Something your hamster cage is not
Suzi: “Did you see Natalie’s TikTok?”
Pem: “Yeah, lady glitter sparkles cage doesn’t follow the ethical requirements”
Pem: “Yeah, lady glitter sparkles cage doesn’t follow the ethical requirements”
by hamster brigade July 12, 2024
Jordan Peterson defines it as "Voluntary and repeatable transactions" which, you know, SOUNDS good but I don't quite think it's a consistent standard for "ethical" or "How things ought to be." It's just not enough. And it's funny that in his consideration for "what constitutes an ethical business" that the EMPLOYEES aren't even an afterthought! As long as the customers and suppliers are acting voluntarily what happens to the employees is irrelevant apparently!
Hym "So... By that logic, TAXES are unethical. WORK is unethical. If we accept 'Voluntary and repeatable' as the definition of 'Ethical' that actually makes for a solid argument for universal basic income....
Hym "So... By that logic, TAXES are unethical. WORK is unethical. If we accept 'Voluntary and repeatable' as the definition of 'Ethical' that actually makes for a solid argument for universal basic income....
Work is not voluntary; it's coercive (Work for me or anyone else OR live a life of privation) and I don't want to keep doing it under threat of privation, so, not repeatable. Universal basic income would make work voluntarily. Therefore, we are ethically obligated to institute some form of universal basic income. Prostitution would also be considered ethical. You could say that a pimp exploits the labor of someone who might not have any better options but... How's that any different from what a business owner does? Other than the fact that a pimp doesn't pay taxes. And we've already established that taxes are unethical. DRAG SHOWS are ALSO ethical as anyone who goes to a drag show is there voluntarily. Even if they were to bring THEIR OWN (And NOT OTHER PEOPLE'S) kids drag shows are both voluntary and repeatable. Seriously. It's like he doesn't even think before he opens his mouth. Every time he does it he dismantles the arguments of his political allies. It's like he's just winging it up there. At the same time, we don't necessarily accept that definition. There CAN be ethical compulsion. Which is the opposite of 'voluntary.' I mean, if a serial rapist doesn't want to live in a cage; I'd say you OUGHT to put him in one ANYWAYS. So, there's and example of ETHICAL compulsion that contradicts Jordan's definition of ethical.... Whaaaaat else.... Hmm.... Running out of characters..... Hmm... I'll come back to it...."
by Hym Iam June 22, 2023
by lukeceline June 29, 2024
Bro: Damn did you hear Jessica is an ethical wasian?
Me: So her mom isn't a victim of the Oxford Study
Bro: Yeah, her dad's Filipino and her mom's Italian
Me: So her mom isn't a victim of the Oxford Study
Bro: Yeah, her dad's Filipino and her mom's Italian
by bobalover3 July 27, 2024
True Ethicality is the noun for a person being truly ethical.
Being truly ethical means that the thing you did does not negatively affect any living beings (differing from being ethical, as being ethical does not extend to other beings, like lab rats).
Being truly ethical means that the thing you did does not negatively affect any living beings (differing from being ethical, as being ethical does not extend to other beings, like lab rats).
by Haalvirnaleryx February 10, 2022
by Bryn Benn April 15, 2020
Your faux ethical dilemma regarding the organ transplant can only exist in a vaccum (Though you may be right that people do ENGAGE IN ethical emotivism). As I see it, your proposition isn't a singular linear line of reasoning. How you're thinking about it seems to be this: If you can -1 to +5 should you do that. But really your proposition is the intersection of several constituent elements regarding personal property rights (Does the person own their organs), consent (Is it ethical to take something from someone else without consent), authority (Is it ethical for a "We" to have authority over an individual). So, if yes (you ought to take the organs) do you have to reconcile with the constituent elements of the proposition? If it's ethical for "a group to take the organs from 1 to save 5 people" is it, then, also ethical for "a group to take the property of an individual without their consent" (in a broader sense)? Or are you just making a 1 time exception for this guy? Or is whether or not it's ethical contingent on what you're taking and whether or not you're saving lives? You see the distinction I'm trying to make, right? Maybe I'm not understanding it properly.
Hym "To me it just sounds like a repackaging of the trolley problem. And I don't see how it's incompatible with utilitarianism because if you aim to maximize pleasure then it's either a total of 1 unit of pleasure (1 person who continues to live so they can experience pleasure) or 5 units... Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying... I guess the distinction between the trolly problem and your thing IS the intersection of constituent elements. Rather than just deciding whether or not to switch the tracks you're deliberately putting a guy ON THE TRACK. So it's a little more direct I guess... You're slightly more culpable in the outcome... That's a good one though. That aside, I think ethical emotivism is something people engage in rather than the default. I do still think you can create a mathematical ethical scale. Like my thing! I kill a kid (-2), you kill me (-1), I get my stuff back (+1). That's all I got for now. Bring it back up later maybe I'll come up with something else. Hopefully that isn't too incoherent to understand."
by Hym Iam March 15, 2024