About ethics: right or wrong?

After Sling came up with her favourite word again in a thread, unethical, I started thinking some more about what exactly ethics are. And why Slings ethics can be so different from mine, for example.

One conclusion in that thread was that according to our way of thinking, nothing would be unethical. Hold on to that thought, as this will be answered from my point of view.

Ethics is part of philosophy, not an exact science. Not one, where things can be proofed. It is a science that tries to describe what is right and wrong, and more important so: why something is right or wrong. The criterea on which something is declared right or wrong. Hope to have explained this right in a tongue that is not my native one.

So the question is: what does influence those criteria? Probably mostly the environment one grows up in. Religion is also a very important one. Ethics of a muslim living by the sharia, is far away from ethics of a buddhist for example. Religion, country, in fact each community. Hunting down baby seals is not perceived very ethical where I live, the Russian hunters I saw a while back on television actually do not understand why. For them it is perfectly normal, like we kill a mosquito.

Nothing is unetcical is probably not true. There are probably a few rules that are the same in every community regarding right and wrong. Not many though, I think. So in the end, most things are indeed not unethical somewhere. All depending where we look, where we live. Your right and wrong definately is not my right or wrong.

How does this translate to SL? Ask yourself: is nothing unethical in Second Life? My answer would be: not much. If we take the whole SL population as one cummunity, you could say that griefing for example is unethical. Harassing someone else is perceives as unethical in most communities. But as a whole community, you would only have one lead to say what is ethical and what not: the rulebook by LL.
So, most people will use their own set of ethics to determine something is ethical or not. And since SL is a global community, there are many different sets of ethics.

In the end, nothing IS right or wrong in SL, as long as it is within the rulebook of LL. Many things are perceived as right or wrong, because we all have different sets of values, especially looking at details. Probably the big picture is the same for most of us, but small things (yes, like using keyword stuffing in search ) will differ between many people. That does not mean those people are unethical, it simply means that their ethics are not exactly like yours. As soon as someone needs help, they probably are just as fast in helping that eprson as you are. Because that is the right thing to do.

Something to think about... right or wrong.

I thought that ethics is a study of the ether.

More examples within SL on showing how people differ please.

Ethics is based on one simple premises. the right to personal freedom of action. we build layers and layers upon it from there, including religious edicts (some deity says you aren't supposed to do this) and we end up with a lot of rules about what you shouldn't do (because it infringes upon others freedom of action, or societies mores)

SL is as close to successful anarchy as we have ever gotten because ultimately no one gets physically hurt. In the wilder days we had greifing, ad farms, gambling, more bans lines than we have now -- even age play. All manner of unethical things to a lot of people.

Yet many people miss the wonder of those days.

My ethics sound a bit sinister by the standards of my own culture: Do as thou wilt, but harm no one. Actually that's a lot harder than it sounds. An offhand remark can harm someone.


.

You mean the stuff the dentist used to put you to sleep?

LOL. I didn't, but that'll do nicely

That's convenient, but wrong.

I've seen some people (RL people) without moral guidance come up with a pretty good rule of their own: try not to harm other people. They are often blind to the harm they cause, but trying not to harm other people at least tells me they aren't sociopaths.

A reasonable rule for the ethically challenged in SL would be to try not to harm other people. Griefing, whether against the rules or not, is an easy case. It harms other people, so don't do it.

Sociopaths won't see harm in what they do (or won't care), so it's pointless for a sociopath to even ask the question, but if you're not a sociopath, asking the question will occasionally tell you something you're doing is at someone else's expense, and if you get that far in your self-examination, you'll occasionally find yourself choosing not to do things that aren't against the rules.

It'th a plathe in the thouth eatht of England, innit?

Following a self-imposed set of rules, and occasionally choosing not to do something that would be advantageous for you, tells me you're trying to do the right thing. I can respect that even if I think your rules are wacky.

Rules lawyers, on the other hand, will only respect prohibitions that will get them in trouble. I don't respect that at all. I won't congratulate you for not getting yourself in trouble. I have higher standards. I expect more of people than self-interest.

/me has a doctorate in philosophy, so I'm right. You may disagree; nothing wrong with that.

As far as SL is concerned, Lindens are Gods - they created the world and can destroy it or us any time they choose. Hmmm, as Terry Pratchett has said, "it's not a good idea to stand on top of a hill in a thunderstorm, wearing wet metal armour and shouting 'all gods are bastards'".

The TOS are our avowed creed but many prefer to break or ignore them since the sanctions in-world are non-existent, trivial or inconsistent. There is realistically nothing that the gods of SL can do outside it, except in the most extreme real-world situations. To get there, of course, you need to invoke and maintain RL ethics, not those (if any) applicable in-world.

There are several ethical groups within SL, even without considering the different RL national/cultural background we each bring with us.

1. The pantheon of Linden Gods and their friends. Are simply amoral in that any in-world ehtics do not apply to them. EG; they will promote their own events, goods, locations at the expense of the residents, as a distinct group, but not see this as immoral since SL is simply a product.

2. Moral platformers. Whether here for the socialising, exploring, creation, events, economy or something else their objectives are about co-operation (if, maybe, passively). Hence, they want to comply with and uphold the TOS, however reluctantly.

3. Immoral platformers. There's something to be gained here so they're going to make sure they get it. These are the deliberate thieves, copyright violators, traffic-botters, etc. They are also the Patriotic Nigras type of griefer - viciously attempting to subvert the whole system. What these people want is to rob and/or fuck-up people - in any and all lives.

4. Moral gamers. It's more fun to play games with other people, otherwise they wouldn't be online. Absolutely nothing and no-one in SL is worthy of being taken seriously though, so if it seems funny to cover your prized 6-month project build in a giant 'pile of poo' sculpty, they just might. But that's fun, right?

5. Immoral gamers. "Hey look, I found this game where I can wear a giant penis!". "Aren't I clever, I got a load of stuff free and now I'm making a profit selling it to stupid newbies". "I'm so cool, I crashed a sim with self-replicating screaming skulls". "Yeah? Well I know a REAL hacker, and they gave me this tool which lets me ready your mind ... I don't know how it works but I can tell you think I'm a wanker, so there, it's right." 'nuff said.

Hmmm, I've surprised myself by not having anywhere for the text-typists: u 8n't a fix grp tho.

Yeth it ith.

I go with my gut, and that's all that counts.

I used to work in a RL business, where people would come up every day, and ask....
"would it be unethical if I...........?"

If they even had to take the time to stop and think, and ask that question.......yes, it's probably unethical.

eta: just visited another thread, and no way, am I going to let someone else define and twist and manipulate what my gut says. No way.

ROFLMAO - thanks for the morning chuckle


So which one is you? I'm really not seeing where a good many of the Forum regulars fall.

To me, I see it very simply:

An ethic is a common social value to which we hold ourselves.

A moral is a common social value to which we hold others.

They are, of course, more complex than that, both in definition and usage, but I find that a useful dimension to determine which term to use in many cases.

Unfortunately, "morality" is often abused horribly, because people base it on values which are not as commonly shared as they would like to believe, or because the so-called "values" have little to no basis in reality for being used as a metric to judge "good" vs "bad".

The problem is, as stated by the OP, WHICH common social values do we each consider as ethics or morals? Personal social values are meaningless in this context; we all do as we believe on a personal level. My personal ethics and morals aren't divinable by anyone but myself, and I am the only one which can know if I am following them or not, unless I tell another. That still doesn't make me socially immoral or unethical if I don't.

With respect to common social values, one can be considered to be immoral or unethical if one fails to live up to them.

A good example of a common or "core" social value is "as you harm none, do what you will". Life is a bit more complicated than that, so that social value is not often prioritized as high or understood as well as it probably should be. However, it is a common thread in many other social values which are often codified into ethics and, ultimately, laws (don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat, etc).

With respect to SL, even though the world is virtual it is still populated by people who exist in the real world, with real world lives and real world values that they bring to SL, and expect from others. For example, you still don't expect someone to defraud you out of your money. That is as true in SL as it is in RL. Just because SL is an "imaginary" or "virtual" world doesn't change the prevalence or importance of that common social value at all.

Thus, when claiming someone is acting immorally or unethically, one has to show, just like in RL, what social values are being violated wantonly enough to warrant such a claim.

Microparcel parasites, for example, were, for the most part, immoral. Most of them subscribed to no notion of ethical behavior. They openly and wantonly, through both words and deeds, both implicitly and explicitly, made it clear that they were intentionally harassing people as much as possible to maximize personal gain at the expense of the residents and LL. About the only ones who could be called "unethical" were the ones who were also trying to run "respectable" businesses, claiming to be ethical professionals in their respective fields.

Business itself is often a quandary of ethics and morality. Many businesspeople believe that the competitive nature of business in a "free market" gives them carte blanche for any and all possible behaviors in order to be competitive and successful. Just like in the rest of RL (and SL), it simply isn't true. Behavior which goes too far, sometimes even "poisoning the well", or "scorching the earth" behind them, is definitely immoral, and may also be quite unethical. This is often demonstrated by a classical example called "The Tragedy of the Commons", where one or more people forget or ignore the common social value of taking responsibility to preserve the commons for all, rather than selfishly taking advantage of the commons, gaining singular advantage while destroying it for others. Those people may still end up being wildly successful, because of the laissez-faire approach taken by the public and government in a free-market society, but it eventually hurts everyone. It ends up with a tighter/greater burden of regulation on everyone because a few could not rein in their selfishness and greed. Even though successful in a financial sense, these people are generally derided as reprehensible for their behavior and, ultimately, if "karma" prevails, get what is coming to them for their misdeeds.

Despite other people's protestations to the contrary, being in business is NOT "all about making a profit". Those who subscribe to that notion are usually the same ones who are responsible for the Tragedy mentioned above. They are the ones behind things like this recent financial meltdown. "There's nothing illegal about it" is often the popular mantra when their behavior is challenged. Not everything unethical or immoral is illegal. Some things are not meant to be codified directly into statute, but expected as the responsibility paid as a price for having freedom. Those who choose the exploit the freedom, and shirk the responsibility for it are being immoral and unethical, and should be called on it. If the behavior is wanton and destructive enough, it should be legislated and stopped with force. Just because it has not been codified does not mean the behavior is good or acceptable.

What is most distressing is that some of the behavior is so destructive that it is self-destructive; those that pursue it simply don't realize (or don't care) that they are destroying their own success and livelihood, until it is too late.

Without diving to deeply into this, I would like to offer this thought.
When stuck deciding if an action is ethical, or not. Ask yourself this: What would the world be like if Everybody did it too?

An SL example: if everybody ran 40 bots on their parcel; SL would be lagged out.

/me runs away.

Well, that's a wonderful litmus, but it presupposes one thing: being concerned about others. The unfortunate part about being immoral or unethical is that presupposition is actually non-existent in one's thought processes.

Of course, if one is given to question one's own motives and behavior, then it is a good starting point for consideration.

That right there is the definition of an unethical person: someone who believes right / wrong is merely living to the lowest common denominator of the law.

Ethics is defined by how we live above the laws/rules. Different social norms will set different standards for what it ethical, but ethics is always the step further from what one must adhere to.

Rules and laws are the bare minimums of a social contract - what one MUST do, and has no choice in.

Ethics are the golden standard - what one should aspire to being and doing.

Conflicting social norms might even put ethics at odds with the rules and laws.

It should also be noted that:
Is not a universal ethic, but merely a specific cultural norm. There are many social norms where the ethical thing to do is to interfere in the personal freedom of action of another.

In fact, depending on what that other is doing with their personal freedoms, almost every social norm finds at least one case, if not many, where the only ethical course is to impede the "personal freedom of action" of that other.

The closest thing to a common ethical theme across different social norms might be that it is good ethics to treat well other members of the privileged group. Some, but not most, societies either widely define the privileged group, or extend that ethic beyond said group.

There's is often disagreement about what treat well means, but a common theme is to threat them how you yourself wish to be treated. However in many vertical-hierarchical societies (such as Confucian cultures like Korea, Japan, and China) it can be unethical to treat another that way.

That doesn't work, though. It would cause complete chaos if everyone living in London decided to visit the British Museum at 10 am next Saturday. Doesn't tell me much about the ethics of visiting the BM.

Which is why some cultures are superior to others. All humans are endowed with freedom. Any culture which dampens freedom is morally indefensible.

@Innula
I dont think the british museums ethics are in question. I can still loosely apply my "what if"

If everyone spent the day(not at the same time, of coures) at the British Museum absorbing culture. The world could be a little better. It certainly does not seem negative and passes my "what if".

Ethics- right or wrong- in my opinion - is personal.

I believe I am a good person- I can look myself in the eye and I sleep calm at night.

I have also been described as amoral.

What works for me may not work for you - I figure - and this is my Ethic- if I can answer to myself then I am alright. That is a bald statement - you don't know me- you don't have the background in hand. I am ethical - to me. Uness you deal with me you wont know if that is a good thing for you or not.

And laws- well ` I am not an adherent of laws- I am my own law, though I know completely and accept that if what i do and what law dictates diverge - there is a price. My ethic is- I will do what I want and pay the concequences - that is responsibilty - Do what you will and accept the concequences - all else is fluff -

A random example, I don't go around robbing people etc- that is below me and I would not do such- so that is one law I am safely on the right side of - just because I see things how I do doesn't mean I go around breaking laws- just that if the law is to me pointless I will happily ignore it. Another example, marijuana should be legal - my opinion, I don't smoke pot becuase its more difficult to get than the effort would make worth it- but if I wanted pot I would go get some and I don't give a damn about the legalty of it - it's a stupid law.

Random musings on legalities and laws -

Ethical Americans -rofl Is there such a thing?

Thus any culture against gay marriage or polygamy is morally indefensible. Likewise any culture that restricts freedom of labor or movement based on nationality or immigration status is morally indefensible. Any culture which militarily occupies another, no matter the reason, is also morally indefensible.

Or perhaps... the world is just not so black and white...

^^^ A very good post.

I see many people get caught up in their business so much that they end up justifying immoral things as being "merely very competitive", or they wax on about this justification or that justification, and all the while never do see, or care to see that some of the things they do in the name of the almighty currency negatively affect others. I call those type of people sell-outs, because more times then not they'll talk for hours about how important morals are and how running a straight business is the best choice, but when put up against a little money in the form of a sale, or even advertising, they'll have no problem at all turning their back, taking the money, and blindly justifying it the whole way. The old saying of 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should' never applied more, and I personally have zero respect for people who err on the "can" side of things. I don't buy the excuses of people not knowing better because of this culture or that culture.. B.S. When one makes a poor moral choice in favor of selfishness or greed, they know full well that what they do will most likely be at someone elses expense... they just don't care. The joy they get from that extra laugh or that extra dollar is too important to them, and usually much more important than some stranger who's not giving them anything.