The Ethics of Cuteness

variant · Apr 12, 2015

Received said:
I'm not saying it's in and of itself good; I'm saying that willpower allows for a person to even enter an ethical dimension, whether this dimension results in a good or bad action. So a person who trips another person involuntarily isn't a bad person, just as he's not a good person if his involuntary tripping behavior saves someone. Now, very subtly and importantly, his body might be responsible for goodness or badness in these situations, but he (his self) isn't responsible, because selfhood is constituted in large part by will, without which you might refer to aspects of a person's body, personality, etc. when attempting to find a cause for an ethical act, but you're not referring to him in the moment. And a person who commits something without choosing (causing) it isn't responsible for it, i.e., deserves no credit for it. Period.

See the problem here is that you equate the self with a persons thoughts and not their body, brain, or genetic dispositions, and I don't think that neat separation exists.

The body is indeed part of the self, as is the evolutionary history that shaped it. It is not random or involuntary it is just not consciously active in the way brains are.

So, when we talk about decisions in the ethical realm we have to account for how they are actually made not just assign value to how much willpower needs to be exerted.

Yes. If you repeat a behavior more and more to the point that it's automatic, then you in that moment of ethical action aren't responsible or credible for it except in the most minimal ways involved with making a very basic act of will (kind of like how much will is involved in working a vending machine). You are, however, indirectly responsible for it if indeed your character is such that this action is automatic. Why? Because you've shaped your character through continual exertions (freely) toward the good. This direct/indirect distinction, I think, is very important; at the end of the day, though, an automatic action is precisely that: an action that a person (a self) did no action or expressed no (or minimal) exertion in committing.

And again you can simply be more basically talented at ethical decision making than another person like any other particular talent.

You could have a talent for self awareness, or empathy or rationality or simple brute force intelligence ect ect.

Ethics is going to take a differn't amount of effort for everyone, but, it's not the effort that defines the ethics it's the choices themselves and how well founded they are in a workable ethics.

To say that willpower is the only thing that lends credit to someones actions as ethical seems off the mark, your involuntary self definitely has an influence on how your ethics operate overall.

RDKirk · Apr 12, 2015

Received said:
If you repeat a behavior more and more to the point that it's automatic, then you in that moment of ethical action aren't responsible or credible for it except in the most minimal ways involved with making a very basic act of will (kind of like how much will is involved in working a vending machine). You are, however, indirectly responsible for it if indeed your character is such that this action is automatic. Why? Because you've shaped your character through continual exertions (freely) toward the good. This direct/indirect distinction, I think, is very important; at the end of the day, though, an automatic action is precisely that: an action that a person (a self) did no action or expressed no (or minimal) exertion in committing.

So, wait. You're saying the person who practices being ethical to the point that ethical behavior becomes common for him is less ethical than the person who performs an ethical action as a rarity?

Received · Apr 12, 2015

RDKirk said:
So, wait. You're saying the person who practices being ethical to the point that ethical behavior becomes common for him is less ethical than the person who performs an ethical action as a rarity?

No. An ethical person implies personality or character, which is different than the self in a particular moment of an ethical act. Hence my claim that a person who acts ethically and it involves very little exertion because his character is such that the action is almost automatic for him is indirectly responsible or ethically credible in that moment. But at the very moment he (his self in that moment) isn't responsible, and the responsibility (credibility) goes to his character, which in a sense (but only in a sense) is no different than his brain being responsible if he were genetically endowed with a natural ability to respond automatically in this particular situation.

Another way of putting this is to distinguish the ethical act from the ethical comprehensive self; the former is the self in the moment (which deserves little to no credit for an almost or completely automatic response in any direct way), whereas the latter is the self in a comprehensive sense, including personality, character, temperament, genetic endowment and biology, etc.

variant · Apr 12, 2015

Received said:
Another way of putting this is to distinguish the ethical act from the ethical comprehensive self; the former is the self in the moment (which deserves little to no credit for an almost or completely automatic response in any direct way), whereas the latter is the self in a comprehensive sense, including personality, character, temperament, genetic endowment and biology, etc.

I must be missing something.

If you are a differn't person "in the moment" than in a comprehensive sense then it would be impossible to actually act ethically.

bhsmte · Apr 12, 2015

Received said:
No. An ethical person implies personality or character, which is different than the self in a particular moment of an ethical act. Hence my claim that a person who acts ethically and it involves very little exertion because his character is such that the action is almost automatic for him is indirectly responsible or ethically credible in that moment. But at the very moment he (his self in that moment) isn't responsible, and the responsibility (credibility) goes to his character, which in a sense (but only in a sense) is no different than his brain being responsible if he were genetically endowed with a natural ability to respond automatically in this particular situation.

Another way of putting this is to distinguish the ethical act from the ethical comprehensive self; the former is the self in the moment (which deserves little to no credit for an almost or completely automatic response in any direct way), whereas the latter is the self in a comprehensive sense, including personality, character, temperament, genetic endowment and biology, etc.

I think you are trying too hard.

Received · Apr 12, 2015

variant said:
I must be missing something.

If you are a differn't person "in the moment" than in a comprehensive sense then it would be impossible to actually act ethically.

I don't think you're a different self in these senses. In the one you just have self (which is basically reducible, in my language, to will, such that a self is a self in proportion to how much he exerts as opposed to just passively exists), but in the other you have the self plus all these other aspects such as biology, personality, character, temperament, intelligence, etc. It's the difference between looking at the central piece of something and the central piece plus all other pieces that constitute something's identity.

Received · Apr 12, 2015

bhsmte said:
I think you are trying too hard.

I'm speaking the diet version of any philosophical definition of the self. Unless you think the self is a very uncomplicated thing.

variant · Apr 12, 2015

Received said:
I don't think you're a different self in these senses. In the one you just have self (which is basically reducible, in my language, to will, such that a self is a self in proportion to how much he exerts as opposed to just passively exists), but in the other you have the self plus all these other aspects such as biology, personality, character, temperament, intelligence, etc. It's the difference between looking at the central piece of something and the central piece plus all other pieces that constitute something's identity.

I don't think selves are passive things at all, the entire system is quite alive.

Will is the culmination of our traits not a separate essence at all.

I don't think if you took any of the pieces away you would still be left with a will.

How would one will without things like intelligence creativity or biology?

How can you discount them when you speak of making decisions?

quatona · Apr 13, 2015

Received said:
You'll have to say how, because I don't like Calvinists, much less protestant work ethics.

The third paragraph of your OP sounds very much like "if it isn´t work, it isn´t ethical". Can´t seem to help reading it that way.

Anyway, I don´t get this obsession with judging at all (unless, of course, you feel the need to anticipate Judgement Day, or something).

I´m not even sure what you mean by "credited" here, but, obviously, you have developed a concept of "credited" that doesn´t allow you to "credit" persons for their actions when they come naturally to them. So what? "Received won´t credit you for it, unless..." is but a weak threat.

One thing needs to be noted, though, if you want to apply your line of reasoning consistently: If you can´t credit a person for helping a cute something, you can´t blame them for not helping the not so cute ones, either.

Received · Apr 13, 2015

quatona said:
The third paragraph of your OP sounds very much like "if it isn´t work, it isn´t ethical". Can´t seem to help reading it that way.

Yeah, but saying this is like a Protestant work ethic is like saying Brittney Spears is like a musician. Just because work is involved in something doesn't mean it has the rigor of a Calvinist system, where, you know, your salvation is believed to be evident through how hard you're working.

Anyway, I don´t get this obsession with judging at all (unless, of course, you feel the need to anticipate Judgement Day, or something).

I´m not even sure what you mean by "credited" here, but, obviously, you have developed a concept of "credited" that doesn´t allow you to "credit" persons for their actions when they come naturally to them. So what? "Received won´t credit you for it, unless..." is but a weak threat.

I don't see where threats are even relevant here.

One thing needs to be noted, though, if you want to apply your line of reasoning consistently: If you can´t credit a person for helping a cute something, you can´t blame them for not helping the not so cute ones, either.

I can "blame" them for both. We're ethically obliged to help people in certain situations, whether the person is cute or not. I'm saying that because it's more immediate and involuntary, say, to help a baby in need, the person deserves less (if any) ethical credit, compared to if they were helping a bedraggled homeless person who isn't very cute, which would need a lot more exertion because it isn't immediate and involuntary.

Received · Apr 13, 2015

variant said:
I don't think selves are passive things at all, the entire system is quite alive.

Will is the culmination of our traits not a separate essence at all.

I don't think if you took any of the pieces away you would still be left with a will.

How would one will without things like intelligence creativity or biology?

How can you discount them when you speak of making decisions?

Do you think there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary actions? Say, a heartbeat and extending your hand to give someone help up a flight of stairs?

Received · Apr 13, 2015

If we let our lives be ruled by what is cute and more broadly by what immediately and involuntarily arouses our attention and care, this will be a vastly different society than one where people exert their wills above and beyond the limitations of being pushed and pulled by involuntary desires.

I think, for complicated reasons including our bent toward sensationalism and technology, that we're becoming more and more a society of passivity and involuntary associations and responses as the limit of our actions. Cuteness is just one aspect of this trend. Dallas Willard channeled the slogan of our times as "be cute or die," i.e., show cute actions or be physically cute or you don't matter. That, I think, is a fair but broad summary of what's going on these days, but at the same time cute things (not so much actions) tug at our evolved programming.

bhsmte · Apr 13, 2015

Received said:
Do you think there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary actions? Say, a heartbeat and extending your hand to give someone help up a flight of stairs?

Have you ever practiced something so much, the action appears to become involuntary and requires little thought or effort?

variant · Apr 13, 2015

Received said:
Do you think there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary actions? Say, a heartbeat and extending your hand to give someone help up a flight of stairs?

Sure, I just don't think the line is that stark when it comes to our ethical motivations, or that involuntary or semi voluntary actions aren't important ethically when they are instigating us to fulfill biological imperatives through our actions.

RDKirk · Apr 13, 2015

Sometimes a cashier gives me too much change. The first time or two when I was a teenager, maybe I had to wrestle with myself about returning it.

These days, having long since worked out the ethical response to the situation, I don't think about it at all. I immediately say, "Oh, you gave me too much change."

Am I now less ethical than I was then just because I've already worked out the response to a common situation? If a person works out the ethical choice of a likely situation before it happens to him, is he less ethical when it occurs because he has already worked it out and come to terms with it?

Or do I get "less credit" for it? What does that mean? What is "ethical credit" if it has no relationship to "more ethical" or "less ethical?" And if "ethical credit" has no such relationship, why should I care about it?

Received · Apr 13, 2015

bhsmte said:
Have you ever practiced something so much, the action appears to become involuntary and requires little thought or effort?

You bet.

Received · Apr 13, 2015

RDKirk said:
Sometimes a cashier gives me too much change. The first time or two when I was a teenager, maybe I had to wrestle with myself about returning it.

These days, having long since worked out the ethical response to the situation, I don't think about it at all. I immediately say, "Oh, you gave me too much change."

Am I now less ethical than I was then just because I've already worked out the response to a common situation? If a person works out the ethical choice of a likely situation before it happens to him, is he less ethical when it occurs because he has already worked it out and come to terms with it?

Or do I get "less credit" for it? What does that mean? What is "ethical credit" if it has no relationship to "more ethical" or "less ethical?" And if "ethical credit" has no such relationship, why should I care about it?

You aren't less ethical because your entire person (will in the moment plus everything else that constitutes your self) is such that it automatically responds in an ethical way. As for ethical credit, that would be an indirect credit because of how you've shaped your character over the years such that a response like this is natural; you deserve much less ethical credit in the moment in a direct sense, however, because you are exerting very little will toward it.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the direct or indirect thing above. Ethical credit is clearly a combination of indirect and direct exertion -- indirect because you've shaped your character through continual exertions leading to more automatic responses, yielding a more ethical character, and direct because every situation involves some degree of exertion (or difficulty) when making an ethical decision, even if we've done it a million times and so it's more natural. And it's better in a sense to have an ethical character such that particular actions are easy to do and technically don't involve much exertion (therefore credit), but in a sense it's also better to push against the grain successfully each time when something is ethically trying and not so automatic or immediate.

Take an alcoholic. He has an almost unimaginable amount of ethical pressure and exertion involved in resisting his desire to drink compared to a person who has overcome his alcoholism by continually resisting it, and so in particular situations doesn't have to exert his will nearly as much. Here the newbie non-alcoholic deserves a lot more credit in the moment for not drinking because it's so incredibly hard, but comprehensively (and not so much in the moment) the seasoned non-alcoholic deserves credit despite having much less exertion in the moment. Why? Because his character implies that he continually pushed against the grain by exerting himself.

So either way, directly and in the moment or indirectly and not in the moment but comprehensively with one's character, you have exertions of the will.

bhsmte · Apr 13, 2015

Received said:
You bet.

Indeed.

And, the motivation that drove this practice of a certain behavior from it's onset (when it was not second nature) and to the point of it becoming almost automatic with little thought required, came from within.

RDKirk · Apr 13, 2015

Received said:
You aren't less ethical because your entire person (will in the moment plus everything else that constitutes your self) is such that it automatically responds in an ethical way. As for ethical credit, that would be an indirect credit because of how you've shaped your character over the years such that a response like this is natural; you deserve much less ethical credit in the moment in a direct sense, however, because you are exerting very little will toward it.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the direct or indirect thing above. Ethical credit is clearly a combination of indirect and direct exertion -- indirect because you've shaped your character through continual exertions leading to more automatic responses, yielding a more ethical character, and direct because every situation involves some degree of exertion (or difficulty) when making an ethical decision, even if we've done it a million times and so it's more natural. And it's better in a sense to have an ethical character such that particular actions are easy to do and technically don't involve much exertion (therefore credit), but in a sense it's also better to push against the grain successfully each time when something is ethically trying and not so automatic or immediate.

Take an alcoholic. He has an almost unimaginable amount of ethical pressure and exertion involved in resisting his desire to drink compared to a person who has overcome his alcoholism by continually resisting it, and so in particular situations doesn't have to exert his will nearly as much. Here the newbie non-alcoholic deserves a lot more credit in the moment for not drinking because it's so incredibly hard, but comprehensively (and not so much in the moment) the seasoned non-alcoholic deserves credit despite having much less exertion in the moment. Why? Because his character implies that he continually pushed against the grain by exerting himself.

So either way, directly and in the moment or indirectly and not in the moment but comprehensively with one's character, you have exertions of the will.

Why, then, do I care about "ethical credit?" What is it doing for my trek toward my "end good?"

Is it just a matter of determining whether I deserve merely a polite golf-clap or a standing ovation for each ethical act I perform?

bhsmte · Apr 13, 2015

RDKirk said:
Why, then, do I care about "ethical credit?" What is it doing for my trek toward my "end good?"

Is it just a matter of determining whether I deserve merely a polite golf-clap or a standing ovation for each ethical act I perform?

I am with you on this credit thing.

For instance, I have developed into a person who when I walk down the sidewalk will typically always pick up a piece of litter if I see one. I don't really think about it anymore, I just do it.

If a person has been one that tosses litter on the ground, decides to change their ways and instead pick up litter, I guess the OP is saying in their opinion, they deserve more credit.

If I am a scratch golfer and never took a lesson in my life, should I get more credit for my play than the other scratch golfer who had lessons since the age of 10? It would depend on a whole host of variables, including the genetically driven talent, I was born with.

The Ethics of Cuteness

Happy Cat

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

True love waits in haunted attics

Happy Cat

Newbie

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Happy Cat

"God"? What do you mean??

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Newbie

Happy Cat

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Newbie

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency