This poll has FOUR options separated by one “I am confused” option.
An explanation…
the first part refers to a competition / game you are having with ONE other party. Is the measure of how “morally” you behave idependant of how your opponent behaves, or does the measure of your morality change depending on how well or badly you opponent behaves?
The second part refers to you morality as measured against others in the system that have no relationship to you or your game.
Is your morality measured against (relative to) their standards of behaviour, or is your morality absolute, regardless of how others behave?
I was taught in some college course (anthro probably) that morals are constraints imposed by a culture and ethics were individual systems of behavior.
Given that definition, I believe what you are referring to are ethics not morals (as Green Bean said).
I voted ‘absolute in and of itself’, because given the 5 choices, that is the closest to my personal system. I always strive to be even-handed and kind even when my ‘opponent’ is not. I never succeed, obviously, but that is my goal.
Thanks for the clues on proper usage - is always good to learn something new.
When written I was thinking of the “you” as being govts and the imagined the activities as being measured against a list of proper behaviour.
Juyst wondering if your score would go up or down depending on how your opponent behaved.
Or whether it would change depending on how someone else (with no connection to you) behaved. As in B breaks more rules than A, so A’s score of ethics goes up.
A’s opponent behaves badly, so ethics points are easier to earn when fighting against B
If you play fair when your opponent does not, then it isn’t a fair game is it? There is no point unless the rules of the game happen to be very important for society. Like if the “game” were a legal dispute or a political race then I could see the value of fairness even if it puts you at a disadvantage.
On the second question, my moral beliefs are absolute. However, whether I actually behave in accordance to my own moral standards depends somewhat on society. My biggest slip ups are probably file sharing and eating meat. I think both things are wrong, but don’t have enough negative consequences for me to change my behavior.
I voted 2 (independent) and 4 (relative). But either or both could change depending on the scale of the game and system you hypothesize. I think I am not going to change my ethics based on temporary exposure to one person, but I think they are influenced by my exposure to all other people over the course of life.
It seems to me that your questions might be aimed at probing the border between absolute and relative ethics, and you are in effect asking about a really really small system and a much bigger one, to see if people change between those two broad descriptions.
Situational ethics definitely apply for alot of people. If you create a game that does not prohibit lying and mental manipulation as a means to winning the game, many people that are normally highly ethical in their everyday lives, due to the competitive nature of the game, will lie and manipulate to improve their chances of winning the game. See the television show Survivor.
I checked both “dependent on how opponent behaves” and “absolute”, since my system of behavior has, for lack of a better term, a series of levels of treatment that are not negotiable (the absolute part) that depend on how you’re acting. For a trivial example, standing me up a certain amount of times will abruptly change me from “assiduously punctual” to “if I show up, I show up” with regard to you, but that amount of times is the same whether you’re the pope, my dad, or a girlfriend, or J. Random Coworker.
Since this was specifically linked to sports there needs to be more clarification of the question. I’ve always responded to players trying to hurt me by removing them from the game. However, if someone is cheating I still play by the rules so I’m not sure how that fits in with the poll.
I don’t really want to clarify, because what inspired the question will derail the question.
But yes, Napier is mostly right - I want to see if you should adapt to your opponent’s ehtically lacking behaviour and counter with cheating of your own.
And I also want to explore if there are a few teams in a differnt part of the league that are ethically lacking, if that “justifies” you also joining them in the slums.
I’m afraid that, like many polls, it’s not that simple. Normally I’d pick the closest answer, but this time I’ll defer to the OP on what that is.
My general rule of life is that a rule or law does not exist unless it is enforced. The rules may say “No jaywalking”, but if I cross right in front of a cop and he just waves at me, I’ve done nothing wrong.
So, in a game where there are two people, and we’re the ones who made the rules, then the fact I find out my opponent cheated means I’m gonna call him on it. And if s/he says it doesn’t matter, then the rules have changed.
In a more complex game, knowing that someone is cheating means I need to inform whoever is in charge. If there is no one in charge, that means informing everyone else. Either way, the decision would not be made solely by me. If the leader (or group consensus) says something like “Well, we don’t have proof, so we can’t do anything about it”, although my first instinct would be to try to find proof, I would realize that the rule is actually “If you’re sneaky enough, it’s okay.”
So, you see, I’m absolute in that the rules of the game must be followed, And no one’s actions alone change the rules. But it can be the catalyst for the rules to be changed. What answer should I give?
