[chucksmash]

That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?

[strken]

This reminds me of the Heinz Dilemma [0]. Ideally you want neither person A's rigid social/legal conformity in the face of death, not person B's vague wishy-washy convictions that change each time, but some higher set of ideals. Ones that accept cheating may sometimes be justified but only when the stakes are something really important like a human life, and only when cheating doesn't cause more harm than it prevents.

If person A can't accept or understand that a human life overrides lesser considerations, then no, I don't put my trust in them.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

[nothrabannosir]

The older I get the more I hear the exact opposite of what people say when they claim anything absolute about themselves. It's working out well.

"I'm an empath." "I don't like drama." "I never cheat people." "I value honesty."

[kruffalon]

So, what you are saying is that you found the fountain of youth and are getting younger?

[Nevermark]

> That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?

Whut?

Surely it would also depend on the situation, and the relevance and reasoning behind B's view.

Are we in preschool with children? Then probably A is right.

But if B is a teacher and explains that the kids love a game in which they all rampantly cheat, and the teacher has given up because they are having an absolute blast breaking the rules and trying to trick each other? I hope you would change your mind too.

Are we talking about an undercover agent in a dangerous country, attempting to get a critical component from a drunk bioweapons scientist, at a card table in a casino?

These are humorous examples, but real world versions are not hard to come by.

Principles that have few or no exceptions tend to be very narrow in scope. Like don't preemptively launch world ending nukes during a stable peacetime.

The sensible approach is have the best principles you can, be willing to improve them, and apply them with care and situational flexibility.

Principles are maps, not the actual moral territory.

Principles are wisdom, not an algorithm.

[komali2]

I feel like people who make such blanket value statements like "I don't cheat people" or "I don't lie" aren't being honest with themselves, or are putting too much faith in the stability of the society they live in.

The easiest retort is Anne Frank. You're hiding her in your attic and a Nazi asks if you're hiding enemies of the state. There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat!

Someone might answer, "well, fine. I don't cheat or lie unless I'm in extraordinary circumstances." That's fine, they've let go of dogmatism then, now the interesting conversation starts of where the line is, what constitutes extraordinary circumstances. That's a very interesting conversation I believe.

[naasking]

> There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat!

I don't think this is the win you think it is. Kantians and se deontologists will absolutely say that no, you cannot lie and cheat even in that scenario. You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.

[Nevermark]

> You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.

The universe doesn't respect that viewpoint. There is no mechanism in reality or life that prevents hard tradeoffs from having to be made.

[naasking]

> The universe doesn't respect that viewpoint. There is no mechanism in reality or life that prevents hard tradeoffs from having to be made.

What the universe does or doesn't respect has no bearing on what is or is not right / good.

[Nevermark]

Are you role playing in a fictional world? Where you can make up whatever ideals you want, and make them happen. Then I am for nobody ever suffering injustice.

That would be good and right, indeed.

Or, making actual choices in reality? Where there are limits to what we can do, but making hard choices well has positive impact.

I am speaking to the latter.

[naasking]

> Or, making actual choices in reality? Where there are limits to what we can do, but making hard choices well has positive impact.

Impact is irrelevant in Kantian ethics, deontological ethics [1] and virtue ethics [2]. A choice is good and right because it the nature of the choice itself in deontology, or because of how it defines one character in virtue ethics, not because of what effects it may or may not have on the world.

Every novice approaching ethics naively assumes a framework of consequentialism [3], where every choice is judged by its consequences, but this framework is deeply problematic and we have literal proofs that not all ethic theories can be reformulated in terms of consequences [4].

The original post I replied to also naively assumed a consequentialist framing, and I replied that this framing is not universal and so his conclusion does not follow. You can continue to double down on "it's obvious that consequences matter for ethical choices", but that doesn't make it true, and thus, it does not support the original argument.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

[4] https://philarchive.org/rec/BROCT

[komali2]

Have you ever met in real life a person who wouldn't lie to the axe murderer, because of their Kantian values?

If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.

[naasking]

> If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.

Not unless you can present some proof of this. Your implicit assumption that we should care about outcomes over principles has its own set of moral failures, like the repugnant conclusion.

[komali2]

Yes yes I'm sure smarter people than me have done lots of interesting logical things to philosophy over the last thousand years.

And I maintain my simple point: if your ethical system doesn't allow the flexibility to not give up Anne Frank, it's a bad ethical system. Unless you believe giving up Anne Frank isn't wrong? Then you're a bad person and shouldn't be considered in conversations about ethics!

Design it in a way to have good outcomes if you're worried about repugnant conclusions. Personally I believe putting it on paper is a fool's errand - vibes based ethics seems to work as good as one can get from an ethical system.

[chucksmash]

To cheat someone implies there is some obligation owed which is reneged upon, even if that's just the minute obligation owed from one member of a society to another.

In your hypothetical situation, I owe no such obligation to the Nazis who as you'll remember were an occupying force. I entered into no social compact with them.

[shae]

I put my trust in someone on a case by case basis, unless they're going to cheat someone. Then I don't trust them.