The Ethics of Cuteness

[Received]

Again, why does it matter how hard an ethical action is to achieve?

It doesn't make it more ethical because it was achieved inefficiently, it's the same action.

Because the difficulty of something ethically or not implies a degree of credit or responsibility, and (for the second statement) it implies character, and ethics is pretty useless if it doesn't have this character-building component.

This is like saying that because it would take me a lot more work to achieve (something like) the Mona Lisa than it would Leonardo da Vinchi that I am a better artist or more artistic...

That's art, not ethics. But still, you're ethical in proportion to how, well, much you fit ethical expectations of things, so in that regard it isn't a matter of exertion. So what's the deal with exertion? Credit, responsibility, things like that.

 

[Received]

No, I'm not an economic or political conservative, but I know that the amount of work expended does not add value when the end product is the same.

The man who is new to righteousness is to be cheered on, but IMO the man who has honed his ethics through consistent practice through a multitude of circumstances, who has a record of ethical behavior through many different situations, is more to be admired.

Comprehensively with regard to his character, yes. But we also (note how I said "also") have to consider each specific situation where an act (and therefore a varying degree of effort or exertion) is possible, which brings with it particular degrees of praise or credit relative to how much exertion is done in each specific moment.

 

[Received]

This reminds me of a pic I've seen online of a hand
holding a tiny baby bunny, with a caption that says,
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how
he treats those who can do nothing for him." I've
wondered how viral that meme would've been if,
instead of a cute-n-fuzzy baby bunny, it were a
tarantula or a cockroach the hand was holding.
It's like... why a bunny? Why not a slug?

-

 

[variant]

Because the difficulty of something ethically or not implies a degree of credit or responsibility, and (for the second statement) it implies character, and ethics is pretty useless if it doesn't have this character-building component.

If you view ethics as a mode of accomplishing things then no, character building is only as important as the end result.

It's odd that you would think that results oriented ethics are somehow "useless", ironically since they focus on the usefulness of the good.

That's art, not ethics. But still, you're ethical in proportion to how, well, much you fit ethical expectations of things, so in that regard it isn't a matter of exertion. So what's the deal with exertion? Credit, responsibility, things like that.

Art and ethics are both practices of will, talent practice, vision, things like that. Very similar.

So, why are we focused on the journey rather than the product here? Again the value of the Mona Lisa doesn't appreciate if it is accomplished by a less talented artist, so why should we care about how much effort is expended in accomplishing it?

"Credit" should be given for results not effort.

Efficiency (putting in less effort to get desired result) is generally good so it would actually be counter intuitive to maximize "ethical credit" in your conception.

 

[Received]

If you view ethics as a mode of accomplishing things then no, character building is only as important as the end result.

It's odd that you would think that results oriented ethics are somehow "useless", ironically since they focus on the usefulness of the good.

I don't think it's ironic. If you focus only on maximizing the good without considering the character of the good-dealer, then you're really missing out on what's in many ways the most important part of any society: selves, from which good actions come, and therefore focusing on forming a certain type of character where good acts are much more spontaneous and natural (i.e., easier) will result in a vastly better society than a society that only looks to maximizing the good. Cf. Tolstoy, "everyone thinks of changing society and nobody thinks of changing himself." If you're only about maximizing the good, you're missing this essential part of changing society.

Art and ethics are both practices of will, talent practice, vision, things like that. Very similar.

So, why are we focused on the journey rather than the product here? Again the value of the Mona Lisa doesn't appreciate if it is accomplished by a less talented artist, so why should we care about how much effort is expended in accomplishing it?

"Credit" should be given for results not effort.

Efficiency (putting in less effort to get desired result) is generally good so it would actually be counter intuitive to maximize "ethical credit" in your conception.

Credit given for results means, if you're honest with it, that anyone with a significant physical or psychological disability gets less credit because their "end result" (action) is much smaller than other people without these disabilities, even though they may be trying two or three times as hard as someone without a disability. That's not a fair world. That's a market-driven neoliberal world.

 

[variant]

I don't think it's ironic. If you focus only on maximizing the good without considering the character of the good-dealer, then you're really missing out on what's in many ways the most important part of any society: selves, from which good actions come, and therefore focusing on forming a certain type of character where good acts are much more spontaneous and natural (i.e., easier) will result in a vastly better society than a society that only looks to maximizing the good. Cf. Tolstoy, "everyone thinks of changing society and nobody thinks of changing himself." If you're only about maximizing the good, you're missing this essential part of changing society.

If maximizing the good is the point then the premise that we want good people acting is built in as having good people doing the acting yields better results.

This means that actions and decisions that lead to better people are to be valued.

The problem here is exertion, we want to minimize it. Find the most efficient way to have the best people to have the best outcomes.

This doesn't necessarily mean that someone not prone to good should be praised simply for doing good (because they aren't prone to it), but more so for actions that teach them to become better and make better decisions in the future.

Credit given for results means, if you're honest with it, that anyone with a significant physical or psychological disability gets less credit because their "end result" (action) is much smaller than other people without these disabilities, even though they may be trying two or three times as hard as someone without a disability. That's not a fair world. That's a market-driven neoliberal world.

The world is not fair, and I don't give more credit to psychopaths for moral actions.

Why should I?

The problem here is that any ethical standard one wishes to apply will necessarily divide the population up via the difficulty of each to attain it.

What you're suggesting is that we "grade" on a curve, which kind of moots the point of having standards in the first place (the standards themselves are good).

 

[Received]

If maximizing the good is the point then the premise that we want good people acting is built in as having good people doing the acting yields better results.

This means that actions and decisions that lead to better people are to be valued.

The problem here is exertion, we want to minimize it. Find the most efficient way to have the best people to have the best outcomes.

This doesn't necessarily mean that someone not prone to good should be praised simply for doing good (because they aren't prone to it), but more so for actions that teach them to become better and make better decisions in the future.

There's no doubt that the aim we have in mind involves the good. What I'm saying is that those who tend to maximize the good look outward to the target where goodness is aimed. We should also, and more importantly, consider how acting on the good affects the good-giver, his character. You don't want to minimize exertion, because becoming a better person always involves some degree of exertion, just like learning a new complicated skill set involves exertion (difficulty) with each step in this skill set. As for your last sentence, I don't see why the first half (pre-comma) should be separate from the last half.

The world is not fair, and I don't give more credit to psychopaths for moral actions.

Why should I?

Because psychopaths can become non-psychopaths (or, more precisely, those with neurological or personality traits which would allow them to becomes psychopaths if they allowed can also undo this negativity by acting in other ways even after fulfilling their psychopathic preferences), and denying their difficulty in exerting their wills to have better characters, even if the good they're attempting is miniscule by any decent non-psychopathic person's daily expression of the good, means not supporting change in others. It means not meeting them where they are; not supporting their characters in growing in the good, not simply in the good expressed as the good, but the maturity of a good-giver's character, thereby allowing for more spontaneous and organic expression of the good.

The problem here is that any ethical standard one wishes to apply will necessarily divide the population up via the difficulty of each to attain it.

What you're suggesting is that we "grade" on a curve, which kind of moots the point of having standards in the first place (the standards themselves are good).

Well, I think we already do this grading on a curve, and I'm a little surprised at how much I have to explain this concept to ethical people like yourself. Because if we don't grade on a curve, we'd basically be unintentional child abusers by having such incredibly high adult standards of how they should express the good and not "grading on a curve" relative to their budding good-giving. "No, Billy, I know you stopped lying today for the first time, but you're not getting any support from me because we don't grade on curves here, and you should know just as well as I do about how to behave. No cookie for you."

 

[variant]

There's no doubt that the aim we have in mind involves the good. What I'm saying is that those who tend to maximize the good look outward to the target where goodness is aimed. We should also, and more importantly, consider how acting on the good affects the good-giver, his character. You don't want to minimize exertion, because becoming a better person always involves some degree of exertion, just like learning a new complicated skill set involves exertion (difficulty) with each step in this skill set. As for your last sentence, I don't see why the first half (pre-comma) should be separate from the last half.

Exertion will dictate how many on average will fail, so if you make it easier for people to be good you increase the good, very simply.

There is no basic value to the amount of exertion it takes you to become a good person. The hardness of the work is at best correlated but by no means causal.

Improving the environment for instance that people make their ethical decisions in, for instance, increases the likelihood that they will do good and increase the good overall, and we should not by any means fret over the loss of exertion on behalf of the average person in such a scenario.

Because psychopaths can become non-psychopaths (or, more precisely, those with neurological or personality traits which would allow them to becomes psychopaths if they allowed can also undo this negativity by acting in other ways even after fulfilling their psychopathic preferences), and denying their difficulty in exerting their wills to have better characters, even if the good they're attempting is miniscule by any decent non-psychopathic person's daily expression of the good, means not supporting change in others. It means not meeting them where they are; not supporting their characters in growing in the good, not simply in the good expressed as the good, but the maturity of a good-giver's character, thereby allowing for more spontaneous and organic expression of the good.

Psychopaths are dangerous people that need special attention because they lack an easy means of socialization and failing such attention are likely to cause problems.

They deserve credit for the good they do period, not more credit because they lack an easy means to make good choices.

Well, I think we already do this grading on a curve, and I'm a little surprised at how much I have to explain this concept to ethical people like yourself. Because if we don't grade on a curve, we'd basically be unintentional child abusers by having such incredibly high adult standards of how they should express the good and not "grading on a curve" relative to their budding good-giving. "No, Billy, I know you stopped lying today for the first time, but you're not getting any support from me because we don't grade on curves here, and you should know just as well as I do about how to behave. No cookie for you."

Children get taught the same standards as everyone else and we hold them to the same standards as other children.

The fact that they need to be given special attention to being taught that doesn't change the fact that the end goal is singular and immature people aren't as good at attaining it.

But then again that is why we teach.

If you said to someone "your ethics is very childish" you mean that someone acts in the same way a child acts and need some remedial lessons.

 

[Received]

Exertion will dictate how many on average will fail, so if you make it easier for people to be good you increase the good, very simply.

There is no basic value to the amount of exertion it takes you to become a good person. The hardness of the work is at best correlated but by no means causal.

Improving the environment for instance that people make their ethical decisions in, for instance, increases the likelihood that they will do good and increase the good overall, and we should not by any means fret over the loss of exertion on behalf of the average person in such a scenario.

Disagree: exertion is needed for everything, and it's the standards we put onto people that determine success or failure.

The basic value of exertion is that you're actively seeking the good; you can't become an ethical person (have an ethical character) without exerting yourself to become such. Changing the environment means your heart (or will) is still unaffected if you're not exerting yourself.

Imagine a person who has a perfect environment such that he needs no exertion, and therefore has no influence on his will or character. Would you feel comfortable standing with this person in an elevator alone? I wouldn't, because I need to know that when the environment isn't ideal (and it often, often isn't), the person will remain strong against the tide of a negative or difficult environment in becoming a person who is ethical or virtuous.

Psychopaths are dangerous people that need special attention because they lack an easy means of socialization and failing such attention are likely to cause problems.

They deserve credit for the good they do period, not more credit because they lack an easy means to make good choices.

Then let's not use psychopaths, because they're too complicated. Let's say "criminal" instead.

Children get taught the same standards as everyone else and we hold them to the same standards as other children.

The fact that they need to be given special attention to being taught that doesn't change the fact that the end goal is singular and immature people aren't as good at attaining it.

But then again that is why we teach.

If you said to someone "your ethics is very childish" you mean that someone acts in the same way a child acts and need some remedial lessons.

Yes, the same standard as other children. What I'm saying is that if we don't grade on a curve, as you say, then we grade based on a single standard regardless of the limitations of the subjects to which it applies. Whether this means someone with a disability, a child, a psychopath, or whatever.

 

[variant]

Disagree: exertion is needed for everything, and it's the standards we put onto people that determine success or failure.

The standards we pick will determine what we "call" success or failure and how much exertion people need to expend to meet them will determine how many people succeed.

Lowering the exertion to meet any given standard means more people will definitely succeed for that given standard.

The basic value of exertion is that you're actively seeking the good; you can't become an ethical person (have an ethical character) without exerting yourself to become such. Changing the environment means your heart (or will) is still unaffected if you're not exerting yourself.

You will need to exert yourself in everything you do but that doesn't mean that more exertion is better.

If everyone were simply born more naturally ethically talented or we developed an efficient system to teach people the ethics to meet the standards we desired, the world would simply be better off.

Imagine a person who has a perfect environment such that he needs no exertion, and therefore has no influence on his will or character. Would you feel comfortable standing with this person in an elevator alone? I wouldn't, because I need to know that when the environment isn't ideal (and it often, often isn't), the person will remain strong against the tide of a negative or difficult environment in becoming a person who is ethical or virtuous.

A person raised in a perfect environment probably couldn't even conceive of hurting me.

Perfect environments don't exist so it's not worth debating though. We are going to need to exert ourselves in everything we do as life can not be without adversity.

Then let's not use psychopaths, because they're too complicated. Let's say "criminal" instead.

I chose psychopath because they simply have something wrong with their socialization ability (they have a severe disability like you said) which means they don't make for very ethical people.

I shouldn't judge the psychopath (morally) as they are simply what they are, but that doesn't mean they get more credit for not killing me than you do.

Yes, the same standard as other children. What I'm saying is that if we don't grade on a curve, as you say, then we grade based on a single standard regardless of the limitations of the subjects to which it applies. Whether this means someone with a disability, a child, a psychopath, or whatever.

We do grade them on the same standard, it's just that we understand they are in the learning process so we don't expect that they will live up to it as often. Their ethical actions don't deserve more credit they deserve lower expectations and patience (as the process is incomplete).

The psychopath has a severe learning disability so can't be trusted to be an ethical actor similarly to people who have a complete mathematical learning disability wouldn't get into NASA or be an accountant.

Children are also painfully annoying through this process but are cute so we protect them...

It makes things easier for us.

 

[RDKirk]

Children are also painfully annoying through this process but are cute so we protect them...

It makes things easier for us.

Well, there is the beginning of the circle. Can't take ethical credit for protecting children because their cuteness makes it easier.

I guess we only get ethical credit for protecting psychopaths.

 

[Received]

We do grade them on the same standard, it's just that we understand they are in the learning process so we don't expect that they will live up to it as often. Their ethical actions don't deserve more credit they deserve lower expectations and patience (as the process is incomplete).

This is exactly the definition of grading on a curve. How is it not?

The psychopath has a severe learning disability so can't be trusted to be an ethical actor similarly to people who have a complete mathematical learning disability wouldn't get into NASA or be an accountant.

The psychopath doesn't have a learning disability so much as he's lacking much of the emotional material that makes empathy and general relatedness a motivation for him. At the same time, it's a mistake to think that all people with the wiring for psychopathy are always people who behave as psychopaths; therefore these people deserve more credit for not giving in to their psychopathic bent.

Children are also painfully annoying through this process but are cute so we protect them...

It makes things easier for us.

And whether or not it's cuteness, we're grading on a curve by presenting standards in flexible ways, as you present.

 

[variant]

This is exactly the definition of grading on a curve. How is it not?

Children haven't had the time to learn both the standards and how to best meet them. Comparing their performance to adults who have had time to mature isn't possible.

We don't put children in charge of ethical situations in a similar manner to how we don't let them drive cars, a lack of maturity.

The question is how much "ethical credit" their good decisions get and the answer is no more or less than anyone else (it is the same action). They deserve more patience and reinforcement because they are learning.

This is in no way shape or form similar to your original point that decisions that rely on involuntary things like "cuteness" require less effort and thus get less credit.

The psychopath doesn't have a learning disability so much as he's lacking much of the emotional material that makes empathy and general relatedness a motivation for him. At the same time, it's a mistake to think that all people with the wiring for psychopathy are always people who behave as psychopaths; therefore these people deserve more credit for not giving in to their psychopathic bent.

Well similarly to saying a man with no legs has a walking disability, a man without a stable socio/emotional makeup has an ethical learning disability.

And again, no, psychopaths do not deserve more credit for not killing me than you do.

It is the nature of the actions that make them ethical or not, not the nature of the person who makes them.

And whether or not it's cuteness, we're grading on a curve by presenting standards in flexible ways, as you present.

We enforce the standard flexibly out of necessity (that people have to be given time to learn and mature).

But, as the example points out that we are prone to protect and nurture children out of psycho evolutionary necessity, it's not in and of itself ethical either...

 

[Received]

We enforce the standard flexibly out of necessity (that people have to be given time to learn and mature).

But, as the example points out that we are prone to protect and nurture children out of psycho evolutionary necessity, it's not in and of itself ethical either...

That doesn't matter; we're still grading on a curve, whether by necessity or not. That means we grade relative to capacity, i.e., exertion.

 

[variant]

That doesn't matter; we're still grading on a curve, whether by necessity or not. That means we grade relative to capacity, i.e., exertion.

We teach relative to capacity, it doesn't make the ethics of toddlers better, or more worthy of credit as you would like to establish in your op.

It may also be harder to teach people to protect the ugly, but that doesn't mean that protecting the ugly is a more worthy ethical goal than protecting the cute.

Again, it would be even more difficult to teach psychopaths, but that doesn't mean it is better to try to teach psychopaths than toddlers.

Your problem is that your curve is misapplied if you wish to use it everywhere. The learning curve is different for everyone true, and being on the low end of it for your relative age group isn't in any way shape or form good...

 

[RDKirk]

We teach relative to capacity, it doesn't make the ethics of toddlers better, or more worthy of credit as you would like to establish in your op.

It may also be harder to teach people to protect the ugly, but that doesn't mean that protecting the ugly is a more worthy ethical goal than protecting the cute.

Again, it would be even more difficult to teach psychopaths, but that doesn't mean it is better to try to teach psychopaths than toddlers.

Your problem is that your curve is misapplied if you wish to use it everywhere. The learning curve is different for everyone true, and being on the low end of it for your relative age group isn't in any way shape or form good...

That's not grading on a curve, that's teaching on a curve...which is what we do when we want the outcome--ethical adults--to be equal.

 

[variant]

That's not grading on a curve, that's teaching on a curve...which is what we do when we want the outcome--ethical adults--to be equal.

Right which is why when we're talking about just ethics proper, how difficult it is to make the decision doesn't determine how much credit one gets.

It is how good the decision is in and of itself.

The goal of teaching is the same as the goal of ethics, to produce better results.