The Ethics of Cuteness

[quatona]

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.

Here´s what I actually wrote:
I sense this is basically a variation of the good old protestant "if it doesn´t hurt, if it isn´t hard work, if it isn´t a sacrifice, if it comes naturally...it isn´t good" attitude.

"I sense", "variation", "attitude" - nothing about "has the rigor of a Calvinist system".

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

Just trying to find out what your "credit system" is relevant for.

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.

So how many ethical credit points (ECP) do I get for feeding a baby in need, and how many ECP do I get for helping a bedraggled not so cute homeless person? And what do I get for those ECP?
Btw.: How would we have to figure in (ECP-wise) the fact that I don´t find babies particularly cute?

 

[Received]

Here´s what I actually wrote:
I sense this is basically a variation of the good old protestant "if it doesn´t hurt, if it isn´t hard work, if it isn´t a sacrifice, if it comes naturally...it isn´t good" attitude.

"I sense", "variation", "attitude" - nothing about "has the rigor of a Calvinist system".




Just trying to find out what your "credit system" is relevant for.





So how many ethical credit points (ECP) do I get for feeding a baby in need, and how many ECP do I get for helping a bedraggled not so cute homeless person? And what do I get for those ECP?
Btw.: How would we have to figure in (ECP-wise) the fact that I don´t find babies particularly cute?

I'd like to respond to this great question, but I can't without condoning your rhetoric here.

 

[Received]

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?

Are you irked by someone who gets credit for something -- not just speaking ethically -- that he didn't really work for?

 

[Received]

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.

You bet it would depend on a host of variables; however we know clearly how much work is involved in a behavior from our perspective, and this work determines how much credit we deserve for actions, ethical or not. Sure, it's difficult to evaluate another person's effort (but not that difficult), but so what? At the very least this notion of credit is relevant for each one of us from our perspectives. We are more inclined toward humility when we realize that the actual work -- how difficult something is -- determines how much credit we deserve for specific acts, and if this means our character is such that an action is only barely difficult, we don't need to worry about how not-so-difficult the action is and how little credit we deserve, but can take a step back and appreciate how we've shaped our own characters (which, as you say, is relative to other factors, such as genetics) so that doing the good is more spontaneous for us.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you irked by someone who gets credit for something -- not just speaking ethically -- that he didn't really work for?

At the end of the day, who decides who gets credit for anything and how much credit?

What method is used to assign this credit, are all the variables involved included in this method?

Going back to my golf analogy:

Should Jack Nicklaus or Lee Trevino get more credit for having a great golf career? Certainly, Jack had a better record and won more tournaments, but Lee Trevino never took a golf lesson in his life and was self taught and played under enormous pressure early on being basically broke.

On the other hand, Nicklaus came from a upper middle class family, grew up at a private country club and had a golf teacher to give him lessons from early on in his childhood. He also didn't have the pressures to succeed early on as Trevino did.

So, who should get the most credit for having success?

We also have to figure this out, not knowing what the predetermined innate capabilities each person was born with, when it comes to hand eye coordination, ability to calm their nerves and focus, etc. etc..

 

[RDKirk]

Are you irked by someone who gets credit for something -- not just speaking ethically -- that he didn't really work for?

I don't believe "work" has an intrinsic value. Let me crib an example from one of my favorite novels.

Let's say my wife and I start out with apples, pie dough, sugar, shortening, et cetera. I could work hard all day long and the result of my efforts would be an inedible mess: Value zero.

My wife could take the same ingredients and within 30 minutes (not counting oven time) produce an exquisitely tasty apple pie worth ten times more than the basic ingredients.

What value did all my work impart to what we both started with? Nothing. In fact, after all my work the ingredients were worth even less than when I started.

But what if I worked for an hour and my wife worked for half an hour and we both turned out tasty apple pies. Did the fact that I worked twice as hard and twice as long make my apple pie worth a dime more than hers? Of course not.

An ethical act done with "effort" is not worth any more than an ethical act done without effort. The only thing that would make a difference is whether it was done in either case with deliberate ethical intent--a matter of judgment by the moral agent.

But the fact that one moral agent had to wrestle with himself and the other made the choice relatively easily (or had already made the choice prior to the circumstance) does not change the ethical value of the act. The point of ethics is not inherent in the act itself.

We don't perform ethical actions just to have performed ethical actions. We perform ethical actions in order to reach an "end good." An action that moves us toward that "end good" is an ethical action, and if there is any difference in value between ethical actions, it would be a matter of whether our action was a smaller or larger step toward that "end good."

 

[Stormy]

I do think that good looking people have the ability to influence our actions in a favorable way. But I am not so sure, that i would go along with you. when you tie this into feelings of empathy. A picture of an infant.. with merely skin covering his bones, sunken cheeks, and a hallow look in his eyes, brings humans to compassion faster than any form of cuteness. I see that as good news. We are not that hallow.

 

[agua]

I do think that good looking people have the ability to influence our actions in a favorable way. But I am not so sure, that i would go along with you. when you tie this into feelings of empathy. A picture of an infant.. with merely skin covering his bones, sunken cheeks, and a hallow look in his eyes, brings humans to compassion faster than any form of cuteness. I see that as good news. We are not that hallow.

Where do you think the gauge of attractiveness came from ? For isnstance; I would have guessed that, according to the evolutionary model, wide hipped women would be instrinsically more attractive than narrow hipped women ( easier birthing properties etc ), but the opposite seems more common, now. ( I have a conspiracy theory about this idea )

 

[bhsmte]

Where do you think the gauge of attractiveness came from ? For isnstance; I would have guessed that, according to the evolutionary model, wide hipped women would be instrinsically more attractive than narrow hipped women ( easier birthing properties etc ), but the opposite seems more common, now. ( I have a conspiracy theory about this idea )

Not necessarily just wide hip women, but women with certain curves that appear to make their hips wider, than the rest of their frame.

I doubt 250 pound women with wide hips were attractive to man, at any point in time.

 

[quatona]

I'd like to respond to this great question, but I can't without condoning your rhetoric here.

I hope that your refusal gets you some ethical credits.

 

[Stormy]

A low waist to hip ratio is an ndication of good health and ability to produce off spring.

 

[RDKirk]

A low waist to hip ratio is an indication of good health and ability to produce off spring.

0.7:1 ratio works around the world, in fact. Actual measurements can vary significantly.

However, here in the West I do agree that there is a conspiracy to change that.

 

[Gottservant]

I think this is interesting, but I wouldn't say something people have trouble describing as anything other than cute, is something that they make active decisions on.

It's more of a loophole in people's objectification of the world, that stems from the protectiveness of their young.

On the other hand, it is in connection with the same principle that justifies such as expressions as "people are good" and "it'll be alright" (so you may be on to something after all)

 

[agua]

0.7:1 ratio works around the world, in fact. Actual measurements can vary significantly.

However, here in the West I do agree that there is a conspiracy to change that.

Yes indeed the conspiracy has ramifications upon general gut health, and the immune system, as well. It has been increasing since skinny ( narrow hipped ) girls took over film, magazines, and catwalks, really.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Children are considered cute, and in Islam there is "fitra" or nature which belongs to them, believing in one God instinctively. Allegedly. Then as they mature culture takes them this way or that. Obviously its going to be difficult for a cchild to understand the trinity, or multiple expansions of Krishna, when even some adults have difficlulty.

Its stange that people value child protection very much, but not so much adult protection. Share drugs with a child and its deep trouble, but the same to an adult and its maybe a slap on the wrist.

Personally I think that health is more apparent in children, and self imposed decay of adults (drink, drugs, smoking) is a poor reflection on their use of freedom. The fact thet they "freely chose" this course of action, baffles me - as if by logic this makes it appropriate. And wanting to be an "ugly thug", well thats just demoniac.

 

[Received]

I hope that your refusal gets you some ethical credits.

When you wish upon a star...

 

[Received]

I don't believe "work" has an intrinsic value. Let me crib an example from one of my favorite novels.

Let's say my wife and I start out with apples, pie dough, sugar, shortening, et cetera. I could work hard all day long and the result of my efforts would be an inedible mess: Value zero.

My wife could take the same ingredients and within 30 minutes (not counting oven time) produce an exquisitely tasty apple pie worth ten times more than the basic ingredients.

What value did all my work impart to what we both started with? Nothing. In fact, after all my work the ingredients were worth even less than when I started.

But what if I worked for an hour and my wife worked for half an hour and we both turned out tasty apple pies. Did the fact that I worked twice as hard and twice as long make my apple pie worth a dime more than hers? Of course not.

An ethical act done with "effort" is not worth any more than an ethical act done without effort. The only thing that would make a difference is whether it was done in either case with deliberate ethical intent--a matter of judgment by the moral agent.

But the fact that one moral agent had to wrestle with himself and the other made the choice relatively easily (or had already made the choice prior to the circumstance) does not change the ethical value of the act. The point of ethics is not inherent in the act itself.

We don't perform ethical actions just to have performed ethical actions. We perform ethical actions in order to reach an "end good." An action that moves us toward that "end good" is an ethical action, and if there is any difference in value between ethical actions, it would be a matter of whether our action was a smaller or larger step toward that "end good."

So you're saying that work has meaning on in an economic sense, such as by how much demand an action or product has? If so, my guess is you're conservative politically.

My understanding of work goes beyond market understandings, and involves the amount of individual effort required for any given task. For me making an empathic statement takes very little effort (because this is basically what I do for a living); for a psychopath, who has little to no empathy, this could involve a lot of confusion and effort, therefore he's working more even if we yield the same action that has more or less the same payoff (another person feeling validated).

 

[variant]

So you're saying that work has meaning on in an economic sense, such as by how much demand an action or product has? If so, my guess is you're conservative politically.

My understanding of work goes beyond market understandings, and involves the amount of individual effort required for any given task. For me making an empathic statement takes very little effort (because this is basically what I do for a living); for a psychopath, who has little to no empathy, this could involve a lot of confusion and effort, therefore he's working more even if we yield the same action that has more or less the same payoff (another person feeling validated).

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.

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...

 

[RDKirk]

So you're saying that work has meaning on in an economic sense, such as by how much demand an action or product has? If so, my guess is you're conservative politically.

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.

My understanding of work goes beyond market understandings, and involves the amount of individual effort required for any given task. For me making an empathic statement takes very little effort (because this is basically what I do for a living); for a psychopath, who has little to no empathy, this could involve a lot of confusion and effort, therefore he's working more even if we yield the same action that has more or less the same payoff (another person feeling validated).

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.

 

[Rajni]

I think if you use this assumption, you see that a whole freaking lot of what people do really isn't ethically motivated, because it isn't motivated by doing the right thing, but rather because, if something that's cute involuntarily invites our supportiveness, it therefore means we have no credit for actually ethically "working" for it.

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?

-