4 ms·

How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd

How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd be saying it's unethical to provide someone with a benefit-cost > 0 which they've agreed to, and I don't see why that should be true. I'd agree it's unethical only if their cognition was compromised (meaning he wasn't capable of analyzing the costs and benefits and deciding if it was in his interest) or if there were surprises hidden (meaning he didn't really agree to what happened) or if it's a particular type of decision where people are known to not be capable of factoring in long-term costs properly into their decision making. But we don't know if any of this is true, do we? An argument I would be sympathetic to would be that it's unethical not because of what happened to the subject in particular (after all, he net benefited if the above assumptions are met), but because of the negative flow-on impacts to culture and the social fabric.

b800h 4y ago
There used to be a website where someone gave homeless people money to fight each other. Perhaps it still exists. Is that ethical?
- hackerlight 4y ago
  I thought of bumfights when writing this, and decided that no, it's not ethical, because homeless people often suffer from mental illnesses which violates one of the assumptions that I laid out.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    What if the person isn't mentally ill, but doesn't reliably have enough to eat to survive adequately, and can get it by fighting for the entertainment of others (who do have plenty to eat, and more to spare). Is that ethical, because it's a rational cost-benefit analysis? There are few people in the US who don't have enough to eat to fuel their bodies, but in other countries there are more. I am not trying to describe the particular people in "bumfights", who I don't know, but hypothetically working the boundaries of this analysis. I also don't in fact think that people can be divided, in binary fashion, into those who are "rational" and "not rational". It seems pretty clear to me that enticing desperate people to fight each other, for the entertainment of others who find their desperation emotionally engaging, and for the profit of the promoters -- is unkind and disrespectful and an attack on their dignity. Even if they are not "mentally ill." It seems hard to argue otherwise. Is it how you would treat a relative or friend? To hypothetically say, well, sure it's unkind and disrespectful and an assault on their dignity, and I wouldn't do it to someone I loved, but it's not unethical to do to make a buck or a laugh -- what is the point of "ethics", then, exactly?
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      > To hypothetically say, well, sure it's unkind and disrespectful and an assault on their dignity, but it's not unethical to do to make a buck or a laugh -- what is the point of "ethics", then, exactly? But is it unkind? You're giving them a benefit (+$) and taking a cost (-dignity), and they've calculated that $ > dignity. Assuming their calculation was accurate, aren't you actually being kind? You are increasing their utility. > I also don't in fact think that people can be divided, in binary fashion, into those who are "rational" and "not rational". Yes, there isn't a clear dividing line between those who are capable of rationally calculating what's in their true best interest, and those who aren't. A dose of pragmatism is obviously needed. Homeless people are statistically much more likely to suffer from a mental illness which erodes their ability to rationally calculate costs and benefits more than others.
      - jrochkind1 4y ago
        Would you offer that deal to a family member or close friend in need of money? Why not?
        hackerlight 4y ago
        Definitely not, it would make me sad to subject them to that. I'd also feel pretty bad if I got them them to clean my house for money if they were in need. But that doesn't mean it's unethical, does it?
        jrochkind1 4y ago
        You wouldn't consider it either unkind or unethical to arrange for a needy family member to fight for money, you just wouldn't do it becuase it would make you sad? It doesn't seem an unkind thing to do, really? But, yes, I think intentionally subjecting strangers to something that you wouldn't subject your loved ones to because it would make you sad, is at least a signal that something is likely to be unethical. In general, I'd say profiting off of desperate people trading their dignity for money is probably unethical. Yes, I'm aware this can apply to other parts of society. Is your opinion basically that there is no such thing as unethical employment of someone? That if someone is of sound mind, any employment conditions are always ethnical, there is basically no way for an employer to behave unethically with regard to their employees? No matter how degrading, how awful their experience is, it isn't actually possible to consider any such conditions unethical, because the desperate employee chose to engage in the employment?
- gjulianm 4y ago
  No, because you're specifically targeting people who are in need, and fights carry a very high risk of damage. Unless you want to consider 99% of paid work as unethical, monetary need cannot be the only factor in considering whether something is ethical or not.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Is boxing ethical? People make choices because they believe it will make their life better. If the homeless people think the money is worth the fight that means the website is literally making their life better and therefore ethical.
_dain_ 4y ago
> How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd be saying it's unethical to provide someone with a benefit-cost > 0 which they've agreed to, and I don't see why that should be true. Because it's inherently degrading and dehumanizing. Ethics is more than just benefit vs cost.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  It shouldn't be because then people can use their disgust response to moralize about other people's behavior, and that's historically done a lot of real-world harm. There needs to be an actual moral justification instead of ad hoc assertions. But I get that there's a lot of scope for different views under the banner of meta-ethics.
dustedcodes 4y ago
> How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd be saying it's unethical to provide someone with a benefit-cost > 0 which they've agreed to, and I don't see why that should be true. It's unethical to ask people to perform an action which you know they would never agree to if it wasn't for an imbalance of power or financial pressure/incentives. Otherwise you could say why did Harvey Weinstein get prosecuted. When he asked women to suck him off and they did it voluntarily then it's not wrong is it? I mean they could have just walked away and not get hired for his next film.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  "It's unethical to ask people to perform an action which you know they would never agree to if it wasn't for an imbalance of power or financial pressure/incentives." Under utilitarianism you need to compare it to the alternative. You can't say X is immoral if Y is the alternative and Y is worse than X. In many cases, X=terrible job, Y=nothing. Otherwise you're actively opposing someone's wellbeing. This is the fatal problem with these ad hoc ethical rules that aren't grounded in actual outcomes. Consider the reductio ad absurdum. Almost everyone has a job because of financial pressures. Even upper middle class people feel pressure to secure themselves for old age and unforeseen circumstances. Is almost every job unethical? If yes, then you're saying that our species functioning is unethical, which is an absurdity. If no, then you don't believe it yourself. "Harvey Weinstein" No because he violated two of the assumptions I laid out, making it unethical under utilitarianism. He often introduced it as a surprise after the business relationship started. And he engaged in what was effectively high pressure sales tactics which jeopardizes the ability for the person to decide whether it's truly in their best interests (this would be a form of compromised cognition, similar to mentally ill homeless people in the Bumfights example). A third thing: the attempts themselves were a sort of menacing assault which subtracted utility from the person, which they didn't agree to be subjected to upfront.

b800h 4y ago

There used to be a website where someone gave homeless people money to fight each other. Perhaps it still exists. Is that ethical?

hackerlight 4y ago
I thought of bumfights when writing this, and decided that no, it's not ethical, because homeless people often suffer from mental illnesses which violates one of the assumptions that I laid out.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  What if the person isn't mentally ill, but doesn't reliably have enough to eat to survive adequately, and can get it by fighting for the entertainment of others (who do have plenty to eat, and more to spare). Is that ethical, because it's a rational cost-benefit analysis? There are few people in the US who don't have enough to eat to fuel their bodies, but in other countries there are more. I am not trying to describe the particular people in "bumfights", who I don't know, but hypothetically working the boundaries of this analysis. I also don't in fact think that people can be divided, in binary fashion, into those who are "rational" and "not rational". It seems pretty clear to me that enticing desperate people to fight each other, for the entertainment of others who find their desperation emotionally engaging, and for the profit of the promoters -- is unkind and disrespectful and an attack on their dignity. Even if they are not "mentally ill." It seems hard to argue otherwise. Is it how you would treat a relative or friend? To hypothetically say, well, sure it's unkind and disrespectful and an assault on their dignity, and I wouldn't do it to someone I loved, but it's not unethical to do to make a buck or a laugh -- what is the point of "ethics", then, exactly?
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    > To hypothetically say, well, sure it's unkind and disrespectful and an assault on their dignity, but it's not unethical to do to make a buck or a laugh -- what is the point of "ethics", then, exactly? But is it unkind? You're giving them a benefit (+$) and taking a cost (-dignity), and they've calculated that $ > dignity. Assuming their calculation was accurate, aren't you actually being kind? You are increasing their utility. > I also don't in fact think that people can be divided, in binary fashion, into those who are "rational" and "not rational". Yes, there isn't a clear dividing line between those who are capable of rationally calculating what's in their true best interest, and those who aren't. A dose of pragmatism is obviously needed. Homeless people are statistically much more likely to suffer from a mental illness which erodes their ability to rationally calculate costs and benefits more than others.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      Would you offer that deal to a family member or close friend in need of money? Why not?
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        Definitely not, it would make me sad to subject them to that. I'd also feel pretty bad if I got them them to clean my house for money if they were in need. But that doesn't mean it's unethical, does it?
        jrochkind1 4y ago
        You wouldn't consider it either unkind or unethical to arrange for a needy family member to fight for money, you just wouldn't do it becuase it would make you sad? It doesn't seem an unkind thing to do, really? But, yes, I think intentionally subjecting strangers to something that you wouldn't subject your loved ones to because it would make you sad, is at least a signal that something is likely to be unethical. In general, I'd say profiting off of desperate people trading their dignity for money is probably unethical. Yes, I'm aware this can apply to other parts of society. Is your opinion basically that there is no such thing as unethical employment of someone? That if someone is of sound mind, any employment conditions are always ethnical, there is basically no way for an employer to behave unethically with regard to their employees? No matter how degrading, how awful their experience is, it isn't actually possible to consider any such conditions unethical, because the desperate employee chose to engage in the employment?
gjulianm 4y ago
No, because you're specifically targeting people who are in need, and fights carry a very high risk of damage. Unless you want to consider 99% of paid work as unethical, monetary need cannot be the only factor in considering whether something is ethical or not.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Is boxing ethical? People make choices because they believe it will make their life better. If the homeless people think the money is worth the fight that means the website is literally making their life better and therefore ethical.

_dain_ 4y ago

hackerlight 4y ago
It shouldn't be because then people can use their disgust response to moralize about other people's behavior, and that's historically done a lot of real-world harm. There needs to be an actual moral justification instead of ad hoc assertions. But I get that there's a lot of scope for different views under the banner of meta-ethics.

dustedcodes 4y ago

> How can it be unethical if the person knows full well what's coming with no surprises, and the person judged that it was in their best interest to do it? That'd be saying it's unethical to provide someone with a benefit-cost > 0 which they've agreed to, and I don't see why that should be true. It's unethical to ask people to perform an action which you know they would never agree to if it wasn't for an imbalance of power or financial pressure/incentives. Otherwise you could say why did Harvey Weinstein get prosecuted. When he asked women to suck him off and they did it voluntarily then it's not wrong is it? I mean they could have just walked away and not get hired for his next film.

hackerlight 4y ago
"It's unethical to ask people to perform an action which you know they would never agree to if it wasn't for an imbalance of power or financial pressure/incentives." Under utilitarianism you need to compare it to the alternative. You can't say X is immoral if Y is the alternative and Y is worse than X. In many cases, X=terrible job, Y=nothing. Otherwise you're actively opposing someone's wellbeing. This is the fatal problem with these ad hoc ethical rules that aren't grounded in actual outcomes. Consider the reductio ad absurdum. Almost everyone has a job because of financial pressures. Even upper middle class people feel pressure to secure themselves for old age and unforeseen circumstances. Is almost every job unethical? If yes, then you're saying that our species functioning is unethical, which is an absurdity. If no, then you don't believe it yourself. "Harvey Weinstein" No because he violated two of the assumptions I laid out, making it unethical under utilitarianism. He often introduced it as a surprise after the business relationship started. And he engaged in what was effectively high pressure sales tactics which jeopardizes the ability for the person to decide whether it's truly in their best interests (this would be a form of compromised cognition, similar to mentally ill homeless people in the Bumfights example). A third thing: the attempts themselves were a sort of menacing assault which subtracted utility from the person, which they didn't agree to be subjected to upfront.