Bob's Ethical Advice Column

[Ginkgo]

Both of you are government slaves of the lowest order; not only does the government own you, it owns your mind; meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Not really. As I said before when it comes to this type of ethical dilemma I am a Kantian. Deontological and consequentialist theories are relevant.

[Simon]

Dear Arising_uk/Ginkgo,

I don't think I am saying that a consequentialist WILL NOT help, rather it seems easier to justify not helping using a consequentialist argument. This supports my confirmation bias that consequentialism is not a good basis for ethics! Incidentally at the moment I am not convinced that amoralism is anything other than a different flavour of consequentialism, but Joel Marks book just arrived this morning so I reserve the right to change my mind on this by next week!

To be fair we each mix our ethical justifications in a very situation dependent fashion. Personally I find it almost impossible to be consistent (especially when sitting on things like ethics committees that force you to be duty-based)!

Also I probably need to apologise for being a bit loose with the phrase "Kantian". I probably should have just said "duty-based" as I appreciate Kantian is a subset of duty based ethics (and a duty can be to yourself as much as it can be to laws or other people).

Simon

[Arising_uk]

Dear Bob,
I have an ethical dilemma I hope you can help me with.

I'm in correspondence with someone who thinks they are being divinely influenced by God and think themselves the next John the Baptist but it's obvious that they are under Satan's influence and are really being set-up to be the Anti-Baptist. Should I try to help them see the error of their ways as their immortal soul is in danger or should I just leave them to get their just desserts?

[Arising_uk]

Both of you are government slaves of the lowest order; not only does the government own you, it owns your mind; meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

And you are an amoral hedonist who thinks you should have the right to do as you wish and if that involves killing others through your actions you should be free to do so.

[bobevenson]

Both of you are government slaves of the lowest order; not only does the government own you, it owns your mind; meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

And you are an amoral hedonist who thinks you should have the right to do as you wish and if that involves killing others through your actions you should be free to do so.

Who said you should be free to kill anybody? The example I cited involved a driver who through no fault of his own, runs over a child who suddenly darts into the street between two parked cars. No rational person would immediately stop if he's had a couple of beers due to the institutional evil he is now faced with as described earlier.

[Arising_uk]

Who said you should be free to kill anybody? The example I cited involved a driver who through no fault of his own, runs over a child who suddenly darts into the street between two parked cars. ...

There you go again! I'd accept this if you hadn't been drinking but since you had then it's likely that your senses were slightly impaired and as such you may have missed the bit where the child approached those cars from the pavement, something you may have noticed if you'd had your full capabilities in play and been reading the road conditions further ahead.

No rational person would immediately stop if he's had a couple of beers due to the institutional evil he is now faced with as described earlier.

An ethical person would and would have accepted the risks they took when they rationally decided to drive when over the legal limit(I say rationally here with the qualification that bob said he had decided that he was not impaired by the amount he had drunk). An amoral hedonist seeks for justifications to avoid the responsibility for their actions. Now if it was a situation where no harm to life occurred but only property damage then maybe I could see that doing a runner may be a solution.

[Ginkgo]

Who said you should be free to kill anybody? The example I cited involved a driver who through no fault of his own, runs over a child who suddenly darts into the street between two parked cars. ...

There you go again! I'd accept this if you hadn't ben drinking but since you had then it's likely that your senses were slightly impaired and as such you may have missed the bit where the child approached those cars from the pavement, something you may have noticed if you'd had your full capabilities in play and been reading the road conditions further ahead.

No rational person would immediately stop if he's had a couple of beers due to the institutional evil he is now faced with as described earlier.

An ethical person would and would have accepted the risks they took when they rationally decided to drive when over the legal limit(I say rationally here with the qualification that bob said he had decided that he was not impaired by the amount he had drunk). An amoral hedonist seeks for justifications to avoid the responsibility for their actions. Now if it was a situation where no harm to life occurred but only property damage then maybe I could see that doing a runner may be a solution.

Well said Arising.

The fault is with the driver if they happen to be over the legal limit. As you allude, the science tells us that within a certain prescribed concentration of alcohol our reflexes are effected to an extent This is the basis of the PCA legislation in most countries.

If Bob is suggesting that even a sober driver could not avoided the accident then he can forget it. In legal terms that argument doesn't wash. The possible and probable outcome will always be that if you were not over the prescribed limited then you might have avoided the accident.

[bobevenson]

If Bob is suggesting that even a sober driver could not avoided the accident then he can forget it. In legal terms that argument doesn't wash. The possible and probable outcome will always be that if you were not over the prescribed limited then you might have avoided the accident.

Your analysis is straight out of fantasy land.

[Ginkgo]

If Bob is suggesting that even a sober driver could not avoided the accident then he can forget it. In legal terms that argument doesn't wash. The possible and probable outcome will always be that if you were not over the prescribed limited then you might have avoided the accident.

Your analysis is straight out of fantasy land.

No Bob, that's how the law works in most Western countries and it would be how the law works in most US states. If you are involved in such scenario and you are over the legal limit then you haven't got a leg to stand on.

[Arising_uk]

Dear Bob,
I have an ethical dilemma I hope you can help me with.

I'm in correspondence with someone who thinks they are being divinely influenced by God and think themselves the next John the Baptist but it's obvious that they are under Satan's influence and are really being set-up to be the Anti-Baptist. Should I try to help them see the error of their ways as their immortal soul is in danger or should I just leave them to get their just desserts?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I would get the hell out of there, and fast. You would probably get the death penalty. I've just been reading about people in your hell-hole getting life without parole for shop-lifting. One guy has been in prison for 16 years for stealing a $150 jacket, and he will likely die in there. WTFFFF????
Of course, most of them are black. The US has the highest incarceration rate after the Seychelles.
You have also re-invented slavery, using your vast, (mostly black), prison population to prop up the economy.
And you have the nerve to tell OTHER countries how to run themselves?

[Sappho de Miranda]

Let's say you are driving at the speed limit at night on a dark street, and a young boy suddenly darts out from between parked cars and you hit him. He's laying in the street. You've had a few beers, but are not what you would consider intoxicated. What do you do?

As a Philosophical Hedonist, it is my belief that we should act in this world to reduce suffering and increase contentment.

Given the circumstances, in order to reduce suffering and increase contentment, the driver needs attend to the child and arrange for medical assistance, if required and remain with the child until the medical assistance arrives, or ensure the child is returned to their guardian with an explanation about what has happened.

[Ginkgo]

Let's say you are driving at the speed limit at night on a dark street, and a young boy suddenly darts out from between parked cars and you hit him. He's laying in the street. You've had a few beers, but are not what you would consider intoxicated. What do you do?

As a Philosophical Hedonist, it is my belief that we should act in this world to reduce suffering and increase contentment.

Given the circumstances, in order to reduce suffering and increase contentment, the driver needs attend to the child and arrange for medical assistance, if required and remain with the child until the medical assistance arrives, or ensure the child is returned to their guardian with an explanation about what has happened.

Bob's scenario is not really worth considering. The science tell us that after.08 blood alcohol concentration the risk of having an accident greatly increases. The wikipedia graph- Blood Alcohol Concentration/Risk Factors- along with the Progressive Effects of Alcohol Chart shows us this.

It makes no difference if you are driving at the speed limit and a child runs out from between two cars. You are responsible for this accident if you are over the legal limit. You have done something wrong. In this case the law and the science support that fact.



http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

[Arising_uk]

Dear Bob,
I have an ethical dilemma I hope you can help me with.

I'm in correspondence with someone who thinks they are being divinely influenced by God and think themselves the next John the Baptist but it's obvious that they are under Satan's influence and are really being set-up to be the Anti-Baptist. Should I try to help them see the error of their ways as their immortal soul is in danger or should I just leave them to get their just desserts?

[bobevenson]

I Should I try to help him see the error of his way as his immortal soul is in danger, or should I just leave him to get his just desserts?

I'll have a hot fudge sundae, please.