evil Twin *
**

*Originally posted by Pjen *

This is time dependent. In the nineteenth century, a death rate of 6000 people to build a railway was a risk that was reasonable given the level of technology. If a parallel track to the Central Pacific were to be built today and it cost 6000 lives (now avoidable) that would be corporate homicide.

But that doesn’t happen today. You seem to suggest that there is some sort of malice involved. I’ll agree that there are cases of negligence that lead to criminal charges, but these are usually placed against an individual at the company who failed in his duties to provide a safe environment. And even if the company is sued in cases of wrongful death, the death itself is still listed as an accident. A preventable accident, perhaps, but not a homicide.**

OK, some examples- automobile companies that avoid recalls long after they know that their cars have faults that will kill; tobacco companies that continued to promote their product as healthy despite the directors knowing that it wa carcinogenic; factories such as that at Bhopal in India where the parent company knew that the pollution caused would kill many people and would not be acceptable in the USA; ship design companies which know that their product is unsafe, but continue to produce it with known defects for years because re-engineering it would be too expensive- sheaper to fight such suits through the courts.

Because such matters tend in the USA to be seen as broadly civil matters, corporations are encouraged to take risks with public safety. If individuals committed such acts with such results they would face the criminal law. If corporate directors knew that their decisions were fully testable in a criminal court, product and systems safety might be greatly improved.

[erislover]

The topic seems a little too broad for a focused debate, so I’ll just add in my thoughts.

Under my personal moral system, which has never been completely enumerated, the desires to perform actions are what are wrong in the first place. Actions are merely an expression of desire. The question is if we can accurately gauge people’s desires through their actions.

At any rate, I can not think much of a moral system that wobbles on murder because it is “justified.” Justified does not mean good; murder is still murder to me; we may just tell ourselves that it is necessary, but not change the morality of it.

I don’t believe that we can both devise a moral standard by which a large majority will follow and which will also be consistent, which is a shame because that’s probably what will keep us from making more rapid advances as a civilization, not as little nations warring for scarce goods.

[jharding]

Sorry to be so late responding–busy yesterday earning a living.

I like the question on whether bees or ants have ethics. I know it was meant kind of tongue and cheek, but I’ll try to make a connection here. In very loose terms I would say, “Why, yes bees and ants to have ethics.” (Repeat very loose terms). Workers, drones, and the queen (and potential queens) all have clear prescriptions for behaviors. Of course I know that their behavior patterns are hardwired (e.g., workers don’t pine longingly for the randy and swinging lifestyle of the drones, nor do they plot to overthrow the whole system in favor of democracy.

Humans of course, do express emotions like lust, envy and hatred. And unfortunately, we do sometimes act on those emotions by sleeping with our best friend’s spouse, stealing that awesome lawn mower you see in the rich guy’s driveway, and killing that lousy SOB who cut you off in morning rush hour.

So how are these examples connected to the ethics of bees and ants? Well, I also like your term “society’s lubricant”, and I think it is quite accurate. Bees and ants evolved into mildly complex social organizations. Part of this evolution involved clearly prescribed role responsibilities. Now these role responsibilities are simply descriptive and not prescriptive (as ethics would be). Humans evolved into substantially more complex social organizations and part of that evolution involved being able to negotiate through difficult situations involving other people: presto–we evolved ethics! There are any number of books that take up the topic of evolutionary biology and at least one (Robert Wright’s “The Moral Animal”) approaches evolutionary biology through an ethical lens.

Your example of a man living alone in the woods is interesting. But I think I’d still have to say that even he needs some system of ethics even if it is never employed. Likewise, I need to have a plan (even if it’s only generally conceived of) to save my wife and daughter if an angry mob starts to take over the town I live in. Although, hopefully I’ll never need to put such a plan into action.

I guess I’d just close (in an effort to get back to the topic of the original thread) with the suggestion that killing is generally counter-productive to evolutionary success (meaning continued evolution). It is counter-productive because we learned eons ago that we have a greater chance for survival and the survival of our genes if we cooperate–thus, social organizations emerge in favor of each of us living alone. Further, we developed (evolved) ethics as a means towards promoting social order which then encourages even greater probabilities for evolutionary success. All that said, it is clear that we do kill one another and in many different circumstances and flavors: corporate homicide, state-sanctioned genocide, serial killing, etc. So is there any reconciliation between all these different flavors of killing? I’d say no–not from an ethical perspective. And I’d offer again my comment that in no society has it ever been acceptable to kill within the group. Dueling and capital punishment have and continue to be mild exceptions to this rule.

Also sorry for not including appropriate quotes–I’m still trying to figure this whole posting thing out (“smiley” inserted here if I knew how to do it).

[mrblue92]

*Originally posted by jharding *
Sorry to be so late responding–busy yesterday earning a living.

No apology necessary.

In very loose terms I would say, “Why, yes bees and ants to have ethics.” (Repeat very loose terms). Workers, drones, and the queen (and potential queens) all have clear prescriptions for behaviors. Of course I know that their behavior patterns are hardwired (e.g., workers don’t pine longingly for the randy and swinging lifestyle of the drones, nor do they plot to overthrow the whole system in favor of democracy.

As you probably guessed, I would disagree. I think the very idea of ethics requires that there is a choice to be made, and that some level of intelligent thought is required. A debate along these lines will likely devolve into the two basic questions: “What defines intelligence?”, and “Is there free will?” (Are our choices our own or biologically predestined?) I don’t think there are definitive answers for either, though of course I have my opinions. But we’re drifting off topic…

So how are these examples connected to the ethics of bees and ants? Well, I also like your term “society’s lubricant”, and I think it is quite accurate. Bees and ants evolved into mildly complex social organizations…

Another point where our paths diverge. While I can certainly respect a logical view of ethics coming from evolution, I would tend to disagree with it. I believe in an absolute morality that stems from God, so relative morality IMHO is incorrect. (I’ve found myself debating down to this before with oldscratch.) We’ve reached an impasse here.

Your example of a man living alone in the woods is interesting. But I think I’d still have to say that even he needs some system of ethics even if it is never employed. Likewise, I need to have a plan (even if it’s only generally conceived of) to save my wife and daughter if an angry mob starts to take over the town I live in. Although, hopefully I’ll never need to put such a plan into action.

Again, I disagree. Imagine if he had amnesia and lost all memory of language and human contact. He would have no more need for ethics than he would for a book. Both would be gibberish for all intents and purposes. You might argue he could, with extreme intelligence, philosophize about other people and how he would or should interact with them. But I fail to see why he would need ethics to exist any more than a lone wolf, a rabid bat, or a bacteria would.

I guess I’d just close (in an effort to get back to the topic of the original thread) with the suggestion that killing is generally counter-productive to evolutionary success (meaning continued evolution)… All that said, it is clear that we do kill one another and in many different circumstances and flavors: corporate homicide, state-sanctioned genocide, serial killing, etc. So is there any reconciliation between all these different flavors of killing? I’d say no–not from an ethical perspective.

If we are going to discuss evolution from an ethical perspective, I wonder a few things. Evolution is a selfish process–the best individuals breed while the worst do not. For example, genocide might be contrary to the overall species success because it limits diversity, but it is not contrary to the individual’s success. If I kill off all the inhabitants of an area, my genes will be more dominant there than if I assimilate their society into mine. (Compare what happened to native societies in the US vs. Latin and South America.)

Perhaps evolutionary theory is not particularly well suited to making macro-level prediction and analysis because it’s too easily bent by interpretation to be anywhere close to scientific, but that’s just my (perhaps ignorant) opinion.

And I’d offer again my comment that in no society has it ever been acceptable to kill within the group. Dueling and capital punishment have and continue to be mild exceptions to this rule.

Maybe it’s just me, but for someone who argues ethical evolution as a main point, this seems to be a rather myopic generalization. Dominant animals are not castigated from their societal groupings for killing members of their pack, at least not that I’m aware of. Why you would think this was always the case with humans (even in unrecorded history)? (And don’t forget justifiable homicide is accepted in most (if not all) societies, “justifiable” being open to interpretation.)