newbie guide to engaging in Applied Ethics

[Kuznetzova]

It seems that a contingency of regular posters on this forum do not appreciate, respect, or feel a duty to engage in philosophical writing. They would rather prefer the format of this website be more like an episode of Jerry Springer. (just to name a few at random. Godfree, SpheresOfBalance, Henry Quirk, among others).

For the rest of you who feel a desire to engage a philosophy forum with actual philosophy, I present here a handy Guide to Engaging in Applied Ethics.

Below is a story which will illustrate Applied Ethics by means of a story of an alien civilization who has landed on earth and captured a human to act as an ambassador for the human race. In this following scenario, aliens have come from a star system called 61 Cygni B. And they call themselves Cygnians. One of the Cygnian ambassadors has captured a poster from the Philosophy Now forum, and queries him about his species.

Cygnian Ambassador : We feel your species is guilty of a number of severe ethical crimes. In the 1940s you herded fellow humans onto train cars and took them to camps where they were exterminated like livestock and burnt like trash. In the Congo and Rwanda, your paramilitary raped and killed women as they went from village to village, engaging this behavior like sport. The Japanese captured thousands of Chinese civilians and took them to labs where they were experimented on like insects.

forum poster : That wasn't me and I would never do such things!!

Cygnian Ambassador : That is true, but that point does not erase these facts from your history nor does it solve this problem we have with your species as a whole.

forum poster : Our species engages in war and tries to do this rarely. We have established international law regarding the above acts and they are considered "war crimes" regardless of who perpetrated them.

Cygnian Ambassador : But you do not apply these laws in the vast majority of cases, even when the invading army engages in them. Massacres took place in villages in Vietnam, and the evidence was covered up, and the soldiers who perpetrated them were merely slapped on the wrist. The bombing of Dresden, Germany, by the British air force was indiscriminate killing of a civilian population, and this was never even brought before a court. We have additional evidence which lends support to the claim that your species contains an aspect that desires to see death, destruction of life, and suffering inflicted upon the innocent.

forum poster : ... ...

(what the forum poster would say next to the Cygnian ambassador would be APPLIED ETHICS. )

Saying the following things: "I would never take children and civilians to a concentration camp" or "I would not rape and kill villagers like a Congolese paramilitary" or "I would never round and up and massacre a village of people along a dirt road in Vietnam" or "I didn't do that. It wasn't me." None of these things makes these problems go away nor do they erase them from our collective history. The problems of ethics are not simply erased and not simply solved by declaring your own personal innocence. We are, as a species, collectively guilty of atrocities. People who appreciate the severity of these problems could elaborate on them in the context of Applied Ethics. The Cygnian ambassador could ask a question like "Why is the sexuality of the male half of your population so out-of-step with the ideals of civility?" Getting defensive and answering in denial would force the ambassador to present all the historical statistics showing that the question is well-grounded. (exactly what happened in another thread on this forum)

I hope that this small guide will be helpful to those wanting to better contribute to the forum.

[henry quirk]

I guess when I acknowledge a statement of yours (that man, that 'I', am capable of indiscriminate sexual behavior), that makes me a 'Jerry Springer guest'.

Seems to me: I'm givin' you exactly what you want, that being the admission 'that man, that 'I', am capable of indiscriminate sexual behavior'.

Your problem, perhaps, is that I show no remorse for being capable of violent rape.

Also: your problem, maybe, is that I demand you make your point (which, in that other thread, you still haven't).

*shrug*

-----

A recasting of the scenario...

Cygnian Ambassador: We feel your species is guilty of a number of severe ethical crimes. In the 1940s you herded fellow humans onto train cars and took them to camps where they were exterminated like livestock and burnt like trash. In the Congo and Rwanda, your paramilitary raped and killed women as they went from village to village, engaging this behavior like sport. The Japanese captured thousands of Chinese civilians and took them to labs where they were experimented on like insects.

Henry Quirk: Yeah, so what?


Cygnian Ambassador: You're denial of the facts...

Henry Quirk: ...I deny nuthin'...I acknowledge the facts...again: so what if humanity has (or I have), in your view, committed 'a number of severe ethical crimes'?


Cygnian Ambassador: Your response here is unacceptable...

Henry Quirk: ...because 'why'? Because I show no remorse for my crimes? Because I choose not to bow before you and your unproven ethical superiority? Get bent, asshole.


Cygnian Ambassador: *harrumph!* "Why is the sexuality of the male half of your population so out-of-step with the ideals of civility?"

Henry Quirk: *eyes rolling* Your question is stupid...the real question is: why are the ideals of civility 'ideals' at all, and, how did these dumbass 'ideals' get crafted in the first place? Thing is, Mister Space Alien, your heads (all three of 'em...I include the one you have shoved up what I presume is your ass) are full-to-overflowing with hooey...you have some queer idea that you operate from a superior position but -- sorry to tell you -- pointing out the obvious is not a sign of insight, intelligence, or superiority...it just makes you a picayune nitpicker...now, when you get around to actually havin' a point to make (instead of havin' just an unimpressive accusation to levy) gimme a ring...till then: pffftt!

[tillingborn]

The problems of ethics are not simply erased and not simply solved by declaring your own personal innocence. We are, as a species, collectively guilty of atrocities.

And we all painted the Sistine Chapel. Well done me.

[Kuznetzova]

Are you people blind?
What the hell are you doing here?

[Kuznetzova]

I guess when I acknowledge a statement of yours (that man, that 'I', am capable of indiscriminate sexual behavior), that makes me a 'Jerry Springer guest'.

No. Your entire posting history on the internet is a demonstration of your behavior being like a hostile guest on an episode of Jerry Springer. (I simply cannot believe I am having to spell this out for you). You are on a philosophy forum and typing things like "Get bent, asshole." and "the head I shoved up your alien ass".

Seems to me: I'm givin' you exactly what you want, that being the admission 'that man, that 'I', am capable of indiscriminate sexual behavior'.

Your problem, perhaps, is that I show no remorse for being capable of violent rape.

Not even an iota. This is idiotic. If you stopped doing Jerry Springer for five minutes... we could have possibly made a real thread about the evolutionary origins of men's sexuality. Either evolution (or God) made us like this, and that is a fruitful, coherent topic for Applied Ethics and it has so many interesting dimensions of discussion around it. And you take this fruitful stuff and just destroy it. Your presence here is corrosive.

are full-to-overflowing with hooey...you have some queer idea that you operate from a superior position but -- sorry to tell you -- pointing out the obvious is not a sign of insight, intelligence, or superiority...it just makes you a picayune nitpicker...now, when you get around to actually havin' a point to make (instead of havin' just an unimpressive accusation to levy) gimme a ring...till then: pffftt!

THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "insight" "intelligence" or "superiority" whatsoever. The reason that an alien ambassador was chosen was meant to elaborate on a LARGER POINT which your brain could not pick up. Philosophers do not segregate the human species into "home teams" and "those people over there", which is precisely what SpheresOfBalance did in order to make the ethical issue a "non issue". The choice of an extraterrestial ambassador was supposed to solidify that point. Your brain completely missed this. We look at the human species from the outside, in the manner of an alien from another planet. This is the same methods used by sociologists. Never was it implied that aliens are superior in any way. This point sailed over your head. I should not have to be explaining ANY OF THIS TO YOU. You should have picked this up on your first go.

Henry Quirk,
If you see no ethical problems on planet earth; if you see no errors to be amended by civil law on this planet; if your philosophical position is "Get bent, asshole", You have all the answers you need. Make no apologies for any atrocities you commit, and just rip the alien's head off and "shove it up his ass". THAT is your answer to all of human morality and ethics. You have all the answers, so what are you doing on a philosophy forum an in applied ethics section? WHY ARE YOU HERE?

[tillingborn]

In what sense is it ethical to hold someone responsible for something they haven't done?

[henry quirk]

K,

As I say: 'when you get around to actually havin' a point to make (instead of havin' just an unimpressive accusation to levy) gimme a ring...till then: pffftt!'

Wait a sec...let me be precise: When you get around to actually havin' a point to make (instead of just foisting up an unimpressive fact) gimme a ring...till then: pffftt!

[Kuznetzova]

Henry Quirk,

If you see no ethical problems on planet earth; if you see no errors to be amended by civil law on this planet; if your philosophical position is "Get bent, asshole", You have all the answers you need. Make no apologies for any atrocities you commit, and just rip the alien's head off and "shove it up his ass". There is no reason to engage in dialogue when you can just shoot someone with your guns. THAT is your answer to all of human morality and ethics. You have all the answers, so what are you doing on a philosophy forum an in applied ethics section? WHY ARE YOU HERE?

[tillingborn]

Henry Quirk,

If you see no ethical problems on planet earth;

You keep making the point that some people have done terrible things. Why is that an ethical problem for those who haven't?

if you see no errors to be amended by civil law on this planet;

Where I come from, civil law proceeds on the presumption of innocence. You appear to be advocating a system in which anyone who is being judged is guilty, because humans do that. Are you struggling with the aftermath of a religious upbringing? Only a profoundly disturbed individual, the pope for example, could seriously believe that a newborn child is guilty of anything.

if your philosophical position is "Get bent, asshole", You have all the answers you need.

Given that Henry's suggestion is the response to your 'aliens' who are judging the entire planet for the crimes of individuals, I think "Get bent, asshole." is entirely appropriate. How would you improve on it?