4 ms·

You have to be careful with this. Ethics can also be used to discriminate against people for religious reasons. These people think they are as ethical as you th

You have to be careful with this. Ethics can also be used to discriminate against people for religious reasons. These people think they are as ethical as you think you are.

dlwdlw 9y ago
All discrimination already is doing this, just indirectly. There's always an implication. The major one in the US is that harder working people are ethically better than lazy people. This combined with the belief that hard work equals success allows for very easy punishment based mindsets to spread.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  I don't really understand this mindset. Are we supposed to treat people like there's absolutely no right or wrong way to live? How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live by or strive for? Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior?
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    Sadly, yes. These days you cannot judge anyone by your own ethical standards, only by their own. There is no right and wrong, only consistency and hypocrisy.
  - edent 9y ago
    > Are we supposed to treat people like there's absolutely no right or wrong way to live? Yes. Modern society says that as long as your actions don't harm me, you should be able to do what you wish. There are some edge-cases, caveats, and exceptions - but that is the essence of modern liberalism. > How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live You are assuming stability is a good thing. Progress is made through instability. You also assume that stability occurred back when society had standards. A quick look through history doesn't show any evidence of that. You also assume that stability doesn't harm people. It clearly does. When a society says no deviation is acceptable, the deviants are punished for the "crime" of existing. > Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior? Who decides what is good behaviour and what is bad? Allowing women to receive an education was considered bad behaviour in many societies. But society changes. Why should my behaviour be punished if it doesn't hurt anyone? Who I love is none of your concern.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > Modern society says that as long as your actions don't harm me, you should be able to do what you wish. No, modern law may strive for this ideal, but society doesn't. Society itself has a social aspect that goes beyond some modern liberalistic ideal. Since people are social and tribal, society will always have standards by which we live by. For example, people walking down the street naked will always be interpreted as crazy, regardless of any harm committed against other people. > Progress is made through instability. This depends entirely upon your definition of "progress." I personally don't think of the complete degradation of social standards as a good thing. > You also assume that stability doesn't harm people. It clearly does. Real life has winners and losers. Life is a system of inputs and outputs, and social pressure guides people into frameworks that lead to productive behavior in our society. Can they be taken too far? Sure. That, however, does not mean that _all_ social pressures are bad. For example, if a person is shamed for constant novelty-seeking through drinking, partying, and obnoxious behavior, a sense of shame may guide them into a mindset that allows for longer-term planning and goal seeking instead.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    That's what laws are for. They set acceptable standards. Everything else is personal taste.
walshemj 9y ago
The Hippocratic oath is not based on religion how would you discriminate against "religion"
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I am worried about people discriminating because of religion not against.
rtpg 9y ago
That's a pretty vague objection I mean sure someone can say this but you can build an ethical existence around things that we believe to be right. This will exclude certain people. For example it might exclude arms manufacturers. It might exclude the Weinsteins of the world. But that's the point! If your ethical standard doesn't exclude behavior it's hard for it to have much teeth
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  It's hard to define an ethical standard. For some it's unethical to discriminate against gay people whereas for others being gay is unethical. As far tech goes I think best would be to follow Stallmann's ethics. They are directly relevant to our work.
  - Sangermaine 9y ago
    >It's hard to define an ethical standard. This is nonsense. Attorneys, doctors, accountants, and other professions have long had ethical codes. This isn't some impossible task, programmers just don't want the responsibility.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      These groups have ethical standards that are directly related to their work. So as tech people we should have standards for our line of work. Again, let's look at Stallmann.

You have to be careful with this. Ethics can also be used to discriminate against people for religious reasons. These people think they are as ethical as you think you are.

dlwdlw 9y ago

All discrimination already is doing this, just indirectly. There's always an implication. The major one in the US is that harder working people are ethically better than lazy people. This combined with the belief that hard work equals success allows for very easy punishment based mindsets to spread.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
I don't really understand this mindset. Are we supposed to treat people like there's absolutely no right or wrong way to live? How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live by or strive for? Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior?
- 794CD01 9y ago
  Sadly, yes. These days you cannot judge anyone by your own ethical standards, only by their own. There is no right and wrong, only consistency and hypocrisy.
- edent 9y ago
  > Are we supposed to treat people like there's absolutely no right or wrong way to live? Yes. Modern society says that as long as your actions don't harm me, you should be able to do what you wish. There are some edge-cases, caveats, and exceptions - but that is the essence of modern liberalism. > How are we supposed to have a stable society when there are no standards by which to live You are assuming stability is a good thing. Progress is made through instability. You also assume that stability occurred back when society had standards. A quick look through history doesn't show any evidence of that. You also assume that stability doesn't harm people. It clearly does. When a society says no deviation is acceptable, the deviants are punished for the "crime" of existing. > Why shouldn't we discriminate against bad behavior and provide positive feedback for good behavior? Who decides what is good behaviour and what is bad? Allowing women to receive an education was considered bad behaviour in many societies. But society changes. Why should my behaviour be punished if it doesn't hurt anyone? Who I love is none of your concern.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > Modern society says that as long as your actions don't harm me, you should be able to do what you wish. No, modern law may strive for this ideal, but society doesn't. Society itself has a social aspect that goes beyond some modern liberalistic ideal. Since people are social and tribal, society will always have standards by which we live by. For example, people walking down the street naked will always be interpreted as crazy, regardless of any harm committed against other people. > Progress is made through instability. This depends entirely upon your definition of "progress." I personally don't think of the complete degradation of social standards as a good thing. > You also assume that stability doesn't harm people. It clearly does. Real life has winners and losers. Life is a system of inputs and outputs, and social pressure guides people into frameworks that lead to productive behavior in our society. Can they be taken too far? Sure. That, however, does not mean that _all_ social pressures are bad. For example, if a person is shamed for constant novelty-seeking through drinking, partying, and obnoxious behavior, a sense of shame may guide them into a mindset that allows for longer-term planning and goal seeking instead.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  That's what laws are for. They set acceptable standards. Everything else is personal taste.

walshemj 9y ago

The Hippocratic oath is not based on religion how would you discriminate against "religion"

maxxxxx 9y ago
I am worried about people discriminating because of religion not against.

rtpg 9y ago

That's a pretty vague objection I mean sure someone can say this but you can build an ethical existence around things that we believe to be right. This will exclude certain people. For example it might exclude arms manufacturers. It might exclude the Weinsteins of the world. But that's the point! If your ethical standard doesn't exclude behavior it's hard for it to have much teeth

maxxxxx 9y ago
It's hard to define an ethical standard. For some it's unethical to discriminate against gay people whereas for others being gay is unethical. As far tech goes I think best would be to follow Stallmann's ethics. They are directly relevant to our work.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  >It's hard to define an ethical standard. This is nonsense. Attorneys, doctors, accountants, and other professions have long had ethical codes. This isn't some impossible task, programmers just don't want the responsibility.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    These groups have ethical standards that are directly related to their work. So as tech people we should have standards for our line of work. Again, let's look at Stallmann.