4 ms·

> Therefore, the only metric to judge is through the lens of legality (because everyone "agrees" what legal is). I just want to make sure we're all on the same

> Therefore, the only metric to judge is through the lens of legality (because everyone "agrees" what legal is). I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here: You believe that prior to Lawrence v. Texas, being a gay man in many of the US states was unethical? That prior to 1865 chattel slavery was ethical? I often feel like HN has devolved into high-school level science fiction and philosophy, but this is rather on the nose.

chii 3y ago
> That prior to 1865 chattel slavery was ethical? some people in that era did believe it was ethical, and some didn't. After a while, more and more people were convinced that it was unethical (and conveniently, machinary made slavery less economical for some industries). Once enough people believed/changed their minds about it being ethical, there was a large argument that resulted in laws rather than on individual ethical beliefs.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Legal is what we collectively decide. Ethical is what we personally decide. Clearly something is either legal or not, and we have mechanisms setup to clarify where there is dispute. Some professions have ethical standards. Some even have enforcement of them, making them pseudo-legalities. But personal ethics, are, well, personal. You may find it ethical to eat meat, I might not. You may consider it unethical to eat cheese, or coffee, or honey. You might consider it ethical to pay minimum wage, or require employees to answer emails after hours. Or rent out an apartment, or wear white in October. Ethics are personal and vary enormously. Declaring things to be ethical or not is therefore somewhat unhelpful. Clearly some will agree, some will not. Whole college courses exist to try and define ethics and to encourage students to at least think about what their own ethical boundaries might be.
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    > Legal is what we collectively decide. It's not even that. The collective didn't ask for sodomy laws. The collective didn't repeal Roe v Wade.
    - chii 3y ago
      enough did that it passed, because the USA's system of first-past-the-post voting has such a loophole.
      - krainboltgreene 3y ago
        Sure, if you define "collective of american voters" as "5 unelected people", then sure "enough did".
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  This is both incredibly historic and clumsily sidesteps the fact that were you in that time, according to your statement, you would have found it ethical.
  - chii 3y ago
    > you would have found it ethical. not having lived that era, it cannot be said which side i would've been on - because it would've depended on which side i was born, and the circumstances i find myself in. The truth is that which ever "ethical" belief that benefits me the most will have been the belief i followed. Most people believe that their beliefs are ethical, but are in reality, just post hoc rationalizations of decisions that benefit themselves (knowingly or not). I am just being clear, rather than try to hide this fact.
    - krainboltgreene 3y ago
      > the only metric to judge [what is ethical] is through the lens of legality You've told us exactly what "side you would have been on".
wpietri 3y ago
Yeah, HN has a strong vein of Dunning Kruger running through it. Anybody taken in by the waffle about the law being the only metric to judge actions has never thought about where laws come from. Or read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which clearly and passionately discusses the topic.

chii 3y ago

> That prior to 1865 chattel slavery was ethical? some people in that era did believe it was ethical, and some didn't. After a while, more and more people were convinced that it was unethical (and conveniently, machinary made slavery less economical for some industries). Once enough people believed/changed their minds about it being ethical, there was a large argument that resulted in laws rather than on individual ethical beliefs.

bruce511 3y ago
Legal is what we collectively decide. Ethical is what we personally decide. Clearly something is either legal or not, and we have mechanisms setup to clarify where there is dispute. Some professions have ethical standards. Some even have enforcement of them, making them pseudo-legalities. But personal ethics, are, well, personal. You may find it ethical to eat meat, I might not. You may consider it unethical to eat cheese, or coffee, or honey. You might consider it ethical to pay minimum wage, or require employees to answer emails after hours. Or rent out an apartment, or wear white in October. Ethics are personal and vary enormously. Declaring things to be ethical or not is therefore somewhat unhelpful. Clearly some will agree, some will not. Whole college courses exist to try and define ethics and to encourage students to at least think about what their own ethical boundaries might be.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago
  > Legal is what we collectively decide. It's not even that. The collective didn't ask for sodomy laws. The collective didn't repeal Roe v Wade.
  - chii 3y ago
    enough did that it passed, because the USA's system of first-past-the-post voting has such a loophole.
    - krainboltgreene 3y ago
      Sure, if you define "collective of american voters" as "5 unelected people", then sure "enough did".
krainboltgreene 3y ago
This is both incredibly historic and clumsily sidesteps the fact that were you in that time, according to your statement, you would have found it ethical.
- chii 3y ago
  > you would have found it ethical. not having lived that era, it cannot be said which side i would've been on - because it would've depended on which side i was born, and the circumstances i find myself in. The truth is that which ever "ethical" belief that benefits me the most will have been the belief i followed. Most people believe that their beliefs are ethical, but are in reality, just post hoc rationalizations of decisions that benefit themselves (knowingly or not). I am just being clear, rather than try to hide this fact.
  - krainboltgreene 3y ago
    > the only metric to judge [what is ethical] is through the lens of legality You've told us exactly what "side you would have been on".

wpietri 3y ago

Yeah, HN has a strong vein of Dunning Kruger running through it. Anybody taken in by the waffle about the law being the only metric to judge actions has never thought about where laws come from. Or read MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which clearly and passionately discusses the topic.