Ethical Decision Making at Home and at Work

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Ethical Decision Making at Home and at Work

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 22 Aug, 2006 09:15 am
By Jim Roe

First, a definition of Ethics: principles of human duty, rules of conduct and the duty of being honorable . Simply put: Being ethical is doing the right thing.

Much is said about Ethics and we all agree we have them. But just what is "them?" Lets tackle the business ethics first for it is simple and straight forward. The problem comes when you are asked by your supervisor to do something that you are not sure if it is the right thing to do.

There are two parts to the business ethical question:

What to do when you are asked to do something, would your action be ethical?
When you personally have to make decisions: How do you make them ethically?

Following Orders

This part is simple. You must understand your loyalties:

Be loyal to yourself.

Next, be loyal to the company

And finally, be loyal to your supervisor.

Remember the sequence: Yourself, the company and then your supervisor.

Texas Instruments has a simple three-step rule to follow if you question the ethical merits of a directive:

If you know it is wrong, simply don't do it.

If you are not sure, ask.

Keep asking until you get an answer.

What if you are asked to do the unethical and there is no way out? You should always have "Go to hell money" available to say just that. Go to hell and let the chips fall where they may. Resigning is far superior to lowering your standards.

Making Ethical Decisions

This is a short article I wrote when I was studying ethics. First a brief history, followed by a brief outline of the ethical school I live by (Utilitarian Ethics) and then the "how-to" of making ethical decisions. It is an easy read as Word rates the article as suitable for grade eight readers.

Those who specialize in the study of and write about ethics are called Ethicans. By any definition they are a strange lot. Their main occupation is criticizing other ethicans and every ethical school of thought except the ones they favor.

Ethicans attempt to create an ethical school that applies to every occasion. The search is for a unifying ethical system is much like the search for the unifying theory of physics. It may happen in physics but not in ethics. Ethics is an emotional identity attempting to present itself as a logical and rational discipline. It fails miserably.

In addition, the ethical thinkers are not logical thinkers. They squabble amongst themselves and pass themselves off as great thinkers. If you want to read classical examples of poor writing, corrupt logic and pettiness, read the classical ethical writers. Yet they were brilliant.

For example, John Stuart Mills (1806-1873), regarded as the great proponent of Utilitarian Ethics was brilliant. By the age of seventeen he had completed advanced studies in Greek literature and philosophy, chemistry, botany, psychology and law. As a member of the British parliament he was considered a radical, as he supported such outrageous measures as public ownership of natural resources, equality for women, compulsory education, and birth control. He was one of the founders of the women's suffrage movement.

His 1863 essay on Utilitarian ethics is regarded as the cornerstone of the Utilitarian principles. It is a disgraceful example of writing. For example the opening sentence is sixty-two words long. And things only get worse. Word processing grammar checkers get serious indigestion trying to analyze it.

Since 1863 I doubt if a dozen people have read the 24,000 word document from start to finish. I am not one of them. It is a masterpiece of confusion, bad grammar, and poor punctuation while making little sense. The concept is correct, but Mill's explanation is so inept, it borders on the criminal.

In truth, the concept can be well expressed in less than five hundred words. Throw in a few examples and two thousand words would be about right. Strange, that is about the length of this essay.

I said they were crazy lot. Consider the founder of Utilitarian Ethics, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). He was quite a fellow: he was a child prodigy, reading serious works at age three, playing the violin at age five, and studying French and Latin at age six. He entered Oxford University at age 12, studied law, and was admitted to the bar. Quite a fellow.

In 1771, thirty years before the industrial revolution, Jeremy Betham invented the Panopticon. A Panopticon was to remove all privacy from prisoners by placing them behind a transparent wall encircling a guard tower.

Jeremy was so impressed with his invention he was determined to have a Panopticon as his casket and be place on public display. Certainly and odd request. But there is a difference between being odd and being disgusting.

Ladies, if you are a bit squeamish you may not want to hear this so please close your eyes. In accordance with his wishes, his body was dissected before his friends. His skeleton, fully clothed and provided with a wax head (the original being mummified), is kept in a glass case at University College, which he helped to found. He may be viewed on the Web with the picture updated every fifteen minutes.

His head was embalmed and is kept by the University.

There are about fifteen schools of ethics. Including minor variations there are untold numbers. After reviewing many of the mainstream schools, I can honestly say I have little idea of what they are talking about except for Utilitarian Ethics.

Fool that I am, I delved into Utilitarian Ethics as it made sense to apply it to my life style.

My ethical system is based on Utilitarian Ethics: the doctrine that what is useful is good, and consequently, that the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of the result. Loosely put, its proposition is that the supreme objective of moral action is the achievement of the greatest good for the greatest number. This objective is also considered the aim of all legislation and is the ultimate criterion of all social institutions including businesses.

Like all other ethical systems, it fails if you expect it to solve all ethical problems. No one ethical system can solve a wide range of problems ranging from government to business to individual ethical questions.

Fortunately, I have serious limitations for which I am thankful. I seek answers to my problems and opportunities. I do not have the ability nor the need to solve such issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. Nor can I solve the problems of the world. As I said, they are beyond my capabilities and for that I am thankful for my limitations.

One beauty of Utilitarian Ethics is that it has only two definitions: Good and Evil. Good is defined as any individual's good feeling ranging from pleasures of the flesh to extreme self-sacrifice. Between these extremes there are included such things as material rewards. Evil is defined as harm to any individual ranging from such minor irritants such as a sliver in the finger to the evils of Hitler. Again, somewhere in there is material loss.

One last consideration: morals. You come to the table with your morals and religious beliefs. Ethics does not teach or propose a moral credo. You are who you are. If you are morally corrupt, a thief or completely uncaring, ethics is of little use to you. The only way one can improve their moral values is probably through some form of revelation.

Living by an ethical system is not in conflict with your religion or lack of it. All the mainstream religions, whether based on love or law, urge you to be good to others while minimizing evil in all its forms. Ethics simply provides a method to assist you in achieving your religious obligations of doing the right thing while minimizing evil. A religious belief is not a requirement of being ethical.

Resolving ethical problems using Utilitarian Ethics has a logical almost mathematical, step-by-step approach to it.

Let's assume you want to make a business decision. If it does not affect people, there is no ethical consideration. Ethics only concerns itself with people. That does not mean your can abuse animals. Nor does it permit you to burn down you house even if you own it. Wanton destruction is unacceptable.

Is slaughtering animals for human consumption ethical? How about using animals for testing which causes them pain? I have no idea how you feel about the subject. But I do know I could not be employed in such industries, yet I benefit from their practices. As I said, I have serious limitations of my thought processes when it comes to resolving such fundamental issues.

Fortunately all those tough problems do not face me. In truth, I am not sure I could face up to them let alone resolve them.

So on to the reality of everyday life:

Let's assume we are contemplating installing some form of safety or pollution device.

We think of three possible methods, A, B, and C. And we throw in a fourth possibility D, simply doing nothing. We make a list showing all the benefits (Good) to both ourselves and others. Now consider disadvantages (Evil) to yourself and others. Evaluate both the good and evil, not just to us, but to everyone involved. Consider employees, the shareholders, suppliers, the community, and the government.

The first test is do you benefit from any evil side effect? The test is resolved by considering what, if somehow, the evil side effects did not happen, would you still benefit? If you would benefit only if the evil event occurred, then the act is unethical. It is unethical to benefit from some form of evil inflicted on others. This test quickly determines that theft, murder, cheating, and most forms of lying are unethical acts.

With the list made, consider what method has the least evils. Assuming all three methods meet your goals, only the method having the least evil is ethical. To select a method that does not minimize the evil consequences is unethical.

Let's consider the ethical merits of laying-off people for lack of work. It happens all the time. Now lack of work can range from receiving fewer orders than expected to simply running out of money, i.e. a builder lays-off his construction workers because he has run out of money. The house is still there to be completed, but there is no money. Employees are certainly harmed by the layoff. We pass the first test, as we do not benefit from their hardship.

Now consider what happens if the layoff is not made. Eventually the company will lose money, become less competitive and the problems multiply for the lack of layoffs. The result can only be that many others such as the employees, suppliers, shareholders or the community will be seriously harmed when the business fails. However unpleasant, the layoff for lack of work is ethical, not nice, but ethical.

So the method is simple. Consider all the alternatives and select the one with the least harm to all. Easier said than done.

Time passes, the act is carried out, and you or someone else thinks of a better, less evil solution to the problem or opportunity. Was the original act ethical? Yes. You tried your best to be ethical. Not being clever enough is no sin. You must learn to live with and rejoice in God's gift of your limitations.

More time passes. Given the identical problem there is no guarantee that the ethical decision you made in the past would be ethical now. Times change the priorities. What was important then may not be important now. What was a minor consideration then may be a major concern now.

In business we are trying to find the best balance for all: the employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, government and the community. Demands of each change with time. For example, in recent years the governments drive for improve workplace health and safety, minimizing and controlling pollution have come to the fore. Twenty years ago they were just being thought about. Forty years ago, they were non-issues. Times change. The new balance must be found with the changing times.

If we pay too much for supplies and wages, our costs become excessive and we loose our competitiveness. Layoffs and perhaps business failure occurs harming all employees, the shareholders, our suppliers, customers etc.

If our wages are to low we loose good employees and their skills, endangering the business.

Our family life goes through similar changes. The balance of your influencing your children changes, demanding a rebalance of your private life. Consider the balance when the children were small to when you will have an empty nest. Both logic and Ethics demands you treat your children well. Be good to your children. Always remember: they pick your old age home.

I can understand if you object to my ethical system. But to object to mine while having none of your own is foolish.
This was written to clarify my thoughts and develop an ethical way of reasoning suitable to my life style. Over the years I have found it to be a great problem solver when dealing with personnel problems both at home and at work.

Jim Roe

http://www.smartjobhunting.comhttp://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jim_Roe
 
NoAngst
 
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 09:29 pm
@Article bot,
that what is deemed "right" and "wrong" in one society is often the opposite in another. That there is nothing inherent in a baby being left at our doorstep which compels us to take it in and care for it should go without saying. Indeed, among the Mundugumor of New Guinea, such incident would be viewed as food from the gods, to be promptly cooked over a spit and served with fresh bananas. So are the Mundugumor "wrong", or only "wrong from our point of view"? To speak of "right" or "wrong" as an ideal or from other than within a specific societal context seems entirely artificial to me.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 05:28 pm
@NoAngst,
(W. Shakespeare: Hamlet,Act 2, Scene 2)
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Sun 29 Oct, 2006 10:45 am
@Article bot,
"Right" and "Wrong" are subject to interpretation in many cases.
One's boss, for example; may think it is right to suspend someone for missing time at work without calling in sick first.
So is this right or wrong?
I'm sure everyone has different answers for that, so leave it rhetoric...it's just for example.
Is this why ethics have been such a basis for dillemna over the years? Misinterpretation of ideas that many people take for granted?

I think it's wrong to physically hit someone in anger.
If someone hits me, I will hit them back in anger.
Does this make me unethical?

On the same note, I think it's wrong for someone to attack somebody without consequence.
If someone hits me, and I react ethically by not hitting in anger...does this make my decision unethical for ignoring the fact that someone has not received due consequence for their actions?

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:40 am
@Article bot,
Why decide that somebody hits you?

That is where you damm yourself, by rescinding the responsibility.

It is wiser to wonder why you got in the way.

This is because our own actions are easier to control than those of other people.

-- RH.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 05:29 pm
@Article bot,
I was the victim of a random beating in the summer of 1999.

I was walking home from work and five guys decided to stop their car and beat me close to death.
There was no reason or provocation.

So am I damned?

I still wonder "why me" on a regular basis.
I understand that those guys were just looking for a victim to take out their aggressions on.
I am actually grateful that it was me, and not someone else who would not be able to take a beating like I did.

I have a minor form of dwarfism that I inherited from my mother, (who stands tall at 4'6", my grandmother was almost 4' tall) which causes my bones to be denser and heavier than normal (it also hurts on a daily basis and has similar side effects to fybromialgia (sic?))
During the fray; Seven of my ribs were broken, my collarbone split laterally, my skull was fractured, my left hip chipped, my left arm was shattered from using it as a shield, and my nose has a weird crook to it now as a result of being broken. I lost six teeth and had a hairline fracture to my jaw, as well as many cuts and bruises.

Why did I get in the way?

Answer: I had to walk home. I was in a brightly lit area with a lot of traffic, and it was just after dusk.

I did manage to get in a few shots, but they had bats and a field hockey stick (which is fiberglass) so defense was the primary concern for me at the time.

Do I regret my decision to walk home on a brightly lit street after a day of work?
No.

My actions were simple.
The actions of my attackers were not in my control., no.

I did not decide to be attacked.
I don't feel I was damned in any way by my decision.
I got in the way because I was minding my own business.

Sometimes, you can't control what other people do, or where you are when they do these actions..
What you can control is how you respond in your daily living, the day after.

I chose to move away from that city after my assailants found out I went to the police and tracked me down.
They tried to set my house on fire, so I left the province and never looked back.
Now I enjoy my simple life, my career, and my family.

I wouldn't have that if they had not attacked me that nigbht,, so in a way; I am actually grateful for them.
 
Justin
 
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 09:39 am
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
I was the victim of a random beating in the summer of 1999.

I was walking home from work and five guys decided to stop their car and beat me close to death.
There was no reason or provocation.....


It's too bad that people have to act in this fashion, and I'm sorry to hear this incident has happened.

On the other hand, had this not happenend, you wouldn't be able to enjoy the life you have now. Things happen to us for a reason and it's neither failure nor defeat, it's all a learning experience. Without learning experiences, we could never advance.

This goes back to balance. For every action there is a reaction. If the action is negative and then the reaction is also negative, there is chaos. When it comes to ethical decision making, good will always overcome evil. So in making decisions, it might be wise to make decisions that would be in the light rather than the darkness. -Not to preach, but Jesus turned the other cheek and forgave those who persecuted him. That's ethical in my humble opinion. ... and after all that, Jesus overcame the evil of the world.

For every negative thing that happens in our lives, there is something positive that comes out of it. It's our 'decision' to see the positive rather than the negative. Whether we see the positives or not, they are present in every aspect of life. When we can look past the negative stuff and hone in on the positives, then we will know how to make ethical decisions. Until then we just continue in this jungle.

ON the negative side, Aristoddler was attacked and his choice could have been to only see the negative side of what had happened. If he had done this, he could have lived the rest of his life angry with these people and blaming them for his problems. Instead he chose to see the positive side of what has happened, just as he's posted above.

This my friends, is a good example of Ethical decsion making.



Ethical
 
perplexity
 
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 12:42 pm
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
...
This goes back to balance. For every action there is a reaction. If the action is negative and then the reaction is also negative, there is chaos. When it comes to ethical decision making, good will always overcome evil....


Where then is the fulcrum?

For every action there is a reaction as if there were no choice about it, or for every reaction there is a choice of reactions, with one crucial choice being to refuse to be balanced by somebody else's preconception of it?

Do we or do we not thus dare to disturb the balance of nature, nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
and by opposing end them?

It was an absurdly ignorant, untenable belief in balance that caused the greatest part of the distress in my life, the idea that if and when it was all levelled up and got even with, then it would all be well, somehow or other. Again and again it wrecks human relationships, the hope of give and take as a matter of balance.

The truth is rather that for the most part there is nothing to be done in so far as what is done is done, for if it would rather fall to us to balance the future with the past, then we are helplessly enslaved to the hopelessness of the cause, for the past is only within our control to extent that we adjust our perception of it to maintain the precious illusion of balance, for fear of the sheer dizziness of the alternative.

In order to fly we must first learn how to lift our feet off the ground without falling over, but that is not to say that we should fear to stand on our own two feet for want of eyes in the back of our heads.

Life defies balance.

--- RH.
 
Justin
 
Reply Fri 3 Nov, 2006 06:39 pm
@perplexity,
Yes, for every action there is a reaction. I don't believe that it's disputable. We also do have a choice of our reaction and I don't believe that's disputable either. These actions and reactions accur over and over throughout our entire lives and how we choose to react to circumstances surrounding us, is directly responsible for next action/reaction. It's one reaction that can change the course of the day, and yes, we are directly responsible for our reactions.

You mentioned this:
Quote:
It was an absurdly ignorant, untenable belief in balance that caused the greatest part of the distress in my life, the idea that if and when it was all levelled up and got even with, then it would all be well, somehow or other. Again and again it wrecks human relationships, the hope of give and take as a matter of balance.
In my own life, I'm discovering that I've been my own worst enemy. Those greatest distresses have been the effect of my reactions to what happens around me and keeps acting/reacting down the line. Placing blame for anything in my life upon external circumstances and conditions, isn't valid. It simply doesn't work.

We can choose to place blame on external situations and destroy ourselves in the meantime, or we can accept what cannot be changed and find the light in it. Find in it, the good and positive reaction.

There's a person at work right now I'm trying to get to understand exactly this. He's gotten into physical altercations with a number of employees and a customer as well. This has gone on for a long time. Meanwhile he's telling me that a certain person or two within the company are evil and there isn't any good in them. He's on a path to self destruction and it's because of non-other than his reactions to the things around him. Instead of seeing the positive reaction, he sees the negative. It's making the decision to be 'ethical' I suppose. Now, I can feed into his problems and become emotionally involved and join him in his misery... maybe even best of friends and we can fight together. Smile Or I can make the ethical decision to respond in a positive way. My actions and reactions may possibly be able to provide an example and eventually maybe he'll start looking at all the positives.

Everyone has their opinions on this, however I've learned that Love conquers all. I personally wasn't raised with much love like many of others so I rather sat back and analyzed it. In my findings through experience and trial and error, one thing is for certain, good always overcomes evil and love is what conquers all. This may seem odd but based on what I've seen, love and balance is what's important.

So, we can continue to study philosophy and discuss all the unknowns and ethical decision making, but when we have found that actions of Love is really what builds people. Again, it's new to me because it wasn't something that was conditioned during my own childhood. But from a birds-eye-view, I've seen how it effects others that reach that next level in consciousness. All of which starts within each of one of us and our actions and reactions.

The eye-for-an-eye and now we're even mentality hurts everyone involved. It's also true that when we harbor ill feelings for something in our past, the only person it hurts is us. When are people going to realize when we hurt another individual, we hurt ourselves and then when we blame the hurt, it just worsens the effect for years to come.

It's not about balancing the future with the past either, it's about balancing today and tomorrow. You can perceive the past in whichever way you choose to look at it. If we perceive it through the eyes of negativity, then the road ahead will be just that. An illusion of balance and fear is what causes the self-destruction of mankind.

In order to fly, we must first realize that we have the ability within us. No need for eyes on the back of your head when we're focused on the hear, now and tomorrow. It's all in how we choose to look at things. That glass can be either half-emty or half-full.

So what is Ethical Decision making? To me it's that extra effort to look for the positives and make decisions according to that which has already proven to work and the fulcrum is Love and the journey is getting there.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 02:41 am
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
Yes, for every action there is a reaction. I don't believe that it's disputable.


You should get around more.

On the Buddhist forums the subject of karma is disputed ad infinitum, especially with regard to action and reaction.
Rather than repeat myself would it help to supply some links?
It would be a refreshing change to see responses to what I have actually said instead of reactions to their own perceptions of it.


Justin wrote:

We also do have a choice of our reaction and I don't believe that's disputable either. These actions and reactions accur over and over throughout our entire lives and how we choose to react to circumstances surrounding us, is directly responsible for next action/reaction. It's one reaction that can change the course of the day, and yes, we are directly responsible for our reactions.


The problem is logical. In so far as other people own a choice with regard to our actions, that would render them directly responsible for the effect of the action.

It is therefore possible to be responsible for our effect on other people only to the extent that it is possible to presume to anticipate their reaction, which in the final analysis is their own business, not for us to presume to know in advance.


Justin wrote:

You mentioned this:
In my own life, I'm discovering that I've been my own worst enemy. Those greatest distresses have been the effect of my reactions to what happens around me and keeps acting/reacting down the line. Placing blame for anything in my life upon external circumstances and conditions, isn't valid. It simply doesn't work.


Is that something that I am supposed to have said?

I had never for one moment doubted that one's self is the worst sort of enemy to pick, and have said so on many an occasion, simply because of the difficulty of running a fair trial with oneself as the sole elected Judge, Jury and Prosecution.

Where the self attempts to defeat the self the odds are always rigged to favour .... guess who.

Justin wrote:

We can choose to place blame on external situations and destroy ourselves in the meantime, or we can accept what cannot be changed and find the light in it. Find in it, the good and positive reaction.


Indeed, I have waited patiently for you and others to see the light in what I have had to say, none so blind as those who would not see.

Justin wrote:

There's a person at work right now I'm trying to get to understand exactly this. He's gotten into physical altercations with a number of employees and a customer as well. This has gone on for a long time. Meanwhile he's telling me that a certain person or two within the company are evil and there isn't any good in them. He's on a path to self destruction and it's because of non-other than his reactions to the things around him. Instead of seeing the positive reaction, he sees the negative.


I see.

You therefore come with an agenda. This is what they call emotional transference: Because you failed to resolve an issue with the person in the best position to do something about it, you attempt instead to reolve it with somebody not in the best position to do something about it.

Justin wrote:

It's making the decision to be 'ethical' I suppose. Now, I can feed into his problems and become emotionally involved and join him in his misery... maybe even best of friends and we can fight together. Smile Or I can make the ethical decision to respond in a positive way.


One might also mind one's own business.

Justin wrote:

My actions and reactions may possibly be able to provide an example and eventually maybe he'll start looking at all the positives. Everyone has their opinions on this, however I've learned that Love conquers all.


If you are taking bets on this, my money says that he'll resent your attitude.

Justin wrote:

I personally wasn't raised with much love like many of others so I rather sat back and analyzed it. In my findings through experience and trial and error, one thing is for certain, good always overcomes evil and love is what conquers all. This may seem odd but based on what I've seen, love and balance is what's important.


It is most certainly odd if it means that on every possible occasion it is vital to disturb the balance between love and hate.

Justin wrote:

So, we can continue to study philosophy and discuss all the unknowns and ethical decision making, but when we have found that actions of Love is really what builds people.


I have heard tell that love builds people.

They call it copulation.


Justin wrote:

Again, it's new to me because it wasn't something that was conditioned during my own childhood. But from a birds-eye-view, I've seen how it effects others that reach that next level in consciousness. All of which starts within each of one of us and our actions and reactions.


I have learned more from defeat, as compared to victories presumed in advance.


Justin wrote:

The eye-for-an-eye and now we're even mentality hurts everyone involved.


That is the best thing about it. People learn from pain. Except that it hurts to put your hand in the flame, we would all long since be burnt in Hell.

Cruel to be kind, tough love, I fear for people who think that the only effect that matters is the immediate, with no thought for the strategic effect.


Justin wrote:

It's also true that when we harbor ill feelings for something in our past, the only person it hurts is us.


I'd thought this was about overt action rather than harboring, but never mind.


Justin wrote:

When are people going to realize when we hurt another individual, we hurt ourselves and then when we blame the hurt, it just worsens the effect for years to come.


Obviously enough this would only possibly be when they are willing to humiliate themselves to the recognition of your supreme wisdom, hardly as if they'd ever be able or willing to work it out for themselves.


Justin wrote:

It's not about balancing the future with the past either, it's about balancing today and tomorrow.


How nice it would be then for today to hang around for long enough to know the attempt.

My todays flash by before the chance. Blink and I miss them. The fulcrum moves before I know if it is balanced or not.


Justin wrote:

You can perceive the past in whichever way you choose to look at it. If we perceive it through the eyes of negativity, then the road ahead will be just that. An illusion of balance and fear is what causes the self-destruction of mankind.
In order to fly, we must first realize that we have the ability within us.


That is irrational.

Realization is by definition in the doing. Before the event it is but a thought, Hamlet alone with himself in his dreamy nutshell.


Justin wrote:

No need for eyes on the back of your head when we're focused on the hear, now and tomorrow. It's all in how we choose to look at things. That glass can be either half-emty or half-full.

So what is Ethical Decision making? To me it's that extra effort to look for the positives and make decisions according to that which has already proven to work and the fulcrum is Love and the journey is getting there.


Which proof was that?

On the one hand you suppose as if a proposition is proved while on the other you complain as if it were not yet tried, or already proved to fail:

"When are people going to realize...."

Ethical Decision making is conformity, the willingness to play along with the local meme.


--- RH.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 10:52 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
Blah blah blah...


--- RH.



Of course I'm paraphrasing.

You appear to presume to know more than anyone else who posts, and debunk anyone who doesn't fall into your line of thinking.

Your level of cynicism amazes me.

This forum is meant to be a place for debate, not for debasing people's personal philosophies.
Goodbye.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 01:40 pm
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
Of course I'm paraphrasing.
You appear to presume to know more than anyone else who posts, and debunk anyone who doesn't fall into your line of thinking.


Except to look forward to be learned from, I am wondering what the reason should be to post.

Aristoddler wrote:

Your level of cynicism amazes me.
This forum is meant to be a place for debate, not for debasing people's personal philosophies.
Goodbye.


Which would be debated because of what, if not to be seen as an attempt to debase my personal philosophy, instead of debate?

Perhaps it would help to explain the difference between condemning and debasing.

~ :confused: ~

Aristoddler wrote:
Yes naked...
No.
What I meant is that I'm not concerned about saying anything stupid or condemning.


... (((( :eek: ))))

--- RH.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Sat 4 Nov, 2006 08:37 pm
@Article bot,
Debasing something is lowering its level of quality by referring to it as worthless.
Condemning something is simply expressing an unfavourable opinion.

And I'm not concerned about what I say, as it might be stupid or self-condeming.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Sun 5 Nov, 2006 05:27 am
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
Debasing something is lowering its level of quality by referring to it as worthless.
Condemning something is simply expressing an unfavourable opinion.


How then to distinguish between an an unfavourable opinion of the quality, and an actual lowering of its quality, however that may come about?

One should also be grateful to see the reference to whatever rule would have it that quality is not to be debated, if that is the gist.

-- RH.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Ethical Decision Making at Home and at Work
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/05/2020 at 09:26:00