Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Can ethical behavior be graded in terms of an individual's expectations?
A and B both speed on their way to and from work. We have an action and an intention, but there is no legal intervention at this stage. A's belief that he will be let go because of an unethical act of the police would, I contend, appear to be more unethical to an outside observer than B's
I had an inkling you might reply Arjen; I buffed up on Kant's duty ethics and I have come to the conclusion that neither are really acting in what I would call an ethical sense, but if any one is, it is in fact A!.
The two maxims that need to be subjected to the categorical imperative are... 'It is right to break the law if you can get away with it' (A) and, 'it is right to break the law if you accept the consequences when caught' (B)... do either of these 'maxims' show any sense when generalized and tested as categorical imperatives?
(A) generalized- It is right for every one to break the law if they can get away with it.
(B) generalized- It is right for every one to break the law as long as they accept the consequences... wait a minute do we have a choice to accept the consequences... NO! if your caught your caught, you do not get a choice- unless your B... so this can be revised as- it is right for every one to break the law.
At least A's maxim doesn't contradict itself, it implies a world where there are an elite few who have a right to break the law and it is not wrong for the to do so ( sure a little biased and elitist but better than B's world)... this is at least a functioning society- unlike B's! B's maxim when generalized implies a world where there is in fact no law, the maxim contradicts itself, 'It is right for every one to break the law' every one can break the law so there is in fact no law that exists, every one can and SHOULD (as it is right)- thuscan exist that mentions law. In this sense Arjen, is not A more ethical, in that he at least allows for law.
notes: The system I revised and used suggest we should- create maxims, like- 'it is right to break the law if you can get away with it'... you next have to generalize it (apply it to every one)- 'it is right for EVERYONE to break the law if they can get away with it'; after generalization if your maxim doesn't contradict itself you can at least say follow it with duty knowing your not following out of inclination, or to make yourself feel good about your self. I think what highlights this all, is you KNOW when you are doing something out of duty and when your doing it for self satisfaction, the 'sense of duty' is so obvious to me that I get frustrated to see people operate away from it... which most do
Your generalization of A has nothing to do with A's intentions in the sense that A does not want everybody to get away with it, just him.
Arjen,
Ok so the mistake was when I qualified goals as ethical maxims? I was under the understanding that one can take an ethical opinion like- 'it is right to steal' and turn it into a universal generalization (to prove you will it to be universal and not just for yourself) - 'it is right for everyone to steal', and then look for contradiction in the universal, like it is impossible to steal if every one is morally obliged to steal because there is no personal property to steal, it is all stolen.
So A's maxim would be more along the lines of 'it is right for me and me only to break the law [because I can get away with it?] <--- this last bit needed? And that can't be generalized simply because it would contradict itself in that, A could not be the only one who could break the la if he applied it universally and every one could break the law. So in that respect I see that A has not even developed a ethical maxim, he is acting out of self concern only.
But B who happily speeds isn't applying his maxim either- B is not concerned with anybody or anything else except seeing what is going to happen. So it is right for him to speed [break the law] as long as his is preoccupied with seeing what is going to happen? Again I think no matter what spin we put on B, he will be breaking the law be and any maxim he tries to qualify as universal will include everybody breaking the law.
So am I wrong to suggest Kant would find neither A or B ethical because neither can generate a maxim 'whereby [they] can at the same time will it should become universal.' But we can in our own opinion of ethical operation suggest B is more ethical because at least his maxim can be generalized, where as as soon as A's maxim is generalized it contradicts itself because of the double standard (hypothetical goal). Any ethic that states 'me and me only' can never even get as far as being generalized and there for is more unethical than a maxim that can be generalized, but when it is shows contradictions, like 'every one breaking the law', if the law is broke by all, there is no law that exists to be broken.
So I repair what I say about A, and realize he is not even thinking ethically, but looking at B closer- he still has no ethical intentions and therefor they are no as bad as each other.:surrender:
Dan.
Does ethics have to include and actual behavior? The belief that one should be "let off" because of one's position appears to me to be unethical. Should a police officer be let off an assault charge if he/she beats an offender during an arrest? If not, wouldn't a culture that supports that attitude be considered to be unethical?
Arjen,
There are no goals involved, not that I know at least Arjen, simply a judgment of both men being as bad as each other.
A- breaks law (commits minor offenses)
B- breaks law (commits minor offenses)
These are a pair of unethical actions because they concern '
1) Everyone is subjected to the laws, and breaking them is a double standard
2) Breaking laws usually entails damage or hurt to others, hence why the actions are outlawed.
Now we are judging a second set of actions which are-
A- uses his position to excuse his actions
B- uses his position to excuse his actions
Discussion: A's attitude suggests an expectation that an additional breach of ethical behaviour is an expectation. B believes that full punishment should be expected and, therefore, willing to accept that. A can be seen to be less ethical due to the expectation that further unethical behaviour will occur should A be caught. Therefore, B is in a more ethical position than A.
A uses his position to alleviate the criminal charges but accepts the unethical charges.
B uses his position to alleviate the unethical charges but accepts the criminal charges.
They have both created double standards and endangered others by breaking the law and both have used there position, albeit there career position or their ethically superior position to excuse them self's in one way or another.
I am simply denying that it is ok to break the law if you accept the consequences; the real tragic hero (as apposed to B) is C who refuses to break the law at all out of fear of being caught and out of duty to act unethical and not endanger others, and he does this knowing full well that people like B are breaking the law and then getting some ethical respect for accepting what they did and people like A out there getting away with it. It is hard to follow an ethical code that is so easily exploited.
The only goal here is that we should all follow the rules we define our countries conduct by, i.e. the laws that protect us from people like A and B who happily break the law and then make excuses afterwards to qualify there actions.
Dan.
Pectore si fratris gladium juguloque parentis
Condere me jubeas, gravidaeque in viscera partu
Conjugis, invita peragam tamen omnia dextra.
Ethics must include behavior only, or the system of what is right/wrong when interacting with others would collapse under the weight of excuses and reasonings, like B who thinks he can commit crimes because of a specific attitude he has toward the law albeit a positive one.
The person who commits a crime should be punished for that, and if there is an opportunity for them to get off the hook, the person who offers to get them off the hook should be punished for that. The truly right thing for B to do would be to first blow the whistle on A and his actions and then turn himself in for the crimes he committed and commit no more.
I make lots of excuses for myself all the time, but I try my hardest to recognize when I'm doing this and don't let them manifest in actions, this is where the duty is. Even though you may not want to do what is right- whether it be because of the effort it takes, or because you think your an exception to the rule, still doing it and leading by example to keep things moving is what duty entails.
Ok I get it now and happpily yield.
A shocking truth it is indeed, but it leaves me feeling a little empty.
But if I go through all the effort of subjecting my actions to the categorical imperative and acting according to what I could will to be applied universally. I am going to be a sitting duck for theivs and liars, I will be exploited and no one will return the favor... in short I feel it will be futile. Why bother when no one else will?
I am also going to make sure I can see the difference between goals based on rule bases, and duties based on nothing. perhaps you could help with some direction Arjen.
Thanks for your response, I see my 'goal' now and feel a little shamed,
I think it is more to do with my fear of being caught by the law due to my grandfather- an ex-police official and sharp-shooter, and his strong influence on me. On top of that it makes my blood boil to see other break the law when I feel enforced to follow it. Should I break it more?!
You get more apt at it, the moral reasonings can be done in a micro-second, trust me.
The reason to bother with it is to make sure that you are not the one acting in ways you would not like to be acted upon. That way each person is only responsible for him or herself. Change the world, start with yourself.
![]()