Ep. 81: The Switch

[Redpower]

[
You "ought" not take the money. It is a bribe, after all.

"ought" not? I would think the character in this equation ought take the money...

Do you think he ought not take the money because of the "oath" he took or something? Because any thinking person would be able to disregard the oath in this case as the oath obviously didn't make an appropriate exception. The man can correct this error by taking the bribe and proceeding as usual... And he "ought" to do that...

I really hope everyone reads and sticks to the hypothetical situation presented before they challenge me here, it is fairly specific.

[humanguy]

The hypothetical bribe situation revolves around one thing and one thing only: personal integrity. Taking the money means that you have allowed yourself, your integrity, to be purchased. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of how you value your own life.

[Redpower]

The hypothetical bribe situation revolves around one thing and one thing only: personal integrity. Taking the money means that you have allowed yourself, your integrity, to be purchased. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of how you value your own life.

No.........................................


The integrity of the man has not been purchased as the decision wasn't made because of the money.

My godlessness, man, if you want to participate please actually read and make an effort to comprehend. If you don't, no one is going to take you seriously.

[humanguy]

The hypothetical bribe situation revolves around one thing and one thing only: personal integrity. Taking the money means that you have allowed yourself, your integrity, to be purchased. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of how you value your own life.

No.........................................


The integrity of the man has not been purchased as the decision wasn't made because of the money.

My godlessness, man, if you want to participate please actually read and make an effort to comprehend. If you don't, no one is going to take you seriously.

That doesn't matter. Just the act of taking the money has compromised this person's integrity, don't you see that? Take money once and you'll most likely take it again, given the right circumstances. Take it once and it is known that you have and maybe will continue to take money. You'll know it and the people who gave it to you will know it.

Let me ask you this: would you respect this person for taking the money?

[Redpower]

I'm sorry, but you're still not comprehending the situation properly. The man's reasons for taking the money have EVERYTHING to do with his integrity. In this situation, the man's integrity would be compromised if he did NOT take the money. The man's decision would not change and no one involved would be found out (as stated in the hypothetical situation), to assume that the person will continue to take money "given the right circumstances" isn't specific enough... What do you mean "given the right circumstances"? If presented AGAIN with the SAME circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the man would take the same action he did before. But if one variable is to change in the situation given, assuming the man would take the money anyway isn't fair... Nor on topic...

Answer: I would not respect a man who did NOT take the money in this situation... And I suspect you won't understand that, because I suspect you aren't taking the hypothetical as it was presented, either because you refuse to read it or you just can't grasp a hypothetical situation... I'm just not sure which...

[humanguy]

I'm sorry, but you're still not comprehending the situation properly. The man's reasons for taking the money have EVERYTHING to do with his integrity. In this situation, the man's integrity would be compromised if he did NOT take the money. The man's decision would not change and no one involved would be found out (as stated in the hypothetical situation), to assume that the person will continue to take money "given the right circumstances" isn't specific enough... What do you mean "given the right circumstances"? If presented AGAIN with the SAME circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that the man would take the same action he did before. But if one variable is to change in the situation given, assuming the man would take the money anyway isn't fair... Nor on topic...

Answer: I would not respect a man who did NOT take the money in this situation... And I suspect you won't understand that, because I suspect you aren't taking the hypothetical as it was presented, either because you refuse to read it or you just can't grasp a hypothetical situation... I'm just not sure which...

But the man taking the money is already found out, by the person who gave it to him. Not only that, the man who took the money knows he took the money. If he can live with that then that's his business. But I cannot respect such an action, that action being accepting a bribe.

And look here, sport. You can drop the forced supercilliousness, insinuations and name-calling rhetoric. All it serves to do is to illustrate your own intellectual insecurity. It makes you look like a rube.

Cue the outrage.

[Redpower]

The person who gave it to him had NO affect on the situation what so ever. The psychological effect on the man taking the money was NOT a factor presented in the hypothetical, so why are you taking it upon yourself to insert this unknown variable? All it does is retard the discussion to the point of meaninglessness, which is why I get righteously annoyed. You should be more understanding of my frustration with you.

[humanguy]

The person who gave it to him had NO affect on the situation what so ever. The psychological effect on the man taking the money was NOT a factor presented in the hypothetical, so why are you taking it upon yourself to insert this unknown variable? All it does is retard the discussion to the point of meaninglessness, which is why I get righteously annoyed. You should be more understanding of my frustration with you.

Right on cue! You're hired.

[Redpower]

The person who gave it to him had NO affect on the situation what so ever. The psychological effect on the man taking the money was NOT a factor presented in the hypothetical, so why are you taking it upon yourself to insert this unknown variable? All it does is retard the discussion to the point of meaninglessness, which is why I get righteously annoyed. You should be more understanding of my frustration with you.

Right on cue! You're hired.

Hehehehheheh, you so funny!!!

You can't grasp simple hypothetical situations. At least that has been established by this thread.

[humanguy]

The person who gave it to him had NO affect on the situation what so ever. The psychological effect on the man taking the money was NOT a factor presented in the hypothetical, so why are you taking it upon yourself to insert this unknown variable? All it does is retard the discussion to the point of meaninglessness, which is why I get righteously annoyed. You should be more understanding of my frustration with you.

Right on cue! You're hired.

Hehehehheheh, you so funny!!!

You can't grasp simple hypothetical situations. At least that has been established by this thread.

Yes, I'm quite stupid. And, for what it's worth, I do understand your frustration with me.

[Pseudonym]

The psychological effect on the man taking the money was NOT a factor presented in the hypothetical, so why are you taking it upon yourself to insert this unknown variable?

I think it's reasonable to take that into account, though. My purpose in presenting the hypothetical is to show a situation where utilitarian ethics alone don't match our usual intuition of what's "right" or "wrong". And in particular, I think that humanguy is entirely correct to ask whether the hypothetical person could live with themselves after doing it.

And please don't drag down the discussion with ad hominems. I think that my answer to the hypothetical (i.e. "don't do it") is "right" in some sense, but I don't think there's a single correct reason for it.

[humanguy]

My purpose in presenting the hypothetical is to show a situation where utilitarian ethics alone don't match our usual intuition of what's "right" or "wrong". And in particular, I think that humanguy is entirely correct to ask whether the hypothetical person could live with themselves after doing it.

But isn't that how we arrive at our own sense of personal integrity, the simple question of would we be able to live with ourselves?

I thought the hypothetical was a good one, although I'm sure I didn't interpret or even understand it in the absolutely "correct" way. And I know nothing about utilitarian ethics. And, to me, it has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has everything to do with how the individual values his life, and that means what a person will or will not do based entirely upon that value. The value an individual places on his own life is the value he will certainly assign to all human life, and that value will be the cause of his actions.

So the individual who accepts a bribe, no matter what the circumstances, has forfeited his integrity, if he had any in the first place. I just can't see it any other way.

[Redpower]

His integrity isn't compromised because the money didn't change his decision...

Look, here's how I see it:

A) Donate money to charity (There is no negative to this, at least not one I can come up with if I stick with the hypothetical presented)

B) Don't donate money to charity

Option A is a better idea, don't you agree?

[Rian]

Interesting hypothetical ...

Yes, it didn't change your decision, but it affects more than you - it has a negative effect on the person giving you the money if they, like many people, think bribes are wrong (assuming that you didn't tell them that it didn't change your mind). I think most of us are happy to see someone make what we think is a right moral choice, and saddened to see someone make what we think is a wrong moral choice. So although you weren't bribed in the technical sense, still, someone THINKS that you accepted a bribe, and that makes the world a little sadder place for them if they think bribes are wrong. Also, they could point to you and say, "Hey, that person took a bribe from me!" and that has other bad effects.

[humanguy]

His integrity isn't compromised because the money didn't change his decision...

Look, here's how I see it:

A) Donate money to charity (There is no negative to this, at least not one I can come up with if I stick with the hypothetical presented)

B) Don't donate money to charity

Option A is a better idea, don't you agree?

Try looking at it this way, Redpower. What was the intention of the person who gave our hypothetical public official that envelope filled with cash?