Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Problem of ethical pressure

Rate this topic


bell jar

Recommended Posts

According to my observation, ethical codes usually have these three features:

* It is a norm or a bunch of norms which tell you to do something or not to do something. (They usually take the form of permission: they permit you to do something or don't permit you to do something.)

* You have the ability to do the things which those norms prohibit you doing or not to do the things which the norms permit or require you to do.

* In the circumstances where these norms are in practice, if you use your very ability other people will discriminate you, boycott you or even punish you, which make your situation become undesirable.

The third feature is crucial. In many circumstances if you violate an ethical code, the punishment does not come from "the nature" but from other people . Then your impetus to observe an ethical code is not enjoying its "good result" but the fear of the boycott from others . If an ethical code itself is barbaric , but in consideration of the possible boycott from others, people usually have to onserve it. So ethics itself has a great side effect. How do Objectivists think about this ?

=======================

PS . If a boss fire an employee , can the employee find a new job? Some said he or she can if he is really excellent . But I don't think so. Because there is a tenet which is widely accepted that if someone is fired , then he is a loser. When this tenet becomes a norm and produces a pressure on people , a boss is possible not to employ the jobless because if the boss do that he will be seen as "mindless ". How do you think about this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* In the circumstances where these norms are in practice, if you use your very ability other people will discriminate you, boycott you or even punish you, which make your situation become undesirable.

The third feature is crucial. In many circumstances if you violate an ethical code, the punishment does not come from "the nature" but from other people.

The statement is wrong: it is not the case that a person is punished for using their abilities, in the context where there exists an ethical code. Depending on the code, it might happen, but it is the function of ethical codes to prevent that from happening.
Then your impetus to observe an ethical code is not enjoying its "good result" but the fear of the boycott from others.
There may be some truth to that, that is, most people fail to see morality as about yourself and see it as having to do with your relationship to others. That's kind of how ethics gets screwed up in the first place.
If a boss fire an employee , can the employee find a new job? Some said he or she can if he is really excellent .
That is correct; actually, he simply has to be competent. I don't think there is any question about that, that people can get jobs after getting fired. Although if a person is fired for gross professional incompetence, grave misconduct in the performance of duty, and theft of company property, there's a good chance that because the person is objectively a loser, they will have a hard time getting a non-menial job. The key is to look at the cause of the firing. This, of course, only holds in a free society. In a socialist worker's paradise where employers have no right to fire employees except in the most extreme of circumstances (such as proven

gross incompetence, grave misconduct and theft), such a loser-presumption would naturally and rightly attach to the fact of being fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking your points one by one:

* It is a norm or a bunch of norms which tell you to do something or not to do something. (They usually take the form of permission: they permit you to do something or don't permit you to do something.)

Any arbitrary ethical code must be so. Objectivist Ethics are different because they are not arbitrary, they are a necessary consequence of existence and of the nature of man. It is not necessary to list commandments when the right answer to any difficulty can be found by reasoning.

Objectivis Ethics are crucially different also in the fact that they do not command at all. They don't have to! Since the rational standard of value is your own life, Objectivism never commands you to do something that will hurt you (sacrifice) nor to give up something that is good for you (again, sacrifice).

Something like "the initiation of force against another rational being is evil" is not a commandment not to do so. It is an identification of a fact of reality: dealing with others by force is always bad for you in the long run (excepting self defense, which is why initiation is in there).

* You have the ability to do the things which those norms prohibit you doing or not to do the things which the norms permit or require you to do.

An ethical system that commanded you to do something impossible would be worse than useless. You would be deemed evil by no fault of your own! Guess what? That is exactly what altruism is. It is impossible to live by putting others ahead of yourself.

* In the circumstances where these norms are in practice, if you use your very ability other people will discriminate you, boycott you or even punish you, which make your situation become undesirable.

(Assuming you mean the "ability" to go against the ethical norm - David seems to have mis-interpreted this phrase (or I just did (don't you love nested paretheses?)))

This is only so when the ethical system is forcing you to do something that is not what you would choose by your own judgment. In Objectivist Ethics other people are merely context, you do what is right because it's good for you. Since the ethics of Objectivism are identifications of reality, going against them means going against reality. No one has to punish you.

For example: If life is your standard of value (because there can be no values without someone they are values to), if rationality is your highest virtue (because man is a rational animal and reason is his means of survival) - taking drugs that destroy your brain is evil.

Now, you can smoke crack in your basement - no one needs ever to know about it. Reality will punish you.

The third feature is crucial.

The third feature is crucial for any ethical system that goes against your life (because the only way you can be made to consciously harm yourself is by force). It is completely unnecessary for Objectivism, we want you to live.

If a boss fire an employee (...)

Reality will be the judge. If the employee is competent he will find a job. If he is not, not. In a free country, if many bosses never hire people who have been fired before at some point someone smarter than they are will go around hiring the good people out of that bunch and make a lot of money. The only way to keep someone competent from being hired is by force. Such as minimum wage laws (forbid you from hiring people that produce little) and union laws (forbid you from hiring people if the union does not like them).

mrocktor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an ethical code itself is barbaric , but in consideration of the possible boycott from others, people usually have to onserve it. So ethics itself has a great side effect. How do Objectivists think about this ?

This would depend upon the nature of this "boycott". If other people simply decide to withdraw their society from me because I enjoy loud music or have religious beliefs that they abhor, this is perfectly acceptable to me. I don't WANT to associate with people that don't share my interests or my beliefs. It would be just as absurd to expect them to sacrifice THEIR beliefs so that I can practice MINE as it would be for them to expect me to give up mine. If we can't come to some kind of agreement via reason, we go our seperate ways and everyone is the better for this situation.

However, if their "boycott" consists of breaking into my home in the middle of the night, arresting me, and hauling me off to some pit where my fingernails will be torn out by the roots (or something worse) until I confess to being a heretic so that they can execute me, we have a serious problem.

What is the difference between these situations? The use of force. Other people's desires or norms are of no ultimate consequence to me if they are not backed up with a gun.

Now, in some situations I may choose to adhere to some norms (such as wearing proper attire when applying for a job), but this is my choice; I do it because I strive to communicate that I will represent their company in a way that they would actually desire. I don't expect people to grant me a value (a paycheck) simply because I ask for it: I have to earn it. Withholding an unearned value is not a punishment, it is justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

such as wearing proper attire when applying for a job

This is exactly what I resent. I like dress freely because I think what I wear is absolutely my own business. It infringes upon no one. But sadly the whole world doesn't respect the freedom of dressing. Though I think this phenomenon has the biological basis of sexual selection, yet it is inhuman and violate people's rights. Besides blind obedience, could it be a rational choice to launch a "freedom of dressing movement"?

I do it because I strive to communicate that I will represent their company in a way that they would actually desire

That means you are succumb to other's irrational ethics. In this situation I probably also choose to restrict my own rational freedom but it is hard to say that "it's my choice". The punishment resulted from my defence of my rational freedom is entirely manmade.

If other people simply decide to withdraw their society from me because I enjoy loud music or have religious beliefs that they abhor, this is perfectly acceptable to me

But if almost everyone withdraw their society from you just because you do something that are not pleasing to their eyes but what you do physically infringe uopn no one, it is still acceptable?

Respect of other people's choices is seen as a virtue. But when this respect results in the violation of your own rational freedom, then who is wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if almost everyone withdraw their society from you just because you do something that are not pleasing to their eyes but what you do physically infringe uopn no one, it is still acceptable?

Respect of other people's choices is seen as a virtue. But when this respect results in the violation of your own rational freedom, then who is wrong?

In this circumstance you describe, your rights are not violated in any way. You do not have a right to have people associate with you. Everyone is(or should be) free to associate with whomever they wish and not associate with people they don't care for. Rights can only be violated by action. Their lack of action with respect to you is only the withholding of a benefit. If they make this choice irrationally, then you are lucky to not have them associate with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But sadly the whole world doesn't respect the freedom of dressing.

The "freedom of dressing"?

How exactly is your freedom of dressing compromised? In fact, if by freedom you mean "the ability to wear what you want", that is not compromised at all. But in fact, you mean "The freedom to wear what you want and still have me give you the job..." Oh, wait, that would compromise my "freedom of selection" wouldn't it. It strikes me that its that freedom that you begrudge.

But if almost everyone withdraw their society from you just because you do something that are not pleasing to their eyes but what you do physically infringe uopn no one, it is still acceptable?

yup. you have a misguided definition of freedom.

Respect of other people's choices is seen as a virtue. But when this respect results in the violation of your own rational freedom, then who is wrong?

Violation of freedom? How do voluntary choices made by people violate anything? Violation implies force. Where's the force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But sadly the whole world doesn't respect the freedom of dressing.
I assume you are a woman living in Saudi Arabia: and you do have my sympathy. However, for the rest of the world we do have the freedom of dressing any way we want. In the rest of the world, you may wear cutoffs and a "F*CK" t-shirt to a job interview, and you will not be arrested. Whether or not you get hired would depend on whether they were interviewing for, say, the position of manager or the position of resident bum.
That means you are succumb to other's irrational ethics.
I doubt that. More likely, it means "we share the same rational ethic". If you value wearing the cutoffs and T-shirt that highly, you should work for a cutoffs and T-shirt kind of place, maybe doing construction, or find the right kind of programming job. If you're a lawyer, you can look for other like-minded lawyers that dress in cutoffs and t-shirts, and seek clients who don't care that you are dressing completely unprofessionally. If you were a competent attorney, I bet you could make a bundle, since as you know, one of the less obscene derogatory expressions for attorney is "suit".
The punishment resulted from my defence of my rational freedom is entirely manmade.
I believe, actually, that all punishments are manmade. A rational punishment is a reasoned corrective response to bad behavior, badness being judged with reference to the facts of reality. The judgment is madmade, not metaphysically given.
Respect of other people's choices is seen as a virtue.
Exqueeze me? Non-initiation of force is a virtue, but you are advocating the evil of refusing to judge evil. You have the right and legal freedom to wear t-shirts and cutoffs to your job interview with the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe, and meet clients so dressed. I cannot respect your irrational decision to do so, but since they will probably show you the door within minutes, my respect is the least of your worries. OTOH as a Muslim women in Saudia Arabia who is about to be beheaded[FN] for wearing cutoffs and a t-shirt, I do protest there violation of your rights, while not neglecting the utter stupidity of your suicidal choice.

[FN]In fact, execution is not sanctioned for violation of hijab, which is punished by beatings, jail or a fine. But hyperbole has its uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must we agree on the definition of ethics? Unless we are members of a religious sect/cult why does it matter how we define anything? Ethics and morals should be a personal and private set of actions and agreements with ourselves.

I value my word of honor and have never broken it but I see no need to define it to anyone else.

I tangled with others on this forum because I still live by the messages I received from Rand when I first read her works in the mid 60s. I read her, wrote to her and heard her lecture in person and feel I need no help from anyone in my objectivism. I truly believe she spoke to individuals not the masses. It seems that every generation has its own definitions of what she wrote.

I do know that she changed my life and forced me to think and act as an individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must we agree on the definition of ethics? Unless we are members of a religious sect/cult why does it matter how we define anything? Ethics and morals should be a personal and private set of actions and agreements with ourselves.

I value my word of honor and have never broken it but I see no need to define it to anyone else.

I tangled with others on this forum because I still live by the messages I received from Rand when I first read her works in the mid 60s. I read her, wrote to her and heard her lecture in person and feel I need no help from anyone in my objectivism. I truly believe she spoke to individuals not the masses. It seems that every generation has its own definitions of what she wrote.

I do know that she changed my life and forced me to think and act as an individual.

We don't have to agree on the definition of ethics, since there is only one reality there is only one correct definition though. Ayn Rand derived Ethics from reality, Objectivist understand the derivation and thus know the correct definition. In other words, you can disagree but you will be wrong.

It matters what ethics people follow because "ideas have consequences". The great horrors of history, from Attila to the Inquisition to Hitler, Stalin and Mao, to the current erosion of freedom in Europe and the USA are the direct consequence of incorrect ethical standards. While single individuals can be harmful, great disaster only occurs when the misguided ethics are widespread.

The decision to be good is yours alone (and if you understand Objectivist Ethics there is no reason to chose otherwise).

You are bound to tangle with people on this forum if you claim to live by "messages" from Ayn Rand. Objectivism is not based on revelation, it's based on understanding. I only read Ayn Rand for the first time last year and her explanations and identifications certainly helped me understand a lot, I don't live by her words though.

While I envy the opportunity you had to interact directly with Rand, it seems you failed to grasp the essential part of her philosophy: reality exists.

There is no such thing as "your objectivism", there is reality and there is the identification and understanding of reality. Objectivism is the rational identification and understanding of philosophy. Other people can help you understand it better. Each generation can't have "it's own definition of what she wrote" and all of them be correct.

Finally, you were not "forced" to think and act as an individual by Ayn Rand. You are and individual, you can think and act in no other way. You must however choose to think, as opposed to not think at all.

mrocktor

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must we agree on the definition of ethics? Unless we are members of a religious sect/cult why does it matter how we define anything? Ethics and morals should be a personal and private set of actions and agreements with ourselves.
This is completely and utterly irrelevant. Do you seriously believe that it is sensible to redefine ethics (morality) as meaning "Any metric-sized hex nut" or "a species of palm tree grown in Guinea" or "The square root of any prime number"? If I define ethics as "any actions by another person", then most definitely ethics is not a personal and private matter. I really am totally baffled by this claim that implicit words have no fixed meaning. Art be of the when each under those of cow, to if the salad would house the fix! I just don't understand how you can't see that obvious point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is your ethics that is founded upon the "facts of reality". When we have intercourses with others, theoretically "seeking an intersection of both parties' interests" is more important or "non-initiation of force" is more important when other people's interests include restricting your harmless action? People usually think if the whole society disagree with your conduct in a situation then no matter whether you have infringed on others you have to change your courses of action to those that people satisfy with. It seems that even you also think that questioning whether a social convention in certain situation is proper or not is superfluous. Maybe that's why no one answered the question "Besides blind obedience, could it be a rational choice to launch a "freedom of dressing movement"?"

In Chinese cultural revolution, most people were persecuted not by Mao or Mao's instructions but by those "nobodies" who has been brainwashed by Mao's spirit before. When people thought that you had "capitalist inclination", they would isolate you automatically. Then if you wanted to by some rice, no one would sell it to you; if you wanted to by some clothes, no one would sell them to you; if you got ill and wanted a doctor, no one wanted to treat you. The prospect of you was death. This was a famous fact in China even when cultural revolution is officially over. So I have to conclude that you deserved death. Other people had the right of inaction when they have intercourse with you.

In this situation, someone of course may say that you can leave that country. But could it be a rational choice to point out the absurdity of this isolation in front of other people?

Almost all Objectivists advocate abolishing taxation. Though in most people's eyes people who oppose taxation is not patriotic or even the "apologists of wealthy exploiters ". So how do you do in front of these people? You can choose to have intercourse only with those people who have agreed with you. But if so this fact would become unintelligible: why do you advocate your own stances publicly? Why do you explain your reason to advocate abolishment of taxation to those who do not comprehend or even oppose you? Why so many of you are willing to reply people's questions to Objectivism? Are Ayn Rand's books never sold to people who criticize Objectivists? Apparently many of you don't want to passively accept the status quo but want to actively shape a new cultural atmosphere which is more beneficial to you. You are constructing your own cultural atmosphere. Why construct your own cultural atmosphere? Do you want a culture in which accepting Objectivism is seen as a good character?

To say "for the rest of the world we do have the freedom of dressing any way we want" is problematic. Yes, outside working place we can wear whatever we want to wear. But why in working place we cannot were whatever we want to wear? Suppose from January to June you need not pay any tax but from July to December you have to pay tax, then there is no problem of violation of "freedom from taxation".

Dressing code in working place is not a thing that has gone through mutual consent. It is unilaterally enforced by the employer's side. Employees can do nothing but only to accept it. Enforcing something to people is "action" or "non-action"? Yes, theoretically you can find a working place where you can wear whatever you want to wear. But that only remains theoretical. In a cultural atmosphere where the dressing code in working place is seen as "normality", where can I find a working place where dressing freedom is protected? That's a cultural pressure that is imposed on every people.

{_If you were a competent attorney, I bet you could make a bundle, since as you know, one of the less obscene derogatory expressions for attorney is "suit" _} Why don't you employ your "category of causality" to give this a demonstration? How "competent attorney" has a causal relationship with "wearing suit". Of course in a culture of torture a man who wears layer-by-layer "suit" in 35 degrees centigrade in the hot sun is still "less obscene derogatory". (Or a woman wear a miniskirt in –15 degrees centigrade in snow is "less obscene derogatory").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other people had the right of inaction when they have intercourse with you.
We all know that in Red China, you just have to lie there and take it. That isn't the point. As I completely clearly and unambiguously stated, you have the right to dress or not dress any way you wish, and if you live in a dictatorship that enforces some kind of dress code, that is a horrid eveil which every decent person rejects. Now we are off the topic of dictatorships like Saudia Arabia and Red China for once and for all, and we are only speaking of life in the free world. A person should judge others according to their values, and rational values are based on facts of reality. Those facts show that style of dress is not particularly relevant for a construction worker, though he should not wear a flimsy, flowing sundress while walking the high girders less he fall to his death thousands of feet below. As an employer I have a right to demand suitable attire that prevents such accidents. If I hire an attorney, I expect certain things from him: he must know the law, be persuasive, and command respect. He will not command respect and be persuasive if he is wearing a clown outfit, and I would no more give my business to a clown lawyer than hire such a clown if I ran a law firm. I sorta suspect that I would not hire an attorney who wore shiny pants to court, either, and I don't think he would wear them.

There is no "mutual consent" nonsense involving dress. If you want to wear the clown costume, you simply have to find the firm of law-clowns who wants to hire you. I don't want to hire you, and you have no right to use violence to make me hire you. If you can manage to change the standards of dress in the culture, that's fine with me -- frankly, I would not want to wear one of those stupid horsehair wigs. The point is that since there are standards of dress, respect for reality demands that you recognise that fact, and do not pretend that those standards don't exist. That would be irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Employees can do nothing but only to accept it.

This is where you are completely missing the point. As David explains in more depth above, you are not forced to accept a job that has a dress code that does not satisfy you. It is your responsibility to seek employment that satisfies you, not the employers responsibility to make his job offering fit your desires unless that happens to coincide with his rational self-interests as well.

Later I'll be putting on my clown suit to put some people in jail... :lol:

DavidO: Again with the shiny pants... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those facts show that style of dress is not particularly relevant for a construction worker, though he should not wear a flimsy, flowing sundress while walking the high girders less he fall to his death thousands of feet below.
If you are a construction worker, the restriction of your dressing is to protect your safety, that's a rational ristriction. So is with a firefighter or a diver. But if you work in an office where you just sit on a chair and type before a computer, I can't see the necessity to restrict your dressing.

The point is that since there are standards of dress, respect for reality demands that you recognise that fact, and do not pretend that those standards don't exist. That would be irrational

This is a groundless accuse. If I didn't see the fact that there are dress code, why do I come up with my unsatisfaction with dress code? Only blind obedience constitutes the identification of reality? If so a doctor who tries to eradicate poliomyelitis is also evading reality.

If you want to wear the clown costume, you simply have to find the firm of law-clowns who wants to hire you.
This is highly idealistic and only remains theoretical. The fact is that enforcing dress code has been ethicized and every corporation is enforcing it. Besides joblessness, the only thing I can do is to unwillingly restrict my own freedom. In this respect we all live in Maoist China and just have to lie there and take it.

In the rest of the world, you may wear cutoffs and a "F*CK" t-shirt to a job interview, and you will not be arrested.

It is common trick for a dictator to take an extreme example to oppose a reasonable request. (For example, "I cannot give people freedom, or else they will be free to go outside and kill other people arbitrarily.") To see how many people can get rid of the dictator's mentality.

If you want to wear the clown costume, you simply have to find the firm of law-clowns who wants to hire you. I don't want to hire you

I never acquaint you so this has nothing to do with me. But I still advise that you had better check your very emotion to clarify the reason why you are dissatisfied with a conduct which never physically hurt you. Everyone has a particular prejudice. I am also averse to ugly men's faces, but after all I know this emotion is built on irrational judgement and I will never express my very emotion with a sense of righteousness.

No one has answered my Chinese dilemma. Suppose Situation A : a dictators group enforces a code which restricts people's harmless conduct, the result is that everyone must observe it without exception. Situation B: after 50 years' indoctrination of this code, it has become an ethical norm , every person will automatically punish those who violate it without agitation from dictators group, the result is also that everyone must observe it without exception. Is there any difference between the two when the result is the same?

If you say the former involves political coercion and the latter doesn't involve political coercion, sorry I still take a communist regime for example. Shortly after a communist regime has been built , the regime's policies and laws which prohibit critiques from the people are seen as signs of political coercion. Via 50 years' education of historical materialism, people all accept communism as morality. Thus people automatically sanction those who criticize the communist regime without the regime's agitation. So the problem of political coercion no longer exists and communist regimes become as good as democratic countries.

Edited by bell jar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Via 50 years' education of historical materialism, people all accept communism as morality. Thus people automatically sanction those who criticize the communist regime without the regime's agitation. So the problem of political coercion no longer exists and communist regimes become as good as democratic countries.
In fact, after 50 years under communism, most people are desperate for a change. The only thing that keeps them from wanting a change is when the dictatorship hides the outside world from them -- as North Korea does.

Similarly, after 50 years of telling people that they should wear a standard set of bluish clothes (as the Chinese did) that does not become part of any ingrained social ethic. Instead, the moment people find they can wear cool clothes, they will.

If what you really want to do is go around without clothes, you might seek a job in a nudist resort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, after 50 years under communism, most people are desperate for a change. The only thing that keeps them from wanting a change is when the dictatorship hides the outside world from them -- as North Korea does

No. After 50 years under communism, most people have been domesticated. Most of them don't want change because they have been trained to believe their government and system is best. This is a kind of religious emotion resulted from classical conditioning. Only a few clear-minded people discern the evil and want to change. If you look at oversea Chinese, you will find most of them love the CPC and defend it automatically, though they live in a capitalist state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...