I've just started reading the 'Kite Runner' and I came across one of the most amazing passages. The main character is talking to his Dad, who he refers to as Baba, about what he is being taught in school (e.g., it is a sin to drink alcohol). His Father, however, disagrees. The following is an extract from p.17.
"Now no matter what the mullah teaches, there is one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft. Do you understand that?"
"No, Baba jan," I said, desperately wishing I did. I didn't want to disappoint him again.
..."When you kill a man, you steal a life," Baba said. "You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness. Do you see?"
I've never heard of or thought about our ability to reduce all unethical actions to theft. It's interesting to think about. For example, like the character said, "when you kill a man, you steal a life"...that means as humans, we have a right to live. Whereas most of us would argue that when we kill an animal, we'd claim that it never had a right to live to avoid having to commit ourselves to the belief that we are stealing its life.
I wonder if anyone will be able to figure out a counterargument to this idea. That is, one would have to find an act that we would consider unethical, but one in which we are unable to reduce it in terms of theft. That would be interesting. I'll respond to my own blog if I can think of an example. Thanks!
But in killing an animal for sport that could otherwise feed a family, it could be considered stealing one's right to eat...
Great comment, Poison_Ivy. I'm so happy that I've signed up for this blogging thing.
Do we have a right to eat?
That actually implies a lot!
Question: Is letting someone go hungry, unethical?
Why sure.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Thanks for the comment!
Question: Does that mean that if we have the means to provide someone else with food and pass that chance up (even if they are living in Ethiopia), we are committing an unethical action?
Just curious to know what you think!
I think this question would really depend on if we are directly involved with the people in Ethiopia. If we were physically right next to them and had a ton of food that we decded to sit right in front of them and spoil instead of letting them eat - well, I would say that's unethical.
But being here in the US with no guarantees that anything we send to Ethiopia will ever reach the mouths of those starving, I don't really see how it could be considered unethical. As humans, we can only do so much and I doubt any of us, regardless of whether we had the means or not, is able to save everyone.
To provide an example of my first comment, I would think that going out and shooting all of the cows just for fun and letting their bodies rot would be unethical as we all have many uses for cows. Why let poachers make the animal extinct just to fulfill selfish pleasures when so many can benefit if the animal wasn't hunted?
I know it's not a very good example, but I think it really becomes a question of whether or not the ends justify the means.....
Thanks for the great discussion!
Okay. Regarding proximity matters: I'm not convinced that we must be guaranteed that the supplies we send actually make it or even that the help we give ends up being productive or helpful. As long as we attempt to give aid (and give our best effort), that should suffice.
Example:
Jen, a wealthy New Yorker, receives a phone call from a terrorist, who is holding a family hostage in Pakistan. The terrorist says that if she transfers $300,000 dollars to him within the next 2 hours, the terrorist will let the family go. Jen calls the police, but they brush her story off and say, "They'll look into it". There is no guarantee that the terrorist will actually let the family go even if Jen pays and there is a promixity issue given the fact that the terrorist is in the Middle East and Jen is in New York.
Does Jen have an ethical obligation to pay or does her obligation extend only to calling the police?
Also, your cow example was good and I agree that hunters shouldn't shoot for sport unless they are going to eat what they kill.
Families are emotionally tied. Jen would probably do anything to save her family.....if she cares about them, that is. Jen wouldn't feel so compelled to hand over $300,000 if someone called about holding a complete stranger for ransom. It probably would be considered "unethical" if she didn't pay simply because the kidnapper is threatening a life and she should do everything in her power to prevent a life from being stolen.
So, given the proximity issue, you are probably right/ Regardless of the distance, it would probably still be considered unethical not to share food if we were to hold the unethical=theft premise.
I LOVE philosophical discussions!!! Trying to come up with a scenario that wouldn't fit someone's belief can be challenging!
That's a thoughtful question. It brings up perfect-world syndrome. In a perfect world, the people (the government) of Ethiopia would provide for its impoverished citizens.
But shit. They can't. So what do we do? We try and stimulate 'em. I don't know of a religion on Earth that says it's ethical to ignore the plight of others. A series of philosophical papers could be written on the subject-- I've just glossed the surface. But does that make sense?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Right. We do have an ethical obligation to help other regardless of proximity.
Well, if we were basing our arguments solely on the premise that all unethical actions can be narrowed down to theft, then letting someone go hungry would be robbing them of their right to health, wouldn't it?
Edit - Or by denying someone nutrition we could be gradually stealing their life since food is needed to survive.
When using Baba's ethical theory, we run into a problem: what counts as rights? Do we have a right to health or a right to eat or a right to education?
"[humans] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"...this is a quote from the Constitution... I think it's a engrained in our Western belief system that we were born with rights and that these rights weren't "man-made". The Constitution is fairly vague when it comes to naming our rights. They list, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but never go into great detail as to what happiness consists of.
So, it seems to be the case that basic needs must be met and those basic needs are our human rights--food, water, to be free from unnecessary pain, etc.
We have to be careful by what we define as human needs. Maslow would say that sex is a human need. Would that mean that we should all sleep around as long as it is censensual and we are not "stealing" the mate of someone else?
A lot this will depend on what you consider unethical. Some people consider homosexuality unethical, but unless a large majority of the population all of a sudden becomes gay, it's not thieving anyone (or even society) of anything.
It is unethical to have admissions committees for college and graduate schools? I mean, sometimes, those rejections are removing the ability of the person to pursue a higher education, but they're also designed to eliminate a portion of the pool that would not be a good fit (particularly in the graduate school level). I mean, you don't want someone who is callous and doesn't care about people at all becoming a doctor, do you?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The real question is whether or not Baba would consider those things unethical. His argument is that the only sin is theft. In his view, if the action cannot be reduced in some way to theft, it is not unethical.
The admissions committee argument COULD be reduced to theft. If someone is not accepted to a university, they are being robbed of opportunity of a better future.
I'm not talking about Baba. The question I am answering is whether or not the statement is true. If someone says it's a sin to be homosexual, and that can't be reduced to theft, then there are more sins than just thievery.
You have to look at it another way too. If someone is not admitted into medical school, you (as the admissions committee) could very well be saving lives, because that person could go on to be a terrible doctor. If you don't admit someone into law school, you could be allowing those who deserve to be punished be punished. If you don't admit someone into college, you could be allowing them to pursue a field that is more necessary. If everyone went to a 4 year university, we wouldn't have mechanics, radiation techs, phlebotomists, as many nurses, CNAs, etc. So by letting them into college, aren't we robbing society of people for those positions?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I guess in my personal opinion I would have to side more with Baba. I really don't think that someone's sexual orientation has anything to do with ethics in the least.
As for an admissions committee, not everyone applies for college, so I don't think it would be limiting the possibilities of any type of career becoming extinct. If a person was denied admission to law school, maybe they would not have been able to handle the courseload. Or if someone WAS admitted to law school, who's to say that they wouldn't have become a DA, putting criminals away as opposed to becoming a defense attorney? Furthermore, not all criminals can afford defense attorneys. In the end, however, the decision rests on the jury provided the police and prosecution have collected enough evidence to present their case.
As far as admission to college, you can be accepted into a university and flunk out. Not everyone who starts out at college ends up with a degree. I wouldn't expect a terrible student to be accepted into medical school and complete the coursework and pass the exams and complete their internships to become a doctor. A lot of hard work exists between acceptance to a program and completion of that program.
You're looking at merely one example. I'll think up some more, that was just the one that came to my mind first. Going with other religious arguments, we can say premarital sex, as long as its consensual doesn't rob anyone of anything if everyone does it before marriage. To journey into something more controversial... which is unethical: allowing a woman to have complete control over her body (robbing the life of a fetus), or allowing the child to develop fully (robbing the woman of the right to control her body)? You can't have it both ways. Is 'robbing' someone of their life to live unethical if they asked you to do it and would live in extreme pain the rest of their lives? Is it unethical to not give blood products to a Jehovah's Witness, because in doing so, they could die (and you are thus robbing them of life)? Is it unethical to give a patient placebo pills without telling them, if you are conducting a study to find out whether medication or placebo pill is more effective? After all, you're 'robbing' them of knowledge.
As for your admissions committee remarks, you're agreeing with me now... you said admissions committees are unethical because they are depriving people of their right to pursue a better life, but you say now: If a person was denied admission to law school, maybe they would not have been able to handle the courseload....you can be accepted into a university and flunk out. Not everyone who starts out at college ends up with a degree. I wouldn't expect a terrible student to be accepted into medical school and complete the coursework and pass the exams and complete their internships to become a doctor. A lot of hard work exists between acceptance to a program and completion of that program. Admissions committees exist to weed out these people, and thus PREVENT the stealing of money from the public (in one form or another) to educate these people.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Again, I think your arguments are a matter of opinion rather than truly ethical questions. I don't believe that premarital sex between two consenting adults in unethical in the least. As for the abortion questio, it is a matter of when human life truly begins, again a matter of opinion.
I believe that control groups in an experimant where the control group is in someway being denied care IS unethical. So I really don't have much to argue there.
As for the admissions board, I was really just playing devil's advocate. I honestly don't think that a college admissions board can be compared with ethics since ultimately it is in the hands of the applicant - they need to show they have worked hard and will be able to excel in their program of choice. If they fail to demonstrate that, it was their own doing, not the board's.
Saying that something is ethical or unethical should not be confused with someone's set of morals. Things of religious nature, like abortion, can be split up into groups, both of which have supporting evidence, but in the end, it is still a matter of opinion. Basic ethics are completely different than morals which may stem from religious viewpoints.
Maybe I should do some research and write a blog on the true differences between ethics and morals......
You just said what I said in the first place, and you sat there and argued about. But the original statement was not about ethics, it was about sin: "Every other sin is a variation of theft."
Again, at the very very beginning of my argument, I said, and I quote:
Yes, I am using ethics and morals interchangeably here, because much of the time, what you deem as unethical is based on what your morals are. But allow me to say it again... if your morals (what you consider and don't consider a sin) vary significantly from the thoughts of Baba, then that statement is not true. I gave examples of things that people consider sin... I don't care if you do or not, but people do. As such, Baba's statement is not accurate to them.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Unless they are wrong and Baba is correct in his teachings of sin. But then, who's to say who is right and who is wrong.
Thanks for your comments! I'm working at the library while responding to comments so it's taking me longer!
"A lot of this will depend on what you consider unethical.Some people consider homosexuality unethical, but unless a large majority of the population all of a sudden becomes gay, it's not thieving anyone (or even society) of anything."
I don't think that ethical beliefs are dependent on what the majority thinks. Slavery was once a booming industry and it could be argued that the majority believed that it was okay to sell and buy people for labor purposes. Was that an ethical practice during that time? We'd like think that those people were always wrong.
About admissions decisions. I think that it is okay for an admissions officer to reject a candidate. There's always community college for those who cannot get into a four year college. Additionally, if the student makes a high enough GPA, some public schools are obligated to admit them so in the end they can get a bachelors degree.
Yet, for a masters degree or a docorate degree, I agree with poison_ivy, it should be merit based because you don't know whether those students will be able to handle the workload.
Can't wait for your feedback!
I disagree. Ethics (and morals, to some degree) are largely based on what society dictates is right and wrong. Slavery itself has been around for ages, and it is the treatment of slaves that many people find wrong. But in Ancient Greece, philosophers and artists would often sell themselves into slavery to make ends meet, and would spend their time educating the children of aristocrats. They were still slaves, but it wasn't the slavery you think of when you think of slavery. Indentured servants were extremely common around the founding of America. There was nothing wrong with these things at the time. It is only us looking back where we see that it is potentially unethical.
The Mayans had people willing to be sacrificed for the gods. Indeed, it was often an honor to be chosen. We look back and see it as horrific, but they were willing participants, so how can we say it was unethical?
This is something extremely important in the study of history. You cannot take your values and project them onto a past society, and then judge them based on that. You have to know the morals of the people of the time. Some morals, yes, are universal. Murder is considered bad pretty much wherever you go, as is theft, but beyond those basic morals, each society has its own code to live by. Some see eating pork as a sin, and other see eating beef as a sin. Some see materialism as a sin, and others value materialism to some degree.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I thought that it was morals that were dictated by society and ethics are pretty much static. Ethical theories date back to thousands of years ago and their theories can still be applied today. I could be mixing up my terms again, but I was pretty sure that the major difference between ethics and morals was the society factor.....
I don't know if I made this comment above or not. There are too many comments and I am impatient.
Sophomore year of college, I was hung up about the same issue. When I discussed it with my professor, he was honest enough to tell me he was uncertain about any difference between the two.
A moral person acts ethically. An unethical person disregards morality. I agree they are interchangeable.
*** I meant write and not right in my last post. I was hurrying.
Thanks for the comments, I'll be coming back to right more. :)